Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2019

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [1].

David Scott

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the four living people to have walked on the Moon. David Scott, commander of Apollo 15, is still around after a distinguished military and NASA career. The article has passed an A-class review.Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

I have the second-most text in the article by author, but I am going to provide comments and support/oppose accordingly. Coordinators can discount my review at their discretion. Kees08 (Talk) 16:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you would prefer to join as co-nominator, I would be pleased to have you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your call; whichever you would prefer me to do. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy either way. But I'd be very happy to have you as a conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add me; I am on vacation this weekend but might find some time for editing. Kees08 (Talk) 20:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

[edit]

Images and sources not checked. This is the version on which I'm commenting.

  • This is a personal gripe rather than anything opposable, but would you consider "swimming records" instead of "swim records"? While the latter is acceptable American English and this is obviously a US topic, outside the US "Scott set the swim record" is as grammatically jarring as "Bolt is the run champion" or "Klitchko won the box match".
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before he could finish there, Tom Scott was transferred…—even though it would mean three "Riverside"s in one paragraph the name of the school should probably be given again, as otherwise it reads as if Tom Scott moved to Washington before David could finish swimming, rather than finish his studies.
I've recast it some, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really get David Scott wanted an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, but lacked connections to secure one. His father was a USAF base commander at the time; surely he knew the right people to talk to?
That puzzled me too, but I have nothing to contradict it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soesterberg Air Base … in Northern Europe—Soesterberg is in the Netherlands, and I can't think of any definition of "Northern Europe" that would cover it (nor do any of the various definitions at Northern Europe).
Changed to "there". Scott mentions in his memoirs that the squadron would often be sent to North Africa to be able to train under better conditions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weather in Northern Europe was often poor, and Scott's piloting skills were tested. Once, he had to land his plane on a golf course after a flameout. This seems something of a non sequitur unless the flameout was caused by the weather. (As an aside, I don't really get this "the weather was often poor", unless we mean compared to his previous home in California. The Netherlands may be generally chilly, but it probably has the least extreme weather patterns of anywhere on the planet.)
Scott says (pp. 28-29) "In the often terrible weather conditions in Europe, such [piloting] skills were tested to their limits ... Most difficult of all, though, was flying in the bad weather of Northern Europe." The specific context, though, is the lack of navigational aids at that time, other than a beacon." I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of flying without navigational aids, it makes more sense; although the climate of the North Sea coast is fairly mild, it's often very hazy (it's well-documented that during WW2 German bombers often had great difficulty even finding London). The talk about the flameout gave me the impression that you're saying the flameout was caused by the weather, rather than that the bad weather meant he had to perform an emergency landing as he couldn't get back to base. ‑ Iridescent 07:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The significance (if any) of Yeager to Scott needs to be clarified. As it stands it's not clear whether the reason Scott wanted to be trained at Edwards was specifically because he wanted to meet Yeager, and what the significance of Scott got to fly several times with him is.
From the book, Scott greatly admired Yeager, wanted to follow in his contrails, and saw Edwards as the best path to do so. Edwards is worth a bit of attention, since he is a well-known figure. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would spell out Cambridge, Massachusetts in full. Not everyone knows where MIT is, or even that there is a Cambridge in MA, and given the strong US Air Force presence in East Anglia and its role as a major center for computing many readers will assume you mean Cambridge, England (I had to check the link to see which we were talking about).
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • Michael Collins wrote later that Scott's selection to fly with Armstrong convinced him that NASA knew what it was doing—convinced who? As worded this could be any one of Collins, Scott or Armstrong.
    My thought is that it is clear from context that it is Collins. If you have a better way of putting it, I'll be happy to implement it.
  • Scott's EVA was scrubbed—at no point prior to this is EVA defined, and you can't assume readers are going to know what it means.
Changed to "spacewalk".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it's a direct quote, "miffed" is both an inappropriate tone, and unfair to the subject as it implies petulance rather than legitimate concerns.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scott performed the first and only stand up EVA on the lunar surface—was this the only one on this particular mission, or the only one ever?
The only one ever. I thought the chosen language made that clear, but am open for suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, this should probably be reworded (or at least get a footnote) explaining exactly what "stand up EVA" means. Especially if this runs on the Main Page and consequently gets a lot of readers unfamiliar with flight terminology, I suspect there will be a lot of good faith edits trying to 'correct' it since it can't be true as they've seen a photo of Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface and he was definitely standing up. ‑ Iridescent 15:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am having some immediate trouble finding a formal definition. I'm going to see if Kees08 or Hawkeye7 know of a correct one.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:Check the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Extravehicular activity lead: cite reference #1 links to a NASA document giving the definition. The defining attribute is that the astonaut has not fully left the spacecraft. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's no definition there, just the part of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (an annotated transcript) where the lunar standup EVA takes place.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Apollo 15 performed the only stand-up EVA on the Moon. So that should be all clarified. I will write a footnote on what a stand-up EVA is and try to find a good citation for it. Kees08 (Talk) 05:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is fine. Given that this is likely to run twice on the main page (once as TFA, and again at ITN when Scott dies), be prepared if necessary to move the footnote up into the text to make it even more obvious. To the "bright 14 year olds with no prior knowledge of the topic but who are eager to learn" that constitute our target readers, their knowledge of spaceflight is likely to come from movies, and if one doesn't know the jargon it's an obvious if wrong inference that a normal EVA means "floating in space" and a stand-up EVA means "standing on a celestial body". ‑ Iridescent 08:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming we have a photo of the LRV somewhere I'd strongly recommend including it, even if it means losing one of the other images or the box quote. Ultimately Wikipedia is about engaging the readers' interest, and moon buggies are inherently cool. Ditto to the footage of the Falcon lifting off from the moon.
I've added one of Scott on the LRV. I am reluctant to replace what is almost certainly the most famous bit of film that Scott appears in for one that does not show Scott, cool though it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning Apollo 15 splashed down in the Pacific Ocean seems to have been moved into the wrong section.
I saw it as transitional. I've moved it as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • an officer who many assumed would head the air force some day—I appreciate this is a direct quote and not in Wikipedia's voice, but it confuses me; why did many assume this, as his career to this point appears to have been perfectly respectable but no more so than that of hundreds of other officers?
I've cut it. Worden is not exactly friendly towards Scott and on balance, this isn't something he could know. Deke Slayton says something similar, but again it's speculative (granted, Deke would have been in a better position to know).
  • In 1992, Scott was found by a Prescott, Arizona, court to have defrauded nine investors in a partnership organized by him—I appreciate this is a BLP and subject to sensitivities, but you can't throw a curveball like this without explanation. What was he alleged to have done, was he criminally convicted or was it just a civil case, and what penalty/sentence did he receive?
Civil. I've found a story on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is of Scottish descent—what does this have to do with anything, and why is it suddenly thrown in out of nowhere two-thirds of the way through the article?
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Awards, honors, and organizations" section, it should probably say what each of the awards was given for. It doesn't matter if it makes the section unwieldy, as it's the last section on the page so even if the reader gets bored and gives up they haven't lost anything.
Most of them are for Apollo 15, one way or another, as are some I did not mention, such as the crew being the Grand Marshals of the Orange Bowl Parade. I'll see what I can dig up.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the awards do not have specific rationale attached to them (sometimes they do). I can usually dig up information like when they were awarded and who awarded them. I added that information into the article. I have someone looking through Aviation Weekly archives for FAI information (I have seen sources say Komorav medal, and Gold Medal, some in 1971, some in 1972?). I think the only way you will find the rest of these is in his book, if anywhere. I can never find them online. three NASA Distinguished Service Medals (1969, 1971, 1978), a NASA Exceptional Service Medal (1966),[91]two Air Force Distinguished Service Medals, the Distinguished Flying Cross Kees08 (Talk) 06:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this but I have my doubts as to whether it is a RS. What it points to is what you would expect, all or virtually all of his awards were associated with his spaceflights (plus one NASA award on his retirement as an administrator).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have used that as a source at FAC before, I think you can use it here. Kees08 (Talk) 23:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anymore to add for the awards Wehwalt, not sure if you planned on expanding it further? Kees08 (Talk) 05:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Military Times ones, and that's about all I have there. I'm going through the review during the course of today (US time).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've covered the same information already, so I think we're done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fairly minor, and barring the unforeseen assume this is going to end up as a support. ‑ Iridescent 08:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iridescent, I think we've got (or have answered) all of yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looks fine now; changing to support. ‑ Iridescent 08:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, and for supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

All very minor stuff:

  • Early life and education
  • "Although there were servants to aid the family, the Scotts did not have much money, and David remembered his father as a strict disciplinarian." – This seems to me to cram too much disparate material into a single sentence. The first two parts sit well together but the third seems pretty unrelated to them.
  • "...wanted to be commissioned in the newly-established Air Force. Since the Air Force..." – the repetition of "Air Force" could be mitigated if you were to unpipe the first mention.
Both the above done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Air Force pilot
    • "Undergraduate Pilot Training" – Doesn't Really Need Capital Letters, I think.
A search reveals support for the caps, for example here. I am going to leave this for my conom who may have greater knowledge of the subject matter than I do.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with whichever you decide, jointly or severally. Tim riley talk 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be capitalized, as it is the formal name of the course. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo 15
  • "the first and only stand up EVA" – the second and third words seem unnecessary.
Addendum: Since adding my comments I have read the reviews above, and I should say that it didn't occur to me before seeing the exchanges about Iridescent's eleventh bullet point that this was the only such incidence on any moon mission. Some clarification would indeed be good. – Tim riley talk 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let us let the discussion up there answer for this as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once there, Scott marveled at the beauty of the scene" – just checking that this is covered by reference 58 at the end of the para.
  • NASA administrator
  • "retired from the agency effective September 30" – "effective" seems an odd word. "On" seems the mot juste.
  • Awards, honors, and organizations
    • I don't know that "Honorary Doctorates" wants capitalising (nor "Astronautical Science" for that matter) but to each his own.
  • References
  • 88 – the source is headlined "Tarnished man from the moon to marry TV's Anna", rather than "TV's Anna to marry tarnished man from the moon" as given here.
  • 95 – Does not follow the original capitalisation. Is this deliberate?
  • 99 – Ditto (and the version here looks a bit odd to my eyes)
Those are fixed. As I understand it, we alter the original capitalization to be consistent, which I hope we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to frighten the horses there. I'll look in again and, I hope and expect, add my support. – Tim riley talk 08:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, with the exception of the standup EVA, which is up at Iridescent's, that would seem to be everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed so. Happy to support now. A most readable article, clear, impartial, well and widely referenced, and for an article about a contemporary surprisingly well illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 19:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

The article is looking pretty good. I have a few comments that I don't see addressed above. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that it's necessary to mention that his family had servants, as it's (as far as I understand) commonplace in some parts of the world, even for those who don't have much money, it's just not what most Americans would expect for someone who is not wealthy.
Sentence cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming when you say that his father was "posted overseas" it meant that he was deployed, not just stationed abroad? I would indicate that he deployed (and to which theater, if that's available), as "posted" implies (at least to me) that he moved somewhere, which doesn't match with the following sentence that he was gone from the family for three years.
Thanks for the catch. Fixed.
  • I would add the year that the Air Force Academy was founded (assuming 1955 if the first class graduated in 1959), not the year that the first class graduated. I had similar information in the Tom Stafford article, and used a note to state that it hadn't been established yet.
The source says founded in 1954, tracing to Eisenhower signing the bill authorizing it, so that's good enough for me. I've changed to that basis.
I do not see it in his memoir nor in the potted biographies NASA put out about the astronauts, like the one sourced in the article or in the Apollo 9 press kit. Does West Point award degrees in fields, or does everyone get the same (lol) major?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the US service academies do have degrees in different fields, at least in the modern era. As for West Point back then, a quick review of the pages of some West Point grads don't list the degree fields (Frank Borman, Ed White, Mike Collins, Donald H. Peterson), but the Buzz Aldrin and Alfred Worden ones do. My guess is that they did have degree fields back then, but they may have been considered less "important" than they are today.
Even books like the French/Burgess one glaze over this point when discussing Scott. He really discusses the West Point experience more than the specifics of what was studied in his memoir. We're a tertiary source, so I guess that's good enough for us.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I did some searching of own and found nothing! Not your fault that Scott didn't record it; I'm just surprised that it can't be found.
  • "Scott hoped to advance his career by becoming a test pilot, and hoped to be trained at Edwards Air Force Base, home to Chuck Yeager, first man to break the sound barrier." Since all test pilots got to their position by attending Test Pilot School at Edwards, I would shorten this. I know that Yeager is most associated with Edwards, but he was away from Edwards in 1955-1962, when Scott was getting ready for TPS/attending MIT. Also, the sentence "Scott hoped to follow in Yeager's path by training at Edwards" seems redundant. I think this could be combined with the previous sentence, and just state that Scott idolized Yeager. My take is "Scott hoped to advance his career by attending Test Pilot School at Edwards AFB, where his personal idol, Chuck Yeager, had broken the sound barrier in 1947."
Thinking about this one. Scott refers to Edwards as "home to the greatest test pilot of them all, the legendary Chuck Yeager" in the time frame of 1960 but he may be waxing poetic a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though as Scott was only a captain, he and Colonel Yeager were not on intimate terms" I don't think this is necessary to include, since there's no indication they would be friends, with Yeager as the head of the school and Scott as a student
I thought it was decent follow-up on the previous discussion of Yeager, since we don't mention him again until Scott's at Dryden, and it's also a way of dropping in Scott's rank. He's making progress in his military career.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, referring to the two just above, I've cut way back on the Yeager, which I hope resolves those.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would replace "space traveler" with "astronaut," as the term had already been coined by the time Scott was selected
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked F-104 to its page. Do you have an altitude that they would take the jet, as "edge of space" is very generic. Also, while the F-104 could certainly climb really high (according to its page, the record would have been about 36,000 m around the time Scott was flying it), that's not the "edge of space," in the sense that it was near the Kármán line
Scott uses "fringes of space". I've inserted the altitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first J Mission, science was to be the emphasis of Apollo 15, which would have a longer stay on the Moon's surface and the first Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)." This sentence reads a little awkwardly, as it is the first sentence in the paragraph and it's not clear until later in the sentence that Apollo 15 would be the first J mission. My take is "Apollo 15 would be the first J Mission, which emphasized scienctific research with a longer stay on the Moon's surface and the use of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)."
Done with slight variation.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence about the Genesis Rock, it doesn't make sense to say that the rock was "a plagioclase" as that is a mineral that was found in the rock, not a rock itself. I would say "At Spur Crater, they discovered one of the most famous lunar samples, a plagioclase-rich anorthosite from the early lunar crust, that was later named the Genesis Rock by the press."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA administrator" seems like an odd choice for a sub-section name, since NASA Administrator is an actual job title, not just an administrator who works for NASA. Since all of his work was in management at Dryden, maybe something like "Dryden Flight Research Center director?"
Changed to "NASA manager".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the redlink for his book with Leonov. Per WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:NBOOK, the book itself doesn't have sufficient notability to merit an article, as I can't find reviews from well-known reviewers or other notable sources, it hasn't won any awards or been made into a movie.
Redlink removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed, or at least answered, everything. Thank you or your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Nice work on this article. One comment left: "Commandant of the school was Chuck Yeager, first person to break the sound barrier, who Scott idolized. Scott got to fly several times with him." Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't there be some articles in this sentence, for example: "The commandant of the school was Chuck Yeager, the first person to break the sound barrier, who Scott idolized." On a style note, I would combine that Scott flew with him several times with the part about him idolizing him, as I think the second sentence comes across as short and matter-of-fact. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a "the", I think we can do without the second one and jointed the sentences with a semicolon. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Great job with this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, according to the external links checker tool
  • A number of points relevant to format were raised and dealt with as part of the A-class review. I have a few more:
  • non-standard p. range in ref 28
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 59:
  • lacks publisher and access date.
  • What makes "David Darling" a high quality reliable source?
Thank you for the review. I think between us we've gotten those.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: This all look good to you? Thanks again for the review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images seem to be pertinent to the section they are in, and I did not encounter any license issues. Some images do not have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text. Kees08 (Talk) 05:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also trimmed the hammer/feather video to include just the experiment and added TimedText for accessibility. Kees08 (Talk) 05:49, 17 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [2].

Vance Drummond

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Lou Spence, another Royal Australian Air Force wing commander who fought in the Korean War and seemed destined for the top but died too soon. This bio was on my list for some time, the impetus to complete it being 1960s images becoming available to use, and my discovery of a detailed article on the circumstances of the subject's death. A New Zealand-born RAAF pilot, Drummond survived close calls in Korea and in Vietnam only to die mysteriously in a training exercise off the Australian coast – or perhaps not so mysteriously; the evidence from the court of inquiry may offer a cautionary tale for high achievers everywhere... Thanks to participants in the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few months back, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and source review by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR last year, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I've looked at the minor tweaks since, and I consider it meets the Featured criteria. I also looked at the sources at that point, and concluded they are all of high quality and reliable, and there are no formatting issues. No spotchecks conducted, as the main contributor has an impeccable reputation at FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat

[edit]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "and was not disciplined for his lapse" -> 'possible lapse'?
    • I think "lapse" alone is justified because the report describes the accident as due to "carelessness" on the part of the pilot before mentioning the extenuating circumstances and the intention not to discipline.
  • Fair enough, but the article says "possibly knocked his control column forward". But you now say that the report definitively found that he was careless. So why this "possibly"?
  • "The squadron had gone into action a week after the outbreak of the Korean War". It may be useful to insert at this point when this was.
  • "The communists operated a Russian-designed swept-wing jet" And "the communists" would be whom?
    • I used the shorthand term to cover the North Korean and Chinese air forces, as well as the Soviet pilots but yes, I guess it could be a bit esoteric for the uninitiated -- will try and elaborate as briefly as possible.
  • "In its first months operating the Meteor" Is it known how many months?
    • Late July to September seems to be the range but the source wasn't exactly precise date-wise, hence my couching in the terms I did (I felt that having said the Meteor had come into service shortly before Drummond arrived in August I'd given the approximate starting point).
  • "Drummond was recommended for the US Air Medal" To the uninitiated, "recommended for" may not be synonymous with 'awarded'. Ditto his DFC later.
    • My understanding is that you have it right -- the recommendations came first, the awards later, per the article text.
Apologies, I should have deleted that when I got to the end of the paragraph.
  • "No 2 Advanced Navigation Course" I am a little surprised by the upper case letters. Flagged for information only, not as a subtle way of saying that you are wrong. (There are subsequent similar cases.)
    • I think title case is appropriate as these are the proper titles for the courses in question.
  • "No. 15 Course" is somewhat uninformative. Is the content of the Course known?
    • AFAIK, the Staff College only ran a staff officer training course, hence the course being identified by number alone.
  • "and was raised to squadron leader on 1 January 1962" Optional: "raised" sounds more like being elevated to the peerage than a military promotion.
    • I do find it used in sources as an alternative to "promoted" and I think it's worthwhile for that reason.
  • "which frequently appeared at events in Australia and its territories" What are the territories of Australia? That are separate from Australia itself. Is there a Wikilink?
  • "apparently at his own behest, according to the official history of the RAAF in the Vietnam War" It seems odd to me to have "apparently" mixed with a reference to the official history. Delete "apparently"? (If the OH states 'at his own behest' or similar, consider 'according to the official history of the RAAF in the Vietnam War, this was at his own behest'.)
    • I agree it sounds a little curious but I think it's a fair paraphrase of how the official history puts it...

Just these minor quibbles. A fine, solid article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for looking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, just checking if you saw these responses/actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, apologies if I have missed a ping; sloppy of me. Happy with your changes and/or explanations, with one exception, noted above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, actioned your one outstanding point last week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A top class article. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [3].

James Park Woods

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woods is the latest instalment in my slow-burn project to get all of the South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. It has recently been updated with the latest scholarship, and has previously gone through Milhist A-Class review and GAN before that. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The VC image has two alts
Both fixed I believe. Thanks for reviewing, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Just a minor comment. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • but was rejected due to his height of 163 centimetres (5 ft 4 in) Hmm at the time Australia didn't use SI-units.
  • Support Nice article. The only point I can comment on is the number of "United Kingdom"s: after the first mention it can be changed to the UK (or even Britain). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality and reliability: no issues. The sources appear to meet all the requirements for quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces" reads a little oddly. It suggests that Woods is a "force". 'to members of ...' perhaps? I understand the convention, but am thinking of the "lay" reader.
  • "In early 1918, Woods was hospitalised for several months before rejoining his unit in May. He again reported sick in July, and did not return to the 48th Battalion until mid-August." Optional: I found this unnecessary detail for the lead.
  • "not gone forward to the their objective"
  • "Woods was a member of a four-man patrol that attempted". Optional: 'a four-man patrol of which Woods was a member attempted ...'
  • "after height restrictions were lowered" "were" -> 'had been'?
  • "United Kingdom (UK)" See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Exceptions.
  • "The 48th Battalion was relieved from this position on 1 October" Optional: I note that "this position" has been referred to as "positions" a little earlier.
  • "That evening it marched to trenches on Westhoek Ridge, where it received orders for a major attack by the division. The First Battle of Passchendaele was fought on 12 October." Possibly 'That evening it marched to trenches on Westhoek Ridge, where it received orders for a major attack by the division: the First Battle of Passchendaele, which was fought on 12 October.'?
  • "but with its left flank unprotected, the second counterattack pushed the 48th Battalion back to its start line" This needs to be 'but with its left flank unprotected, 48th Battalion was pushed back to its start line by the second counterattack.' or the suggestion is that it is "the second counterattack" which has "its left flank unprotected".
  • "before the battalion occupied a few weeks at a camp near Péronne" There is nothing wrong with this per se, but the use of "occupied" in a military article to not mean Military occupation may be confusing. (I had to read it three times to realise that it wasn't a typo.)
  • "at which time the battalion was in a rest area at Rivery." "at" twice. Possibly "at which time" -> 'when'?
  • "Reinforcements arrived as he got down to his last few rifle cartridges" Optional: "as he got" -> 'when he was'.
  • "the post was eventually secured by dawn" Delete "eventually".
  • Note a: Should "South Australian Births, Deaths and Marriages" be in italics?
I wondered. It was a genuine query. Learnt something. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A great little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I reckon this is about done. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom, please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [4].

Herbig–Haro object

[edit]
Nominator(s): AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a class of astrophysical objects that are by-product of star formation. This is a former featured article that was demoted, mainly because of citation concerns, in 2010. I started working on it more than a year ago, addressed citation issues, added missing info, and it passed GAN by Casliber last year. Since then I have been thinking of nominating it for FA, but didn't do because I wanted to add some more info. I have now come to conclusion that that info belongs to closely related Astrophysical jet and Bipolar outflow, so this article is comprehensive in my opinion. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

My ignorance of this subject could not be surpassed, but I offer a few minor passing thoughts on the drafting:

  • "HH objects are indeed shock induced phenomenon": as they are plural shouldn't this be "phenomena"?
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to be in BrE (colour, kilometres, recognised) but "sulfur" pops up à l'américaine, as do "disks".
Done as US: color, kilometers etc. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same point, and I expect to be shot down in flames but just mention it anyway, the OED hyphenates "infra-red".
Books and journals almost always write it as "infrared". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last around a few tens of thousand years" – seems to me that this should be "last around a few tens of thousands of years", but I'm perfectly willing to be told I'm wrong.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sources, if you really think it necessary to tell your readers that Cambridge is in the United Kingdom it might be as well to pile Pelion on Ossa and clarify where Hampshire is chez Raja, and which country Arizona is in for Frank and friends.
This has been done to avoid ambiguity. There is another famous Cambridge (MA), but only one famous Arizona ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may say that although I didn't come within several parsecs of understanding the article it nonetheless impressed me. The narrative is clear, jargon seems to be kept to the essential minimum, the sourcing seems to my inexpert eye highly impressive, and everything is properly cited. On the prose I'd be happy to support, but I must emphasise that I am not equipped to comment on what the article is actually saying. I hope these few not very coherent comments are of some use. – Tim riley talk 21:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It resides about 1400 light-years away— I'm not convinced that something non-living can " reside"
Yes ;) changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • are a visible wavelength phenomena, many remain invisible at these wavelengths due to dust and gas envelope and are only visible at —bit repetitive with three visible/invisibles
Modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "shock-induced" be hyphenated?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, we don't hyphenate where there is a -ly descriptor, like "partially ionized"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check your use of "however". In at least one case I can't even see what the contrast is, and I'm not sure any are essential
Three removed, one kept. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spectroscopic observations of their doppler shifts indicate velocities of — What does "their" refer to? Subjects of the preceding sentences are singular
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • at speeds of several hundred km/s — I'd spell out the units here
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shocking at the end of the jet can re-ionize some material, however, giving rise to bright "caps" at the ends of the jets. —too many "ends of jets", and another redundant "however"
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many potential readers of this article do you think need a link to water?
Right ;) removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few duplicated links, please check
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jim. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

[edit]
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is kinda vague on the copyright status; @Nikkimaria:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image use policy for that site seems contradictory: on the one hand it says any use is allowed without permission, but on the other it claims not to make any representations as regards who actually holds copyright. I would lean towards it being permitted, but it's not as straightforward as a simple NASA claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the uncertainty of who created it is the big problem here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm a bit ignorant on copyright matters, but the page says that the image was produced by spitzer, so won't NASA/JPL be its creators? The Image Use page just says that the university has nothing to do with copyright of the images. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is from a publication, but I don't know if it is released as PD by the author. Remove? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a little unclear. Better remove IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean it should be shortened, or?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I misunderstood ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Edit to add: The comments pertain to this revision. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the publisher information, it seems all sources are reliable. From a random source check.

  • 22: Maybe it's a (absence of) pagenumber problem, but I can't find neither the 8000K value nor the density of the other stellar objects nor the ionization patterns.
Temp is there in the source (see conclusions section). There was, however, an inaccuracy in the article. Fixed that now. Source added for other nebula. I don't think ionization pattern is discussed here. You mean the part "other ionized nebulae"?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the source was now renumbered as 23. As it is it seems like the "ionization" thing is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20: That seems OK.
  • 25: That seems OK, although the source being from 2002 makes me wonder if we know even more today.
Yes, updated. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: That seems OK.
  • 17: Sorta OK although I wonder if the article is being a bit too certain on the precession aspect, the source is a bit more qualified. Also, it seems like the source on p.489 gives a number 10x smaller for the mass output.
No, the values you say are for a particular object (HH 54). General value that the paper reports is 10^-8 to 10^-6 M-solar.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry missed the precession issue. Yes you are right. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35: This one needs page numbers at a minimum, and I don't see "gravitational" anywhere.
Multiple systems disintegrate because orbitals become unstable. Not in this source, but it is just a regular thing, so I think it doesn't need a source. Anyway, added [34] which describes this. As for specific page numbers, as far as I know, they are required for books, as journal articles are normally only a few pages. I have always used, and seen used on other pages, the page numbers for whole articles. Also WP:CS says "volume number, issue number, and page numbers (article numbers in some electronic journals)". Moreover, if specific page numbers are to be included, what about the article's page range. One will need harv footnotes I think to accommodate the two. Or?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are not obligatory here, but they make it harder to find information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29: I don't think "Herbig-Haro" is mentioned anywhere, nor the age information or the "class 0".
It basically focuses on outflows in young stars. As mentioned at multiple places in the article (i.e WP article), these those outflows give rise to HHOs. Class 0 absent (they came later in the scheme) and no age info; yes, fair enough. Will replace then. Replaced. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 11:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7: Can I have a copy of the chapter?
Yes sure, just send me email, I will send the chapter. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I am not sure if "continuum spectrum" can be rephrased as "continuous". Where are "caps" mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1.It is same thing. 2."Caps" is rephrasing. See figure 1 and its description in the source.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: Seems OK.
  • 3: I don't think that "It was cataloged merely as an emission nebula" is supported by the source, and neither "With discovery of collimated jet in HH 46/47" which seems to be missing a "the" before the "collimated". Where is "a few years" reported?
Good point. Yes, cataloged is certainly not there. I have changed it to thought for now. For second part, about H 46/47, see para 2 on page 7, and [5]. Which "a few years"?
In As they move away from the parent star, HH objects evolve significantly, varying in brightness on timescales of a few years. Individual knots within an object may brighten and fade or disappear entirely, while new knots have been seen to appear. Also I notice that "so small" in the history section does not appear to be supported by the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Sources were, maybe, somehow mixed here. Replaced with two others. 2) The source talks about semi-stellar appearance, so "so small" was used, perhaps, to signify this. Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23: Seems OK assuming that "cannon ball" is metaphorical.
  • 24: The source says that it's only approximately in chronological order, and of identification not discovery.
Yes, thanks for pointing this out. Added approximately. IMO identification and discovery are same in this regard, but changed anyway.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 33: Can I have a copy of the chapter?
Yes, see above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, seems like it supports part of the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to that part. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18: Seems OK.
  • 15: It only discusses one HH object.
Yes, that's why there is another source (again discussing one object). One with general statement can be added if you like. I found two examples adequate to support the claim. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27: Some chemicals are named; I take the others are mentioned in the other source?
Now [28]. Yes, but CO is common in all molecular outflows. I don't know why I had included it here;) Removed now. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 28: Some "the" are missing in the text. Where is "class I" in the source? I take "Two bright bow shocks, separated by about 0.44 parsec, are present on the opposite sides of the source, followed by series of fainter ones at larger distances, making the whole complex about 3 parsecs long. Jet is surrounded by 0.3 parsec long weak molecular outflow near the source." is supported by the other source?
This is what [28] supports: HH object, 460 pc away, in orion nebula, 3 pc long, has jet and counterjet, weak molecular outflow. The rest is supported by the other source. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the source usage here. Google Scholar has plenty more sources; what were the criteria for source usage in this article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources are review articles: 2ndary in nature and overview of the topic, so always preferred. Some others are books: preferred like review articles. Remaining are research articles. Yes there are many of them out there, but I think the purpose is to cite everything with a suitable set of reliable sources. Incorporating all published sources is rarely possible or desired. If there is something in those sources that should be, but is not, in the article, I will be glad to hear it. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 12:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK then. Regarding #17 I think a pagenumber would help, as I can't find the mass estimates otherwise. Email sent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Files sent. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image and source reviews. Especially for the latter. TBH this is a model review; rigorous and in-depth, it has enabled me to fix issues and inaccuracies that were overlooked. I am still waiting for your response on a couple points though: 22, 3, and 15. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commented on these. Note that I didn't re-check the claims after you altered them in some cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Having a look now....

  • Why the last two sentences of the lead in their own stubby paragraph? Surely that flows on from previous material and lead can be consolidated into two paras...?
Merged into the preceding para.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say I am not a fan of "turbulent-looking" in the first sentence. If it can be worked in in the 2nd or 3rd sentence I think that'd flow better.
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain or at least unabbreviate MHOs in lead
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With discovery of collimated jet in HH 46/47... - "a" collimated jet?
Changed this part a bit: With the discovery of the first proto-stellar jet in HH 46/47. Is that fine? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why parsecs are used instead of light-years?
Because sources use parsecs, so it was just a lazy recipe to copy the numbers ;) Light-years added in brackets. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cas. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: looks worthy of FA status. I've addressed my concerns by editing the article. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Praemonitus for edits and support. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:09, 18 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 May 2019 [5].

Kediri campaign (1678)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a military campaign in Java involving the the Mataram Sultanate, the Dutch East India Company, and the forces of Trunajaya. I've tried to consult all sources I can get my hands on. This time and place isn't exactly very well documented, but surprisingly I think there's enough here to try nominating it for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR in October last year, and have examined the pretty minor changes since. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. The only thing I can see is a couple of duplicate links; east Java in the lead, also Madura and Batavia in the Background section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I removed all the duplicate links. HaEr48 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I also reviewed this fine article at ACR. I have a few minor comments:

  • I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
  • Thanks. Apart from a minor mistake around "slighted" they look good to me.
  • Seven sentences start with "However", which seems excessive. IMO at least four are superfluous.
  • Removed many of them. Now we have only three. In these remaining three, I think they are useful to indicate contrasts with the previous sentence.
  • "The Kediri campaign (also, for the Dutch, Hurdt's Expedition or The Kediri Expedition)" "campaign" has a lower case c, both uses of "Expedition" have upper case E. Why?
  • made them all consistent (lowercase)
  • "in Kediri, East Java (in modern-day East Java, Indonesia)" Is it necessary to state "East Java" a second time?
  • removed the first one
  • "Accounts of the campaign also appear in the Javanese chronicles, also known as babads." "also" appears twice; is the second one necessary?
  • removed the second one
  • "Despite his long administrative service in Eastern Indonesia, at this time Hurdt actually had no experience" Delete "actually".
  • Done
  • "who insisted on the payment of 1,000 Rds." "Rds." is an abbreviation, which should be given in full at first mention.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the review HaEr48 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of my minor quibbles addressed. Happy to support. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Verifiability: I was unable to carry out any meaningful spotchecks. The main source (Richlefs 93) does not provide me with previews, and other sources provide links to previews which do not cover the required page ranges. According to the A class review, spotchecks were carried out at that time.
  • Links to sources are all working
  • Formats: In a couple of refs, 33 and 35, spaces are required after "p."
  • Quality and reliability: So far as I am able to judge, the sources used are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by the FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I fixed the missing spaces. As for spotchecking, it is indeed to find Ricklefs 93 online, even partially. If you're interested, Pigeaud 1976 (one of the referenced works) is available online with open access (I believe you can download the entire book as pdf). It contains a general account of this campaign although not as detailed as in Ricklefs. HaEr48 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I've written a bunch of articles about birds that were driven to extinction partially by VOC activities, looking forward to learning a bit more about it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this[6] image of any use?
    • I doubt it will be a big improvement. The best match would be the Background section, but it already has a map which is more useful than a children book illustration. HaEr48 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also, for the Dutch" Sounds a bit informal, how about "in Dutch sources" or some such?
  • I wonder if the image captions should have some more links, especially the one in the infobox.
  • " (known by its Dutch acronym, the "VOC")" Spell out the Dutch name too?
  • "Amangkurat sought help from the Dutch East India Company" Do we know why he chose them?
    • I can't find anything specific in the source, but it was probably an obvious choice as the Dutch was the other major power in Java other than Mataram and Trunajaya HaEr48 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and King Amangkurat I died during his retreat" Died from what?
  • "as well as the possibly booty" Possible?
  • "bank of this river, and finding a way to cross the river proved" Could the second "river" maybe be replaced with "it" or similar to avoid repetition?
  • Looks like the rebels were quite well equipped, where did they get their gear from? Did they get support from western powers?
  • "VOC's Malay troops'" Link Malay?
  • "The Javanese chronicle (babad)" What is this, anything to link to? I see you link to babads in the intro, could be in the article body too.
  • "Nevertheless, the VOC continued to fight on his side until the end of the war" Could it be quickly summarised here how the war ended? Or is all there is to say that Trunajaya was captured?
    • Updated the first paragraph of #Aftermath. Hope that clarifies.
  • Why is the intro not in chronological order like the article?
    • My idea is the first para contains a summary of the campaign, while the second para contains notable details that would be too distracting to add to the first para. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine if no one else brings it up. FunkMonk (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The army marched through areas previously unexplored by the Dutch." This does not seem to be mentioned in the article body.
    • Added now: It was particularly difficult for the VOC forces, who marched through areas previously unexplored by them and were unfamiliar with the conditions of the Javanese interior HaEr48 (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • I don't reckon we need two the same citations in one paragraph where it isn't unbroken by an other citation like.
    • @CPA-5: Is there any MOS or FA criteria that forbids this? If not I prefer to keep it as is because it makes it easier to insert stuff into the paragraph without messing the citation. For example, If we have Sentence 1. Sentence 2.[1][2], and then we have another sentence 3[3] to be added in between, it will not be easy to add without having access to the sources and finding the relations between Sentence 1, Sentence 2 and citation 1 and citation 2. This happened to me often when I edited an article long after it was initially written. Having per-sentence citation avoids that pain. HaEr48 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HaEr48: Hello about this one. In my view the other citations are more uncenssary than useful. However I personally don't reckon we should add extra citations in almost every end of sentence. At the end of the citations's claim there should be a citation not at end of almost every sentence. Of course it doesn't mean it ought have to be like in my opinion likewise it's steel an opinion. I mean one of my comments I told you "Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.". Which MOS or FA criteria doesn't mentioned it was more a suggestion than a real MOS rule. Why? Because it looks beter and it looks so odd to look at. Anyway it is just a suggestion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • defeated the royal army at Gegodog in 1676,[7] and captured most of the Javanese north coast by January 1677.[7] Remove the first citation.
  • What happened in Mataram was of a great importance to the VOC, because Batavia could not survive without food imports from central and eastern Java.[9] The VOC also depended on timber from the Javanese north coast in order to build and repair ships for its trading fleet, and for new construction in the city.[9] Same as above.
  • In May 1677, the VOC dispatched a large fleet to Surabaya, where Trunajaya held his court, and drove him out of the city.[11] He retreated inland to establish a new rebel capital in Kediri, the capital city of the ancient Kediri Kingdom.[11][12] Same as above.
  • Mataram's behalf up to October.[17] In further agreements, he agreed to cede districts east of Batavia, as well as Semarang, Salatiga and its surrounding districts, and awarded the company a monopoly on the imports of textiles and opium into Mataram, as well as on the purchase of sugar from the Sultanate.[17] Same as above.
  • way for a more aggressive campaign.[19] Speelman became director-general replacing the promoted van Goens.[19] Same as above.
  • When the campaign began, the Mataram forces numbered 3,000 armed men and 1,000 porters.[21] As the march progressed, new troops were levied along the way, and some lords declared their allegiance to the Mataram King, enlarging the royal army to 13,000 men.[21] Same as above.
  • various towns.[22] An additional expeditionary force of 1,400 arrived at the start of the campaign.[22] Same as above.
  • The size of Trunajaya's forces is uncertain.[2] VOC-Mataram reports put the number at 1,000, but later, Trunajaya's uncle Pangeran Sampang said that Trunajaya's followers numbered 14,500 just before the assault on Kediri.[2] Same as above.
  • particularly on the eastern side of the river where Kediri stood.[2] Trunajaya's artillery generally outgunned the loyalists', and at some point the camps of Hurdt and Amangkurat were hit by his cannons.[2] Same as above.
  • European military technologies.[28] The VOC had an advantage in terms of discipline, strategy, and tactics, but not technology.[28] Same as above.
  • lengthy overland routes.[29] He wanted the VOC-Mataram forces to march slowly through more areas in order to impress factions that were wavering over which side to take.[29] Same as above.
  • overland march.[21] To the east, a column led by Captains Abraham Daniel van Renesse and Frederik Hendrik Mulder left Rembang on 26 August.[21] Meanwhile, the central column, which was to be the main force, was mobilized in Jepara led by Hurdt and Amangkurat. The central column sent advance detachments southward on 27 August and 2 September, while Hurdt and Amangkurat departed on 5 September.[21] Remove the first two citations.
  • poor navigation.[21][23] The march included several river crossings, which were made difficult by the lack of bridges, rivers swollen by heavy rain, as well as bogged down wagons and cannons.[21][23] Remove the first two citations.
  • Javanese interior.[23] Hurdt wanted to stay in the Semanggi River valley, and to continue the campaign in the following year. Amangkurat preferred to keep marching, and his opinion prevailed.[23] Remove the first citation.
  • passed through.[23] Many were previously loyal to Kajoran, who sided with Trunajaya, or were wavering between the two sides.[23] Same as above.
  • east bank.[2] These were equipped with cannons of various sizes up to twelve-pounders.[2] Trunajaya's artillery continuously pounded the loyalists, even reaching Hurdt and Amangkurat's lodgings, as well as the army's field hospital.[2] The loyalist army also had cannons, but it did not return fire, saving its limited ammunition for the eventual attack on Kediri.[2] In addition, Trunajaya's cavalry engaged in skirmishes with the loyalists, causing casualties and undermining their morale.[2] On 21 October, a night attack led by Raden Suradipa burned the VOC's Malay troops' quarters.[2] Remove the first five citations.
  • several people.[32] The VOC later moved these supplies inside a palisade fortification built in the aftermath of Suradipa's attack.[32] Same as above.
  • cross the river.[32] Forces led by Dutch commander Isaac de Saint Martin drove Trunajaya's forces from Manukan, on the west bank further south from Singkal.[32] They tried to cross the river there, but were unsuccessful due to heavy opposing fire and the depth of the water.[32] They made another attempt on the night of 6–7 November, but their boats were sunk and it too failed.[32] Hurdt was frustrated by the lack of progress, and gave Amangkurat an ultimatum that the VOC would withdraw unless the King supplied pontoons for the crossing, and matches for its soldiers's matchlocks.[32] This whole paragraph need only one citation.
  • 16–17 November.[24] The Javanese chronicle (babad) attributed this to Amangkurat's supernatural powers, and said that this happened as Amangkurat personally rode across the river leading his troops.[24] The army's foot soldiers crossed in boats at Curing, just south of Singkal.[24] Those on horseback did not need boats. [24] The river was about 115 metres (126 yd) wide at the crossing.[24] Trunajaya's forces bombarded them with artillery as they crossed, before being driven out, leaving eleven cannons behind.[24] Same as above.
  • heavy losses.[24] The VOC suffered light casualties of 7 dead and 27 wounded.[24] Remove the first citation.
  • abandoned court.[24] The Mataram treasury, brought to Kediri by the rebels after their sack of the Mataram capital in 1677, was among the targets of the looting.[24] Amangkurat and the VOC had hoped to recover this treasury and use it to pay for the VOC's assistance in the war, but it was completely looted by the soldiers instead.[24] Same as above.
  • later historians.[41] Dutch historian H. J. de Graaf opined that the King would later consider this event as a symbol of the European's condescension and that they were instrumental to the King's legitimacy.[41] Same as above.
  • their ammunition.[41] The rest, including Amangkurat and de Saint Martin, left overland on 18 December.[41] Heavy currents and the rainy season made this journey difficult.[41] The river convoy arrived in Surabaya on 17 December having lost some boats and men.[41] Remove the first three citations.
  • by floods.[41] Some managed to reach Surabaya by boat, and the rest arrived on 5 January having travelled overland.[41] Remove the first citation.
  • a city with which he was familiar.[42] He was descended from the former dynasty of Surabaya through his mother, and was once a viceroy of East Java during his father's reign.[42] Subsequently, Hurdt and other VOC officers left for Batavia.[42] Christiaan Poleman took over the command of the VOC forces in East Java.[42] This whole paragraph need only one citation.
  • VOC 310,000 Spanish reals and about 5,000 metric tons of rice No imperial/US units?
  • Which English do you use? Because I see some American/British spelling differences like.
  • metric tons (American English)
  • armour (British English)
  • cannons (American English)
  • travelling (British English)
  • metres (British English)
  • kilometres (British English)
  • center (American English)
  • to Amangkurat and join his forces.[23][21] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • 800 ox-carts carrying supplies.[32][23] Same as above.
  • importance in Javanese royal protocol.[41][23] Same as above.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC) @CPA-5: Thanks for the review. HaEr48 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 May 2019 [7].

L 20e α-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The L20e α class was the final serious battleship design of the Imperial German Navy during World War I - there were a slew of other proposals before and after, but none were more than paper design studies. Regardless, these ships were not built either, owing to the shift in emphasis from the surface fleet to the U-boat campaign during the war, as well as Germany's increasingly poor military situation by 1918. The article passed a Milhist A-class review last year. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Another class another review.

  • "42,000 t (41,337 long tons)", "Unknown", "8 × 42 cm guns", "235 m (771 ft 0 in)", "240 m (787 ft 5 in)" "32 m (105 ft 0 in)" and "9 m (29 ft 6 in)" are not centred while the rest of the wikitable is.
    • I'm not a code guy, but I managed to figure out how to fix it by fiddling around with it - now I need to back to all the other tables I've done and fix them!
  • 44,500 metric tons (43,800 long tons) and 45,000 metric tons (44,000 long tons) respectively remove the "(44,000 long tons)" part there is already one previously.
    • Done
  • have been 50 mm (2.0 in) thick forward, increased to 50 to 60 mm (2.0 to 2.4 in) amidships and 50 to 120 mm (2.0 to 4.7 in) aft This one has two minor issues. First remove the first "2.0"'s oh and then remove the other two "2.0"s.
    • Fixed
  • If it's possible please change p. 1017. --> p. 1,017. in the ref 8.
    • I don't think it's normal to put commas in page numbers
  • The section "General characteristics and machinery" uses long tons and short tons but the rest of the article doesn't use the short one.
    • Fixed
  • "32 m (105 ft 0 in)" Unnecessary inch.
    • Fixed
  • "235 to 237 m (771 ft 0 in to 777 ft 7 in)" In there an option to remove the "771 ft 0 in"? I mean there is one previously but is it possible to remove it?
    • That I can do
  • Shouldn't the source of Mulligan been "1,013–1,044" or is there a reason why not?
    • As above, I don't think it's normal to put commas in page numbers
  • Could you also drop the inches in "(771 ft 0 in)"? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment and 45000 MT respectively shouldn't it be "45,000 MT"? Also what does the MT stand for? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it (for now). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA! Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by L293D

[edit]

You might want to add the main battery caliber in inches as well in the two tables, since most of the other info is in centimeters and inches. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're both already converted (in the lead and in the body), I feel like doing it three times is overkill. Parsecboy (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • The title of the article has a space between L and 20. Within the article there is no space. I assume that the title is incorrect?
    • No, the article is "wrong" - the space got lost when I expanded the article with Dodson, as he doesn't use it, but other sources do, so I'm going to standardize that way
  • "Beginning before the start of World War I in July 1914, the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) began planning" It is unclear if the planning began in July, or the war. (I know that it was both, but you don't say so.
    • Reworded to make this clearer
  • "These ships were armed with a …" It is unclear to me whether "these ships" refers to the Bayerns or the L20e αs.
    • Clarified
  • "They also differed in the placement of the torpedo armament." "They" -> 'It' for consistency.
    • Done
  • "During the designing" 'design process'?
    • Fixed
  • "that the ships could be built quickly and placed into service" -> 'built and placed into service quickly'?
    • Good idea
  • "The ships were to have been powered by" "The ships" -> 'They? (Previous sentence starts with "The ships".)
    • Done
  • "The belt began 35 cm (13.8 in) below the waterline to 195 cm (76.8 in) above it." Perhaps '... the waterline and extended to ...'?
    • Sounds good to me
  • "increased to 50 to 60 mm (2.4 in) amidships" Optional: would it be possible to rephrase to lose one of the to's?
    • Done
  • Note b: "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as it is in diameter": '45 times as long as'
    • Done
  • Note b: "meaning that the gun is 45 times long as it is in diameter". "diameter" is ambiguous. Does "diameter" refer to external diameter or internal? And if internal, land to land or groove to groove. From context a reader is likely to assume external diameter, which, of course would be incorrect. "long", referring to "the gun", seems to me to be incorrect; caliber is not calculated from the external length of the gun, but the internal length of the barrel.
    • Clarified somewhat - on lands vs. grooves, that I don't know, and on the length of the gun, at least in German practice, that's not correct. For example, the overall length of the 30.5 cm SK L/50 was 15.25 meters, which is exactly 50 calibers (and the internal length amounts to about 47.4 calibers) - this difference also plays a role in confusion over the length of the 38 cm SK C/34 guns used in the Bismarck-class battleships, which are alternatively described as 47 calibers or 52 calibers depending on who you ask.
  • Really? Ah well, I suppose that Germans are allowed to be idiosyncratic too.
  • Do we have any idea of what the range of the final design might have been?
    • No, nothing I've seen

Just bits and pieces; a very good article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - can you take another look and see if there's anything else that needs to be addressed? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of non-breaking spaces :) . Everything looks fine Parsecboy, a grand piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Just one very small point: is there a reason why the citations for the two footnotes have not been standardized?
    • There was a time that standard footnotes couldn't be nested inside of a note and that was the work-around, but apparently I forgot to update these until now.
  • Otherwise the sources apppear to be uniformly presented, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability to meet the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Three-drum boiler#Thornycroft-Schulz boiler will give you a link to the exact boiler type used by these ships. And probably many others!
    • Thanks - I apparently forgot to check the links when I rewrote the article
  • Need a conversion for 170 mm in the infobox
    • Done
  • design plan Isn't this kinda redundant?
    • Indeed
  • Link class in the lede
    • Done
  • began in 1914 but the outbreak Shouldn't there be a comma before "but" and here: German plans but Tirpitz nevertheless
    • Yup
  • Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) redundant to the lede
    • Removed
  • designs and in April, the first three proposals were submitted "in April" should either be set off with commas fore and aft or moved to follow "submitted"
    • Fixed
  • Link the headers in the first table and then watch out for overlinking in the characteristics section
  • was an extremely long process perhaps time-consuming rather than long?
    • Sounds good to me
  • Link tripod mast, main mast and conning tower
    • Done
  • The ships were also to have had a forecastle deck that was 20 to 40 mm (0.8 to 1.6 in) thick. The ships were also Too many "were also"s in close conjunction
    • Reworded
  • Suggest that you add |lastauthoramp=y to get the citations and the references to match--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [8].

Keldholme Priory election dispute

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priory dispute, Yorkshire. 1308. Archbishop throws weight around and nuns cart his backside down the road a piece (metaphorically speaking). It's not quite Castle Anthrax, but if you're after administrative angst and argumentative archbishops, all combined with a hefty (healthy?!) dose of immorality, get in there. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

So you should be good to go on images then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Kees08, added a couple, but it's not easy, so I'll probably add some more when on desktop. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 07:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added a couple more. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, should be good to go on images. Kees08 (Talk) 05:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • Link prioresses?
    • Linked.
  • I think I'm being dense here, but I'm struggling with "but she also seems not to have recovered popularity among her sorority".
    • Yes, it is a bit. How about but she also seems to have become unpopular with the nuns, which is close to a similar sentence in the opening para, but perhaps far enough from it?

Background

  • "and its reputation was such" The connection between the resignations and the local sheriff getting his jollies is a little jarring unless there was something a little more concrete to tie the two together (like (sex) scandals causing the resignations)
    • No connection, unfortunately, so carved it out to indicate two different forms of ill-repute: "The priory's reputation was further damaged by suspicions that the Sheriff..."
Pykering
  • "Much of what we know of" -> "Much of what is known of"
    • Thanks, half-inched.
  • "In the words of Eileen Power, "pandemonium reigned" -> "In the words of the medievalist/historian/medieval historian/etc Eileen Power, "pandemonium reigned"
    • Gone with the under-used "medievalist".
  • "Eileen Power described Joan" – you've already full named her above
    • Power'd.
Acrimony
  • "Says Burton, "for the second time she succeeded" de Stapleton": I'm not a fan of "says Burton", and we don't need this to be a quote – it is easily enough rephrased
    • Perhaps "For the second time in Keldhome's recent history de Ebor' succeeded de Stapleton as prioress, in what amounted, says Burton, to a posthumous..."?
Aftermath
  • I know you link to dissolution of the monasteries, but would mentioning the phrase "dissolution of the monasteries" be better?
    • Fair enough, yes; something like "...until the house was closed in 1536 by the dissolution of the monasteries."?
  • "Eileen Power has suggested" – already linked and full named further up
    • Ditto'd.

That's it. Leaning to support at the moment, but would like these to be considered first. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SC, let me know whether these adjustments address your excellent points. Good health and don't lean too far  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I must've typed slower than I thought up there  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
    • In the second sentence you say, but don't mean, that the archbishop, not the priory, was in a state of turmoil.
      • As was my prose: how about recasting it in its entirety ("After a series of resignations by its prioresses, the priory was in a general state of turmoil, and the Archbishop of York, William Greenfield, appointed one of the nuns to lead the house")?
    • "to lead the house that year" – a touch ambiguous. I take it to mean the appointment was made in that year rather than that it was intended to last for that year only.
      • Yes, part of the above now.
    • "It is likely, however" – the second "however" in the one para, which is at least one too many, in my view.
      • Removed all "however"s except two.
    • "eventually, Greenfield" – unexpected comma
      • Removed.
  • Background
    • Some doubt about the italicisation here for "Victoria County History (VCH)". The linked WP article doesn't italicise the title – not quite sure why not – but if you are going to do so here oughtn't you to italicise the abbreviation too? (Question asked without having the faintest idea of the answer.)
      • Good point(s)! So I've italicised both the initialism here and WP:BOLDly inserted {{ITALICTITLE}} to the main article...see how long that lasts...
The answer would be about four hours  :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pykering appointed
    • "On account of the fact that" – rather a long-winded way of saying "because", perhaps?
      • Absolutely.
    • "The Archdeacon placed de Pykering in corporal possession of the priory, and to rebuke those nuns who had opposed her predecessor." – I'm struggling with this. There seem words missing at the end: to rebuke them he did what?
      • Well, the sentence was crap, to be sure: but it was meant to be "and rebuked"?
  • Acrimony in the convent
    • "a posthumous victory of Greenfield" – over rather than of surely?
      • Of course.
  • Notes
    • 1. "tending to be small, poor and yet close to the border" – why "yet", I wonder? Would you expect large, rich priories close to the border? And did Power really write such an ungrammatical sentence as "Moreover the conditions of life [plural] set its [singular] stamp etc?
    • 3. "she must have died rather than have resigned—as Keldholme's prioress Emma de Stapleton had done" – I think you want the dash slightly earlier to avoid ambiguity. At present the sentence could equally say E de S died or resigned. If you move the dash to between "died" and "rather", it will remove the ambiguity.
      • I split the thing in two, in fact; I think it's tighter now?
  • Bibliography

That's all from me. Tim riley talk 18:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. One point from re-reading: blue-link addicts may feel Yorkshire wants linking in the first line, though I can't conceive that anyone reading this article will need to click to find out what Yorkshire is. (As a Lancastrian I could tell them but will refrain.) I know some editors who would slap a [[sic]] on Power's poor English, but personally I'd leave it alone: a sic does rather break the flow of the prose and is, I think, best kept for cases where there is genuine scope for misunderstanding. The article seems comprehensive, and is well and widely referenced. It meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Tim riley and for the advice—it's a useful starting point for discussion in case the same thing is raised by other reviewers.
Also, glancing back over Power's page above, I wonder if I could shoehorn in a mention of the nuns' "hot blood"  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 09:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

An interesting article. Just a few things.

  • by its prioresses, the priory " can these similar words be separated more?
    • How about "establishment"?
  • "Keldholme itself was placed under interdict and threatened with excommunication. " can places be excommunicated?
    • "and the nuns threatened with".
  • "St. Mary" should this be "St Mary"?
    • Indeed!
  • "Few of the Prioress's names have been recorded, " shouldn't Prioress's be plural?
    • Done.
  • "by two local parish rectors," the C of E is, perhaps understandably, not an area of expertise for me, but is there some level of redundancy in this description?
    • Fair enough; "two local rectors" OK?
  • "Emma de Stapleton" redlinked multiple times and not necessarily on first usage. Also you are not consistent in whether to refer to her as "Stapleton" or "de Stapleton".
    • Right. Redlinked in the lead and first subsequent mention, and all other mentions are now consistently prefixed de.
  • Is the capitalisation of "Prioress" consistent with MOS?
    • It is now!  ;)
  • "received a heavy[16] penitence from Greenfield." should "penitence" be "penance"?
    • I think it should be, and have done so; oddly, though, our article on penitance redirects to penance.
I accidentally/mistakenly used <code></code> instead of <nowiki></nowiki> when linking {{ITALICTITLE}} above  :)
Thanks very much for all those useful suggestions, Wehwalt, hopefully, they've been addressed as painlessly as possible! ——SerialNumber54129 11:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Format
  • Ref 32 p. range
  • Check page number (given as 155167) in Burton 2005
Well spotted! Many thanks for the review, Brianboulton. ——SerialNumber54129 14:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [9].

Cretoxyrhina

[edit]
Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This article underwent a previous FAC about 2-3 months ago, but was closed due to the constant need of fixing grammar/context. Since then, a peer review has been undertaken and I believe this article may fare better this time. Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, but I can mainly give constructive criticism about the content rather than the prose, so would be good to get the other original reviewers back. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is dragging out, I would suggest to again ping the other reviewers from the last nomination. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping them. Praemonitus Brianboulton Nikkimaria Casliber Jens Lallensack Lingzhi Macrophyseter | talk 05:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions should end in periods if they are complete sentences and otherwise should not
    • Fixed
  • Suggest scaling up the scale diagram
    • Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Added
  • File:Cretoxyrhina_skeletons_KUVP-247_and_FHSM_VP-2187.png: source gives a BY license, not BY-SA. Same with File:Cretoxyrhina_fossils_from_Newbrey_et_al._(2013).png
    • Corrected
  • File:Cretoxyrhina_mantelli_scale.png: should include data sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sourced

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • What does that mean?
  • Various minor formatting issues:
  • Ref 1: the publication is Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science
  • Fixed
  • Some inconsistency in the inclusion of archive and retrieval dates. For example, included for ref 8, omitted from 7, 12 etc
  • I believe that citations for scholarly articles do not have archive dates as they do not change once published. Unless I have missed something, it appears that all non-journal sources have been archived.
  • Retrieval date formats are inconsistent. E.g. compare refs 2 and 14
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 66: New Scientist should be italicised.
  • Fixed.
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool. However, the link in ref 21 should be checked, as it does not appear to reach the indicated source.
  • The database that the link goes to appears to be an interactive, so I have not found and feared that there would be no specific link linking directly to the source. However, I was able to write instructions into the link address without glitching it.
  • Regarding 'Cretoxyrhina mantelli feeding on the pterosaur Pteranodon' (Hone 2018). I cannot access Amalfitano 2019, which mentions this study, so I am a little in the dark. The image File:Cretoxyrhina attacking Pteranodon.png is placed in hunting strategies, but this same image has an expected (and amusing) disclaimer in the source. The authors say this evidence of interaction is studied because of scant information about predation (and scavenging seems more likely?), and text that precedes the hunting strategy section contradicts the artist's fanciful depiction. Maybe just a caption, if the second source weights the notability of the first. cygnis insignis 04:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amalfitano et al. (2019) only mentions Hone et al. (2018) briefly and once: "Considering all the aspects discussed herein, the conclusions drawn by other authors about caudal fin morphology and metabolic rate estimates (e.g., Ferron, 2017; Kim et al., 2013), and the fossil record of predation attributed to C. mantelli (see Hone et al., 2018; Shimada 1997b; Shimada, Hooks III, 2004), this Cretaceous lamniform shark was likely a fast swimmer with an ecology in some ways similar to that of the living Carcharodon carcharias (see Shimada, 1997d)." I've added "hypothetical" in the image caption to ease immediate contradictory issues. It could also be noted that the artist was one the study's authors.
      • That seems fine, thanks for the quote. The word that came to mind for the caption was 'fanciful' when you consider the strategy involves two objects moving through the air and water, but I may be under-rating sharks abilities in my ignorance. cygnis insignis 06:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great whites in some areas have been known to at times ram their prey out of the water as a hunting technique, which may possibly also be the case for a similar shark like Cretoxyrhina. (See hunting strategies) If we were dealing with a nurse shark, then 'fanciful' would be the more realistic caption.

Prose

[edit]
  • " … led by Australian paleontologist Mikael Siverson moved the into the genus Cretoxyrhina" A missing word? cygnis insignis 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a minor typo. Fixed.
  • "They were likely scavenged carcasses …" a tweak to this sentence? apologies, I would just fix it if I knew what was intended cygnis insignis 04:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This particular sentence was discussed and revised a bit in earlier reviews, and I believe it may be best for now to keep it the way it is.

Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks substantially better prose-wise than last time I looked:

  • ...providing a rare insight in the biology of the Cretaceous shark - "rare" certainly redundant as meaningless here. In fact, could probably remove the whole segment as it really adds no information (as the insights are later specified).
    • Cut.
  • Deep anatomical analysis... - why "Deep" here?
    • I was trying to emphasize the depth of analysis taken, but if that's redundant, cut
  • George F. Sternberg found many rare Cretoxyrhina skeletons including KUVP 247 and FHSM VP-2187. - suggest rare means nothing here and should go (lots of taxa are known from fewer remains I suspect...)
    • Replaced with "exceptionally well-preserved."
  • The species name denticulata is derived from the Latin denticulus (small tooth) and āta (to have) - ata does not strictly mean "to have"
    • But in this case that is how it is used. Changed to "possession of".
  • [Since the coinage of the genus], Cretoxyrhina has been traditionally grouped... - bracketed part is redundant and can be removed
    • Fixed.
  • However, the analysis was met with uncertainty due to a lack of data for Cretoxyrhina. - unneccessarily wordy - can be just "However, the analysis was uncertain due to a lack of data for Cretoxyrhina." - in fact you could probably remove the sentence altogether...
    • I think it is necessary to explain why the analysis is being cautioned. I moved a rewording of the sentence behind the conclusion.
  • The dentition of C. mantelli is among the best documented and well-understood of all extinct sharks - unnecessarily wordy - can be just "The dentition of C. mantelli is among the best-known of all extinct sharks"
    • Fixed.
  • Cretoxyrhina lived in a very diverse pelagic ecosystem. It was contemporaneous with many predators that shared a similar trophic level during the Cretaceous - clumsy. why not "Cretoxyrhina flourished alongside many predators that shared a similar trophic level in a diverse pelagic ecosystem during the Cretaceous"
    • Fixed, but used "lived" instead of "flourished" as it seems a bit weird to use the latter given the subtopics context.
  • The exact causes of the extinction of Cretxoyrhina is not fully certain. - "exact" redundant
    • Cut.
  • What is known is that its extinction was likely diachronous; a slow process of declination lasting millions of years - wordy and jargony, why not "What is known is that it declined slowly over millions of years"
    • Fixed.
  • ...may have provided strong competition with... - why not just, "may have competed with" (strong seems redundant to me - we don't have enough info to confirm that..whatever "strong" means in this case anyway...
    • Fixed.
  • ok...tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Reads ok to me and I can't see any outstanding prose clangers. However, I often miss them on pages as well, so consider support tentative and pending some other folks being happy with the prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open a month without attracting the necessary level of review for promotion... I've added to the FAC urgents list but if nothing changes in another week or so I'll have to archive -- perhaps you could try re-pinging that list of potential reviewers at the top... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, maybe IJReid or Dunkleosteus77 would be interested to have a look. Perhaps also Ichthyovenator, who is familiar with prehistoric sea creatures, and who should be more familiar with the FAC process now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from IJReid

[edit]

I might as well, marine animals aren't my forté but I think I can give it a good shot. More will come within the day. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like a little more information on the ~30 species that are supposedly synonyms, some get a bit of prose, others just get a mention in the infobox.
    • What kind of more information would you suggest? I'm not really sure on what to add without creating a need to prose every synonym.
      • I'm simply curious what other synonyms were (juveniles? teeth from other parts of the mouth? etc) essentially why there are 30 names that are all one taxon. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Explained how these synonyms were made because the teeth they were derived from were different from the syntypes.
  • Some images of related taxa would be nice
    • Added great white shark image at Phylogeny and evolution
  • A diagram of the chronospecies would be nice if you have the time and effort (showing species time span, location, and teeth changes)
    • I know that Carnoferox has made a few of such, I could ask if he's okay with uploading them to wikimedia.
  • "4–5" should be "4 to 5" (growth and longevity subsection)
    • Fixed.
  • I think some images could be more spread out (Tylosaurus skeleton moved down, scale diagram moved up, assorted fossils moved up to replace most complete skeletons diagram, which in turn is moved up near the mention of their discovery)
    • Done.
  • Is there a better image of a Tylosaurus skeleton you could use?
    • I'm not sure what your criteria is for a better image here, but I replaced the one on the article with the Bunker skeleton.
@Macrophyseter: Where are we with responding to these? --Laser brain (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy this week, so I only had time to fix prose until now. I'll get into these shortly. Macrophyseter | talk 19:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's done that I think is necessary, giving my support IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthyovenator

[edit]

Though I've always found Cretoxyrhina to be a cool animal, for full disclosure's sake I know next to nothing about it. Will add more as I make my way through the article. Overall I find the article to be very well-written. Most of the points below are very minor. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first few paragraphs of "Research history"; "syntype" is linked in the image caption but it might also be good to link it at its first mention in the text. Syntype is linked in the text much further down under "etymology", which it shouldn't be.
    • Fixed
  • You could link "lateral" at its first mention to Anatomical terms of location#medial and lateral.
    • Fixed.
  • Not sure if it is relevant but what were the motivation for assigning Pseudoisurus vraconensis and Telodontaspis agassizensis to Cretoxyrhina? Newbrey et al. (2013) probably provided some reasoning that might be worthwile to include?
    • Done.
  • "ontogenetic" could be linked to Ontogeny at first mention, same for "phylogenetic" to Phylogenetics.
    • Fixed.
  • "C. vraconensis possessed lateral cusplets in all teeth except for a few anteriors, which would gradually become restricted only to the back lateroposteriors in adults by the end of the interval in C. mantelli" The terms "anterior" and "lateroposterios" might be good to link/explain.
    • Wikilinked.
  • In the fourth paragraph of "phylogeny and evolution" there are two "." after "thresher sharks".
    • Fixed.
  • Under dentition terms for different types of teeth are again introduced. I don't think most people are familiar with the term "symphosial", so it should probably either be linked or explained in the text, as should other terms not already linked/explained before.
    • Added explaination for symphysial. Anterior and lateroposterior has been wikilinked earlier.
  • "Rostrum" is used only once in the article but could use being linked to Rostrum (anatomy).
    • Fixed.
  • "olfactory" could be linked to Olfaction.
    • Fixed.
  • Sorry if there is an obvious answer but how does knowing it was a pelagic shark mean that we know it had five gill slits or is there fossil evidence for the number of gills it would have had?
    • I decided that its placement was a bit tacky in skeletal anatomy, so I moved its mention in Research history where its mention of fossil evidence is also present.
  • After the speed of the modern fastest shark is given you could add that this is the same speed as the one estimated for Cretoxyrhina, I know it's obvious but it's pretty interesting.
    • I do not believe that would be okay despite the two speeds being the same. The speeds of makos have been reported to be faster, although 70 km/hr is the fastest I can find from a scientific paper (I try not to cite the web with the exception of certain scientifically reliable ones like Oceans of Kansas)
  • Tylosaurus and Xiphactinus could be linked at their first mention (under "reproduction"), at the moment they aren't linked at all outside of the lead and the image captions.
    • Xiphactinus is already wikilinked in Research history. And as far as my knowledge has collected from past reviews, I believe that the policy is that you only wikilink words in prose once, even if its in lead.
  • "Since its peak in size during the Coniacian, the size[1] and distribution[2] of Cretoxyrhina fossils has gradually declined until its eventual demise during the Campanian", has strikes me as an odd word to use here. The sentence would probably work just as well (if not better) without "has" in there at all. "Its" later on makes it sound a bit like it's the fossils going extinct. Might want to have a look at this sentence in general.
    • Cut.

Support - an excellent in-depth article on one of the most famous Mesozoic sharks with a lot of stuff I had no idea about. Excellent choice of images and very well-written. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2019 [10].

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The early hours of 10 March 1945 were among the worst in human history. United States Army Air Forces B-29 Superfortress bombers attacked one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, using weapons and tactics carefully designed to destroy cities. The result was the death of at least 88,000 people and the destruction a quarter of Tokyo. This was the single most devastating air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and marked the start of a campaign which left most of Japan's cities in ruins by the end of the war only a few months later.

Wikipedia didn't have an article focused on this raid until I started it early last year. The article passed a GA review in April 2018, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in May. I have since further developed the article, including through drawing on perspectives and materials collected during a holiday to Tokyo early this year. I'm hopeful that the article now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Seems like every image fits to its location and there is good ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke

[edit]

I'm slightly shocked to learn that this raid did not have an article until recently. So thank you for your work on this.

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is great shape. I have a few comments:

  • it isn't clear from the narrative that the Allies had already used incendiaries against cities in Europe, as had the Axis. I think it is important to establish what both sides had done with incendiaries, not just area bombing.
    • I've expanded the material on the Allied bombing campaign against Germany, including noting a comparison to the transition to area bombing against Japan. Somewhat surprisingly, it seems that no-one has ever written a comparative study of the British Bomber Command and XXI Bomber Command's night area attacks, despite it being clear that the American campaign was heavily influenced by the tactics used by the British. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the mention of flamethrowers seems incongruous in the context, as they were a land weapon, not an aerial one. The Germans also used flamethrowers in both World Wars.
  • did the Japanese use incendiaries when area bombing in China?
  • suggest "series of raids against the island of Honshu"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest "below the effective altituderange"
  • in the Departure section, I am left wondering how many bombers actually made it to Tokyo
  • suggest "usual practice of minimizingdownplaying the damage"
  • "Karacas argues that the Japanese Government..." seems odd. Why wouldn't the far worse firebombing of Tokyo be considered at least as important in the "Japanese-as-victim stereotype"? Is it because the Japanese firebombed other cities? If so, this should be better covered in this article. Are there contradictory views from other academics?
    • There isn't much discussion of this in other sources. From what I've seen in Japan, it is credible though - Nagasaki and Hiroshima have multiple major memorials to the atomic bombings, but there's almost no commemoration of the destruction of other Japanese cities (Osaka and some other cities have smallish museums, but they're generally out of the way and little-known or attended). Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "10 March raid on Tokyo andalong with the atomic bomb attacks"
  • should epitimize be epitomize?

That's all I have. Nice work on an underrepresented area of our WWII coverage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formatting: a couple of very minor issues:
  • Ref 149: the language is Japanese
  • In the "Works consulted" section, Haulman is out of alphabetical sequence

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Nick, I reviewed this at ACR and the changes since then look good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of minor observations/suggestions, otherwise it looks pretty good to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neer isn't specifically cited, so I would suggest moving the work to the Further reading section
  • which were dispatched to take off.[56][52] : suggest putting the refs in numerical order

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Okay let me see this "Great Tokyo Air Raid".

  • at two official memorials, several neighbourhood British neighbourhood in intro.
  • boost the weight of bombs they could carry.[44][42][45] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Civilians had been organized into more than 140,000 neighbourhood British neighbourhood.
  • a rectangular area in north-eastern Tokyo designated British north-eastern.
  • The 73rd Bombardment Wing contributed 169 B-29s Hmm the 73rd's article says that Americans use 73d instead of 73rd.
  • and the 313rd Bombardment Wing 121 Is this a typo? 313rd?
    • Good goodness, I didn't realise that Americans did things like that to the Queen's English which refined people like Australians speak. Changed to 313th per US usage. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good day Nick I still see some 313rds like this one "The 73rd and 313rd Bomb Wings' Superfortresses were" and this one "the 73rd and 313rd Bombardment Wings best crews".
  • United States doesn't seem to be linked anywhere - some important but not always well known organisations with this in its title are. Given that Tokyo is central to the article (and it covers a key event in the city's history), linking to the city in the lead seems sensible. Thanks also from me AR for those edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a greater distance, they each carried five tons of bombs Which kinda "tons"?
    • The source is a US official history about the USAAF, so while it doesn't specify which type it seems very safe to assume they're short tons. I've added the conversions. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of between 45 and 67 miles per hour blowing from the south-east British south-east and no metric units.
  • advanced in a north-westerly direction British north-westerly.
  • sheltered in them were burnt to death British burnt.
  • hundreds of people to be burnt to death British burnt.
  • The fire finally burnt itself out during mid-morning British burnt.
  • Overall, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo was burnt out British burnt.
  • A Buddhist service has been conducted to mark unlink Buddhist.
  • by historians and commentators who criticise the ethics and practices British criticise.
  • but the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly cancelled the project in 1999 British cancelled.
  • In image File:US_Strategic_Bombing_of_Tokyo_1944-1945.png The area burnt out during the raid on 9/10 March is marked in black British burnt.
  • Families often sought to remain with their local neighbourhood associations British neighbourhood.
  • A number of small neighbourhood memorials were also British neighbourhood.
  • This is odd night attacks on the Tokyo region and the air defense of the Tokyo Region in one sentence the word region is capitalised and the other one isn't or am I wrong?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2019 [13].

Waterloo Bay massacre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community. I hope I have done it justice. The article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2017, and has been updated since then with various news reports regarding the memorialisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]
  • "The Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre refers to a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia which led to the deaths of a number of Aboriginal people, and forms part of the Australian frontier wars". This is quite a long sentence to have with little punctuation. I would recommend carving it up somehow, and perhaps take out "fatal" as you already refer to the deaths straight after. I'd also specify that the "settlers" were "European" or "British". Something like "The Waterloo Bay massacre, also known as the Elliston massacre, was a clash between European settlers and Aboriginal Australians that took place on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia in late May 1849. Part of the Australian frontier wars, it led to the deaths of several Aboriginal people." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph in the lede really covers two distinct topics: the disputed number of those killed, and the ways in which the massacre has been memorialised. I would suggest dividing that paragraph in two because of this. "An attempt in the 1970s to build a..." could easily start a third paragraph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to move the sentence stating "Aboriginal people from the west coast of South Australia have oral history traditions that a large-scale massacre occurred." to before "In the 1920s and 1930s, several historians examined the archival record"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some very thick paragraphs in this article. I would recommend dividing a few of them up; I think that would make it more 'reader-friendly' and enhance the likelihood that they would actually read through the whole thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also recommend a more thorough use of sourcing. In "Background" for example, the first paragraph has four sentences at its end, all referring to slightly different things, before a citation appears. Even if it entails some duplication of referencing, I'd ensure that every separate statement has a citation after it. Otherwise it can look a little like certain parts are simply unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good use of images. Any chance that we could find another one for the "Later accounts of a massacre" section? Or a textbox of some kind? It's not essential, but I think it would improve the overall aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Aboriginal people of the Nauo, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples." - "people... peoples". Bit repetitive. I'd change "Aboriginal people" to "Aboriginals", perhaps?

All addressed so far, Midnightblueowl. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Midnightblueowl, did you have any other comments on the article? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is likely that it resulted in the deaths of tens or scores of Aboriginal people." Can we make this claim in the lede? It seems a bit strong given the evidence at hand and seems to only be the opinion of Haines (an anthropologist rather than a historian, not that that disqualifies his opinion). I think at most we can probably say "several Aboriginal people". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We definitely need a citation straight after the following sentence: In 1993, Aboriginal people from the west coast were still relating their oral history regarding a massacre, with the recorder of these interviews, Pat Sumerling, stating that, "[a]s the Aboriginal oral tradition is of crucial importance to their culture, with traditions handed down from generation to generation, one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, Peacemaker67. Well done on all your hard work on this one. Very happy to support it as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem

[edit]

A missing page number and a case of inconsistent information for one of the books listed in the bibliography that need to be addressed. Other than those, just a few take-it-or-leave-it quibbles that you can take or leave as you see fit.

  • General
  • Ref #4 (Foster & Nettleback 2012) missing page number;
  • Ref #28 (Thompson 1969) missing page number. This appears to be supporting the statement that Thompson published a book, which might not require a page number in itself, but the statement also goes into some specific details ("...which included the camp oven story and said that Geharty (spelled Gehirty in the book) was involved in rounding up Aboriginal people and driving them over the cliffs south of Elliston, resulting in 20 deaths") which does need page numbers if they are sourced to this book (it's not clear because another source is also cited for that statement);
  • You cite Parish to support the statement that he wrote The Real West Coast: A Picture of a Rumour-Damaged Country, but cite some details of what Parish wrote to Foster, Hosking and Nettleback. Could the latter not be sourced to support the former? This jumped out at me because you're citing a book but don't provide a page number. Not an issue, just curious.
  • Technical checks
  • Petty pet peeve moment: I'm nowhere more OCD than when England is confused for the United Kingdom, as it is in the publisher location for Thompson's The Elliston Incident. Make of that what you will;
  • Details for Foster & Nettleback's Out of the Silence: The History and Memory of South Australia's Frontier Wars in the biblography are from two different editions of the book. The GBook link previews the 256(?)-page paperback edition with ISBN 978-1-74305-039-2, but the ISBN you provide appears to relate to the 401-page e-book edition.
  • Reliability and Quality
  • Found nothing to suggest any issues.
  • Comprehensiveness
  • A Gbooks and JSTOR search for waterloo bay massacre did not reveal anything to suggest that relevant sources have been missed.
  • Update: I noticed during the spotchecks that the ABC News article by Gage dated 19 May references research by the anthropologist Dr Tim Haines, commissioned by Elliston Council in setting up the memorial. Is there any reason why this isn't mentioned in the Authenticity and interpretations section? It doesn't look like it adds anything significantly new to what has already been written, but it does bring it up to date. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your source review, Factotem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks
  • Lingzhi's checks prompted me to do some of my own. Unfortunately, GBooks previews don't allow me access to the relevant chapter in the main source used, so my ability to complete a thorough check is somewhat limited to the news articles. I found nothing in these of major concern, though to nitpick somewhat, the ABC News article by Gage published 19 May does not appear to explicitly state that the memorial was established in May 2017;
  • I do have access to the first pages of Foster et al books, and found that in the Background, second para, you cite Foster & Nettelbeck (2012), but quite sure it should be Foster, Hosking & Nettelbeck (2001).

I think that's all now. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all issues I've identified now addressed, I can see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
  • There's a bit at the end about "one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims" that Foster et al attribute to someone named Pat Sumerling on pg. 71. Especially since this is presented as a direct quote, poor Pat will be unhappy that he/she (gender neutral name!) has not been given any credit on the huge forum of Wikipedia. Full attribution required.
  • Healy said the bit about "narrative battlegrounds", not Foster et al. The latter cite the former. But it seems there's a Chris Healy and a JJ Healy... mmm... another book cites it to jj ... seems to be on page xv of {{cite book|last=Healy|first=John Joseph|title=Literature And Aborigine in Australia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qu4wAAAAIAAJ|year=1989|publisher=University of Queensland Press|isbn=978-0-7022-2150-7|ref=harv}}, if "Movement and Belonging: Lines, Places, and Spaces of Travel" has it right, and I assume it does...
  • I am beginning to wonder about close paraphrase. For example, Wikipedia has:

Foster et al. also interviewed Aboriginal people from the west coast on several occasions about the incident, with broad agreement in several aspects; the location near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs, and additionally, that not all of the people died, but the majority hid at the base of the cliff until the settlers left.

.. while Foster et all p. 71 has:

On several occasions the authors of this book have discussed memories of the Ellison incident with Indigenous people... the broad particulars coincide: the site near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs. We have heard one further detail: that not all of the people died, the majority hiding at the base of the cliff until the vigilantes left.

Image review

[edit]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Interesting, to me especially in light of recent events involving Australian immigration policy... Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if Aboriginal people and white settlers could be linked at first mention outside the intro.
  • You say British settlers in the intro, but white settlers in the article body. Isn't it best to be consistent? If you just say British, "white" would be superfluous.
  • "Part of the Australian frontier wars" SHouldn't this be mentioned early and linked somewhere in the article body too?
  • "Horn and his men opened fire, and two Aboriginal people were killed and one was fatally wounded, with several more being captured." Why is this stated as fact, when it is apparently unknown? You could specify earlier in the section (besides just the title) if this is just the official record of the events.
  • "fanciful and sometimes wildly inaccurate fictionalising" Since this is not a very objective quote, the author should probably be attributed in-text.
  • "written by Henry John Congreve" Can he be presented somehow? What was his occupation, and how come he was in a position to get this published?
  • "written by Ellen Liston" Likewise.

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "well-developed local legend" This should be attributed in the text.
  • "According to Foster et al." et al is awkward in main text. I suggest spelling out "Foster, Hosking and Nettelbeck" in some places, varied with "Foster and his co-authors" in others.
  • "Foster et al. have identified several inconsistencies in Beviss' account. Firstly, Geharty did not name Waterloo Bay" If you have "firstly" then you should have secondly. May be delete and have "account:" ("account" followed by a colon) with clauses separated by semi-colons to make clear that they are all points made by the authors.
  • "the Beviss account had a strong influence over the story" This does not sound right to me Maybe "influence on later retellings of the story".
  • "The presence of adjacent landmarks with gazetted names associated with the Duke of Wellington's defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, such as Wellesley Point and Wellington Point, contradict this interpretation." This does not follow. It is possible that the names Wellesley Point etc gave someone the idea of naming Waterloo Bay after the supposed massacre.
  • "four professional or amateur historians" Should be and not or and I suggest specifying which are amateur and which professional.
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Just a placeholder for now... I'd intended to review earlier but time was against me; a lot of heavy lifting's probably been done now so hopefully it won't take me too long, but don't hold up closure on my account if everyone else is happy with promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll aim to complete my review and copyedit this weekend but prose-wise I guess the main thing that leaps out is the frequent repetition of "Aboriginal people". I gather that "Aborigines" may not be as acceptable as it was even a decade ago but you do use it at least once... As a better option, do any sources name the clan/s involved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look, Ian. AFAIK, Aboriginal people is the appropriate description (per the plaque), rather than Aboriginals or Aborigines. I've only used Aborigines where is is used by the 1937 source and in the name of an organisation. Also AFAIK, which Aboriginal language group or clan was involved isn't clear, it may have been Mirning, Nauo, Kokatha and/or Wirangu people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay in getting back... Yes, "Aboriginal" as a noun is not correct and I wasn't suggesting that, but I would like to think more could be done to ease the repetition. OTOH I don't really have time to offer other suggestions so as it doesn't seem to be concerning other reviewers I'll reiterate that promotion shouldn't be held up on my account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go now, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! --Laser brain (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: just wondering if I'm supposed to be doing something here to progress promotion? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • The mayor who presided over shouldn't mayor be capitalised?
  • He ascribed his defeat in the November 2018 mayoral election I guess link the election.

Great article PM, I hope these comments would help the article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 6 May 2019 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 17 May 2019 [14].

British National (Overseas)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about British National (Overseas) status, a nationality that was only obtainable by British subjects in the former colony of Hong Kong before its return to China in 1997. It's a rather peculiar status that doesn't actually give its holders a legal right to live in the UK. I've recently put in a good amount of work into the entire article and was able to get it past its GA review, and I believe it's up to par with the FA criteria as well. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • I just omitted the image. Since there's another article specifically about the BN(O) passport, figured it'd be fine. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also wanted to add that the only distinguishing feature between a British citizen passport vs a BN(O) passport is the heading that "European Union", which is definitely going to be problematic in about two weeks. I could use the inside page of a BN(O) passport, but I believe any (not sure?) passport image falls under Crown copyright and would thus be non-free. Horserice (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]
  • The note about when BN(O) was created it kind of hidden (I didn't notice it mentioned until a second read over). I'd argue that it should be made more prominent, and also seems like something to add to the lead; for the latter, perhaps start the second paragraph like: "This nationality was created in 1985(?) to allow Hong Kong residents..."
  • Sure, I added the year in the lead.
  • In the Background section, is there anything that can be added relating to the earlier class of citizenship (if any) that residents of Hong Kong had?
  • Moved up that part from the Controversy section.
  • "While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status,[10] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible." Is there any way to expand on why so many were ineligible? I would assume it has to do with Chinese nationality law, but that isn't clear.
  • The only requirement was actually just being a BDTC. Not sure how else to elaborate on that?
  • "Hong Kong residents and legislators, with some supporters in Parliament, believed that granting full British citizenship would have been more appropriate for instilling confidence in Hong Kong's post-handover future and that residents should be offered a choice to continue living under British rule." From the context of the sentence, shouldn't the bolded be "should have been," as it talks about a past event?
  • Made that change.

A real neat article, and covers an interesting topic. I'll look it over once more, but I think that may be all I can see right now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading through it, made some changes. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed what I saw with it, feel it does the job. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • " transfer of sovereignty in 1997". You should specify "to China".
  • Done.
  • "This nationality was created in 1985 to allow Hong Kong residents to retain a relationship with the United Kingdom after the territory was returned to China. This is vague and not supported in the main text. I suggest replacing it with a summary of the rights conferred by the status.
  • Changed this line.
  • "3.4 million BN(O)s enjoy British consular protection when travelling outside of Hong Kong." WP:NUMBERS states that a sentence should not start with a figure.
  • Added "About" before this and also changed the figure.
  • "When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898". This paragraph is confusing unless you explain that Hong Kong Island was then a permanent British possession.
  • Added context.
  • "subjects in Hong Kong became BDTCs". You explain BDTC below but you should do so at first mention.
  • Moved abbreviation explanation to first instance.
  • "number of active status holders" What does active mean here?
  • It was an attempt to be more polite about saying living status holders. Changed it to that instead.
  • "Individuals who did not acquire Chinese nationality (generally non-ethnic Chinese)" The term "non-ethnic Chinese" is confusing. I would take it to mean a Chinese citizen who is not ethnically Chinese, but you appear to use it to mean anyone who is not ethnically Chinese.
  • Changed it to "those not ethnically Chinese". The document provided in the citation for that line uses "non-ethnic Chinese" and the term also appears throughout Hong Kong government documents. I see your point on it being confusing though, and this change should address that.
  • HKSAR. This term is not explained.
  • Used full term instead.

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a number of spotchecks against the sources, and in the main they check out. I have identified a few issues:
  • Ref 2, Carroll 2007, pp. 15–21: ARTICLE: The territory initially consisted only of Hong Kong Island and was expanded to include Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. SOURCE: The expansion to include Kowloon appears on p. 24 of source so perhaps the page range needs adjusting.
  • Adjusted pages.
  • Ref 16, Lord Avebury, "British Citizenship", col. WA213.: ARTICLE: While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status... SOURCE appears to say something different: "There are 3.4 million BN(O)s, most of whom live in Hong Kong. Therefore by deduction there are approximately 2.6 million BN(O)s in Hong Kong without a passport"
  • Changed phrasing to say that 3.4 million acquired the status.
  • Ref 24b: ARTICLE: If given indefinite leave to remain (ILR), they are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons and local government. SOURCE: Unable to confirm from source
  • Used a different source to address this.
  • Links: all links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
  • Formatting: no issues identified.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources are comprehensive and appear to meet the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

This has some decent support for promotion thus far, but needs further review soon or it will need to be archived as it's been open for over a month. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Do I need to start asking people to review this? Not really sure how to make this go faster? Horserice (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Horserice: "How to get more reviewers" is a dilemma as old as FAC itself... but it doesn't hurt to be proactive. Some folks have good luck asking active editors at relevant wikiprojects, or authors of other Featured articles in the same topic area. Sometimes you can attract reviews by reviewing other candidates as well. --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, it looks like the nominator has addressed some (or most) or your comments, can you let me know how it looks now? Perhaps Ceoil as well given you shared some concerns re. comprehensiveness... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, Nick-D, and Ceoil: Pinging again for further feedback. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Complicated stuff, but well written overall. There could be a little bit more explanation at some places for people like me who have absolutely no idea. But I understand that this is a very specialized topic.

  • These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – what do you mean with "these areas", both Hong Kong and the peninsula?
  • These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – Is the mentioned transfer the same as the cede to the United Kingdom? If not, when was the transfer? I have a hard time understanding this.
  • maybe link "foreign national"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that reads much better now, and I could easily follow. I'm happy to give my support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Registration confers citizenship otherwise than by descent, meaning that children born outside of the UK to those successfully registered will be British citizens by descent. I understand the second half of this, but why does "otherwise than by descent" mean this, when it would appear to mean the opposite?
  • BN(O)s who did not hold and had not lost any other citizenship or nationality on or before 19 March 2009: what is the force of "had not lost"? It appears to be superfluous. If this is the language in the source, that's fine, but it doesn't seem necessary.
  • Ah, I meant to cover the case where BN(O)s that have other citizenships renounce them after 2009 and then attempt to register as British citizens. Changed it up there to better describe that.
  • The mention of the master nationality rule in the lead doesn't seem to exactly match what's in the body. The section on China talks about Chinese nationality law rather than the British master nationality rule, and the lead doesn't mention that consular protection is not available in Hong Kong.
  • Tweaked it to be a bit more accurate.
  • BN(O)s who are Chinese nationals must use a Mainland Travel Permit to enter mainland China: does this apply only to those "treated as Chinese nationals under Chinese nationality law", or would it also apply if a BN(O) acquired full Chinese citizenship?
  • There's no distinction between nationals and citizens in Chinese nationality law. It's just that any BN(O) with Chinese nationality (which means only BN(O)s who were of Chinese descent at the time of the handover) must use that permit. For the second part of your question, if a BN(O) voluntarily acquires Chinese nationality, that person is required to renounce all other nationalities, so the person in question would then only be a Chinese national and would have to use the permit anyways.
  • In the Taiwan section, suggest making the second sentence "As such, BN(O)s are required to..." to clarify that this is not an exception to the "identical immigration controls" statement.
  • Okay, done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil

[edit]

This a very legalese and narrowly written, dry, article about a hugely emotive topic. Why is this- the legislation was not arrived at by bureaucratic drones solely from deductive reasoning. There is mere lip service to the wider political forces, and almost no coverage of the very emotional and extensive internal cultural debates. This oppose Is actionable per 1.b - comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very technical because, well, British nationality law is a mess of if-else conditions that are a pain to sift through and this article is about one of those nationality classes. It's fair to bring up the charged atmosphere leading up to the handover and the negotiations for it, but I don't believe full coverage of that falls under the scope of this article. The BN(O) nationality is merely a result of the situation and those negotiations. All of that should really be covered in the Handover of Hong Kong article. Horserice (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Nick also commented that he thought that there needed to be more, I added more to the background section. Horserice (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think it adds a bit more context and colour. The writing overall is clear and concise; although there is repetition in places (eg British Citizenship" appearing within sentences and in consecutive sentences, its an issue I cannot myself see a resolution for without sacrificing clarity. Moving to support. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

This is an interesting article, but would benefit from being fleshed out further:

  • The "Background" section is probably too focused on political issues, and not the related social issues.
  • Merged with Controversy section.
  • For instance: "Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) had the unrestricted right to enter and live in any British territory" - yes, but in practice non-white migration to the UK was rare, and those who did so often faced massive racism and occasional threats of violence. The restrictions were brought in when non-whites began to enter the UK in sizeable numbers.
  • Added an aside to reference this.
  • "Controversy" sections are generally discouraged in all articles, and especially FAs. It would be better to weave this material into the body of the article.
  • Merged with Background section.
  • I tend to agree with Ceoil's comment above. The content of this section seems somewhat compressed. The issue of whether the UK could actually bestow citizenship on Hongkongers without breaching the agreements with China seems particularly important.
  • Expanded detail on impact of Tiananmen and attitudes towards the handover. Added more on question about breaching Joint Declaration.
  • At present the article gives the views of the UK government, and the views of groups seeking change. What do independent experts think about the truth of the matter? Has it ever been tested in court? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the Chinese government's view on it. I haven't been able to find any academic material that specifically examines if a general grant of citizenship would violate the Joint Declaration, but given that BNSS grants were already considered a violation by the Chinese, it's pretty clear that a broader grant would also be considered as such by them. From the material I've been able to go through, scholars work off of the assumption that residents of Chinese ethnicity are excluded from further citizenship grants and go on to address the question of nationality for non-Chinese residents (see p. 203, p. 171). Post-handover UK government documents also suggest this (para. 15, p. 74). There is no court of arbitration specified in the treaty, so any issues can only be directly addressed by the British and Chinese governments. Horserice (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the 'Restrictions' section is a bit unclear - why were these countries singled out? It would be good to start such a section with a summary of the situation (e.g., BN(O) holders have the same rights as other Hongkongers, except for the following ... ). Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a lead to that section. Reasons for singling out areas:
UK - country imposes restrictions on its own nationals, so these should be specified
Hong Kong - acquiring nationality specifically dependent on residency here, but there could still be restrictions imposed
China - almost all BN(O)s are now also Chinese, so any restrictions placed on dual BN(O)-Chinese nationals apply to almost all BN(O)s at large
EU - usually, all nationals of an EU country are EU citizens, but not in this case

-- @Nick-D: Addressed point-by-point. Hope this is good for you. Horserice (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, but I'm afraid that I have a few extra comments:

  • "All citizens of the British Empire, including Hongkongers, previously held a common nationality" - what this is previously to is not clear at present
  • Italicized Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That's the name of the previous principal form of British nationality prior to 1983.
  • " to justify that granting it would not be a violation of that agreement" - "justify" isn't the right word here. Something like "argue" might work better.
  • Done.
  • "These arrangements for nationality were compared unfavorably to the situation of Macau" - passive voice, and unclear as a result (who was making this comparison?)
  • Rewrote in active voice.
  • "Hong Kong legislators and their supporters in Parliament" is confusing: a) is this referring to all Hong Kong legislators, including those who are pretty much appointed by the Chinese Government? b) it's not clear how legislators are not in parliament? (do you mean the UK parliament?) Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike other British nationalities, persons with BN(O) status are entitled to hold a British passport " - this seems unclear given that British people obviously hold British passports Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other British nationals first receive a certificate of registration/naturalization and have to apply separately for passports. I rephrased that part to be more clear.

-- Alright, one more pass. Horserice (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still unclear. Surely UK nationals don't need a certificate of registration before getting a passport? What's meant by "British nationals"? - presumably this is British nationals other than British citizens? Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is exactly what I'm saying. All British nationals, except BN(O)s and including British citizens, are first issued certificates of registration before they can apply for passports. Having a British passport isn't a right, but BN(O)s have a unique entitlement to hold passports of that status. Here's a Home Office document on the definition of "British national". Wikilinked the term in the article to be more explicit to what it's referring to. Horserice (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But British nationals appears to include British citizens? As the technical language here is confusing, using it makes the text hard to follow. Something along the lines of "BN(O)s are entitled to hold a British passport, a right available only to them and British citizens" (this is probably clunky as well and likely not precise enough, but hopefully illustrates what I'm getting at). Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, English is hard. Stopped using "British national" here and changed it to say that members of all the other nationality classes don't have this right. Yes, even British citizens don't possess British passports as a right. Horserice (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2019 [15].

Cyclone Raja

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Severe Tropical Cyclone Raja which impacted the South Pacific over the New Year of 1986/87. I have researched it in depth over the last few years and feel that the article is now complete and would benefit from an FAC. Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, most are really easy.

Otherwise, the article is in good shape. It's generally well-written, and explains an old storm well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hurricane Noah

[edit]

I will do a full review later, but I had some items I wanted to address first.

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Source links are all working, per the external links checker tool
  • Various format issues:
  • There's a problem with the page ranges in ref 2
  • There are format inconsistencies in the archive and retrieval dates. Sometimes MDY is used, sometimes DMY. Decide on one or the other.
  • Language needs to be indicated for refs 6, 13, 25, and 27
  • Page refs should be given for news sources where there is no online link. This applies to refs 30, 31, 35, 36, 41, 43, 47 and 48
  • Subscription templates are pointless when there is no online link.
  • Support on prose, content, and presentation. A comprehensive and well-researched article with clear, no-nonsense prose. I've made a few minor edits, which the author can feel free to revert at his discretion if I've inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. My only outstanding critique would be that there's no link to the parent tropical cyclone page... it would be good to work that in somewhere. Otherwise, excellent. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Support by TropicalAnalystwx13

  • I don't think dashes are needed for "tropical-cyclone alerts" throughout the article?
  • Can you link "storm warning" somewhere?
  • "Although the system moved southwest and affected Tuvalu as expected, it failed to deepen as quickly as anticipated, however, its strong, gusty winds and high seas caused extensive damage to crops, coastal installations and buildings and flooded low-lying areas on the island nation." - This is a large sentence, can we use a semicolon or a period around "however"?
  • A pierod works better imo.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gale warnings were issued on 25 December for the two islands and remained in place until 28 December" - Wikilink gale.
  • "A tropical-cyclone alert was issued for the islands of southern Tonga on 29 December, when the possibility arose that Raja would turn southeast and affect central and southern Tonga.[3] The threat to Tonga increased, with a gale warning issued for Tongatapu and the Nomuka group of islands before all warnings for Tonga were cancelled on 30 December.[3]" - We established the threat increased when TC alerts were put in place, I don't think we need to explicitly say it.
  • "It also generated high seas, flooding, landslides and a storm surge which damaged Futuna's grass airstrip." - Wikilink storm surge.
  • "The aircraft, which also carried French Secretary of State for the South Pacific Gaston Flosse, evacuated the most seriously injured casualties to Wallis." - Just for me, "seriously injured casualties" is a bit repetitive. Can we substitute causalities for persons or individuals or something like that?

That's it from me. ☁❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2019 [16].

Lion-class battleship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. I've written the article in past tense, as did the bulk of my sources, since construction was actually begun, to avoid a multiplicity of "would have"s and its synonyms which I fear would have caused loss of consciousness in the readers from the monotony. As always I'm looking for any remaining infelicitous prose or unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship Which kinda "tons"? I think long tons am I right?
    • It was converted on first use in the para above.
  • decided to limit itself to 40,000 tons Same as above.
    • converted earlier in the paragraph
  • 785 feet (239.3 m), a beam of 105 feet (32.0 m) The oh isn't necessary.
  • system amidships from 13.25 feet (4.0 m) Same as above.
  • and a draught of 29 feet 6 inches (9.0 m) Same as above.
  • equipped with six 330-kilowatt (440 hp) turbogenerators What kinda horse power?
    • Not specified in the source.
  • and temperature of 700 °F (371 °C) I'm not sure or the Britons use °F instead of °C I think they use °C.
    • Not back then.
  • thick and was 433 feet (132.0 m) long The oh isn't necessary.
  • I see a lot of "em dashes" instead of "en dashes" like in this example with only 3–4.5 inches (76–114 mm) of armour.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Only two ships were laid down before the Second World War began in September 1939 and a third was ordered during the war, but their construction was suspended shortly afterwards. " I might sub a semicolon for the "and".
  • I dunno, that would leave a contrasting "but" in the latter half that refers to everything in front of it.
  • "although there was a proposal to modify one of the suspended ships into a hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier with two 16-inch gun turrets and a flight deck in 1941." To stop it from getting lost, I might move up the "in 1941" to after the word "proposal"
  • "The London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended the ban for five more years, which meant that almost all of the First World War-era ships would be eligible for replacement by the Washington Treaty's rules when it expired. " I am unsure what accord the "it" refers to.
  • It reads a bit muddled about what accord was in effect in 1937 by which the calibre was restricted when, by the terms of what I've read there, all agreements will have expired by that year at latest.
  • I think that I've clarified this, see how it works for you.
  • "The Board of Admiralty then began preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship armed with 16-inch guns and it was promising enough that the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) was ordered to further investigate such designs, providing for several aircraft as well" the last phrase seems tacked on, I'm not clear what is meant about the aircraft. I surmise they wanted the ship to be able to launch planes but that is just my surmise.
  • The preliminary designs were not intended to operate aircraft; when the design went to the DNC for more detailed work, the Admiralty added a requirement to operate aircraft. But this is pretty esoteric at this stage and can profitably be dropped.
  • Similarly to a bit above, I'm unclear what treaty still imposed limits after 31 March 1938. Were the Japanese parties to the agreement with the Americans talked about?
  • The Japanese rejected 2nd London in its entirety which basically made it irrelevant when the various escalator clauses kicked in. What can I add to help clarify the situation?
More soon. Interesting you're doing ships that never were while I'm doing a coin that never saw the light of day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it was suspended again in May 1940." Anything to do with the political or military events of that month?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking this over, see if there are any further changes that you'd like to see made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Spotchecks not done, but nominator has a long history at FAC
  • Sources used are all high-quality references of the sort one would expect to be used. Citations are formatted uniformly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Sorry for the wait, will read the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and spell out "King George V class" at first mention outside intro too.
    • Why? The link in the lede is only a couple of paras up.
Per WP:wikilinks, terms linked in the intro should be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. This is the relevant text from MOS:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2019 [17].

1257 Samalas eruption

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a large, recently discovered volcanic eruption in Indonesia that took place in 1257. Actually, the existence of this eruption was known since the 1980s-1990s when traces of a large volcanic event - one of the largest in the last 10,000 years - were discovered in ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica but only in 2013 did a group of researchers specifically link it to the Rinjani volcano, thanks to historical records which also give the name Samalas. This eruption is considered to be responsible both for short term climate change and also potentially for the onset of the Little Ice Age - the latter point especially has gained it a lot of attention in the research community and the popular press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two postscripts:
  • While not part of the FAC proper, there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about sources and content that reviewers might be interested in.
  • I realize that we don't like weasel words, but there ain't a clear cut scientific consensus that 1257 Samalas eruption caused the Little Ice Age. Yes, the idea has strong support in the sources I've seen but it's not (yet) as widely agreed upon as, say, "present-day global warming is man-made". Hence why I formulated it as a "it is possible" statement.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Jim

[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I’m not keen on red links in the lead. Not a big deal, but perhaps a one-sentence stub for these implicitly notable topics would be worthwhile?
Maybe, but I am not too keen of microstubs especially since it's not technically a FAC requirement as far as I know. Anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think we link countries now, especially as you haven’t been consistent on this; looks a bit Eurocentric as it is.
Took out the links except for the Indonesia link as the volcano is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • occurred at Mount Samalas thanks to historical records — comma after Samalas
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • before 12,000 BP.— “earlier than “ might be better to avoid the implicit repay of “before”
I dunno, "earlier than" sounds a little odd in this context. As if it emphasized the "earlier" aspect too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eruption column reached a height of 39–40 kilometres (24–25 mi) during the first stage (P1),[27] and of 43–38 kilometres (27–24 mi)— I assume there’s a reason why you have reversed the normal order in the second part, but if so it’s not clear to this reader
Nah, that was unneeded. Ordered again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franck Lavigne— who he? Nationality and profession would help since there’s no article linked
Can't find an explanation on a brief search; I'll see later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samalas and climate—I'd try to avoid having part of the article title in the heading
Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • chlorine monoxide and bromine monoxide.— Your source doesn’t mention the oxides, which I would have thought to have only a transient presence anyway
It does mention them in the form of their formulas - ClO and BrO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, you are correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "violets" should surely link to Viola (plant)? The others don't make sense
Maybe, but the source does not specify. You sure it can be only this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually most likely to be Viola arvensis, so the genus is actually playing safe to my mind. In my nature reserve and bird articles I'm often faced with a similar situation, but there is usually an obvious species or genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • atlantic meridional overturning circulation—cap Atlantic
Capped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mirror of the East—perhaps give Japanese name too?
Removed the English one as it doesn't seem to be that important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Addressed the other two pending problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, the chlorine query was my misreading, and I think the Lavigne/Viola queries I can leave with you, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stevey7788

[edit]
  • "CLIMATIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTION OF 1258" is in all caps. Change to lowercase and capitalize only as needed.
  • "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died. — Javanese text, [64]" Which Javanese text? Please be more specific.
  • A bit too many red links. Consider fixing those, although I am aware that Wikipedia has a notable dearth of content on Indonesian manuscripts and historical kingdoms.
  • Overall, impressive and well cited. Good article but not quite yet a featured article yet due to various little things here and there. Some more tweaking and you might have a featured article.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevey7788:Thanks for the comments. I did fix the caps issue and also the "Javanese text" bit. I cannot really fix many of the redlinks mostly owing to lack of information; sources on some of these topics are often sparse and/or in Bahasa Indonesia. I take that even so there are more things to tweak? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevey7788: Unfortunately, no. I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia and are nowhere close to Canberra or Leiden for my free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources working satisfactorily
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Ref 64: pp range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Retrieval dates should be formatted consistently – compare refs 2 and 63 with others
  • Alloway et al is listed out of alphabetical sequence.

The sources appear to be of the appropriate high standards of quality and reliability, and except for the minor issues noted above are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Seems like I got all these done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my extensive peer review comments. ceranthor 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support from Iridescent

[edit]

The usual disclaimer that I haven't checked any sources or images. As always, I've not read any other FAC comments to come at it with fresh eyes, so there may be duplication of other people's points. This is the version on which I'm commenting.

General gripe
[edit]
  • There's an awful lot of repetition of "likewise".
Cut a couple of mentions, although I am not sure if "too too" is good writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • It will make the "brilliant prose" people choke on their cornflakes, but I'd explicitly start this with the full-format year in the first sentence. (Assuming you want to avoid "The 1257 Samalas eruption was a major eruption of the Samalas volcano in 1257 CE", something like The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257 CE" or similar would work.) Usually it's immediately obvious that we're talking about a date, but in this instance readers—particularly the nonspecialist readers who'll see it if it's at TFA, and are familiar with Wikipedia's over-reliance on technical jargon and never saying "oak tree" when we can say "Quercus robur"—might well assume that "1257 Samalas" is the formal name of the volcano in the International Volcano Directory in the same way that 1257 Móra is the formal name of the Móra asteroid. Because Indonesia is an Islamic country, even people who do immediately recognize "1257" as a year won't necessarily know which calendar is being used.
Took a bit of a rewrite, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eruption had a probable Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7 maybe ought to have an explanatory footnote (it would be too intrusive to put it in parentheses in the lead), explaining that 7 is a Really Big Deal. People are so used to decimal scales (1-10 or 1-100) that non-specialist readers are going to interpret this as "70% as powerful as a really big volcano". This is a hyper-trivial point and certainly not something I'd oppose over.
Added a footnote to explain this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't your fault, but a redlinked city name is jarring, particularly in the lead, and will probably prompt an endless stream of good-faith readers to ask "is this what you meant?" or even accuse you of hoaxing. Much as I hate substubs, it would probably make sense to bluelink Pamatan, even if it's just a one-liner that says "Pamatan was a city on Lombok that was destroyed in the 1257 Samalas eruption". Again not something which is this article's fault so not something I'd support/oppose over.
Penned up a microstub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long cold period during the last thousand years. If it happened in 1257, then by definition it could have triggered something over the last 760 years at most.
That's true, but not all of the "last thousand years" is part of the Little Ice Age. Does this need clarification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
[edit]
  • This could probably do with a map to give readers at least a fighting chance of knowing where it is. The map in the lead pinpoints the volcano within Lombok, but I'm sure I'm not alone in not having the slightest idea where Lombok is.
File:Lombok Locator.svg seems like it might work, but I'll ask Gunkarta about the basemap - I've seen problems in the past at FAC with maps that didn't specify the source of topographical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it is derived from an unproblematic source, so added it to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Samalas (also known as Rinjani Tua), wrap "Rinjani Tua" in the appropriate {{lang}} template, otherwise that's going to confuse screen readers.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the eruption, Mount Samalas may have been as tall as 4,200 ± 100 metres—how tall is it now? Bear in mind that most readers won't know the mechanism of vulcanism, and won't know whether the force of the eruption destroyed the mountain and reduced its height, or whether all that additional lava squirting out and solidifying caused it to rise. (It's mentioned at the very end that the present height is 2800m, but a long way afterwards.)
Oy, this is a hard one - Samalas is a twin mountain with Rinjani, and its current maximum height currently is not specified but certainly less than Rinjani's. Expanded it a bit; is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volcanic rocks ejected by the eruption covered Bali and Lombok—Lombok maybe, but Bali was clearly not covered by rock in 1257. Our Bali Kingdom article is fairly crappy but the relevant section doesn't even mention the eruption, so it presumably isn't considered that big a deal by historians of Bali.
Good question. As noted farther down in the Indonesia section and also (implicitly) in the Bali Kingdom article itself, the historical record is fairly poor for that time of Bali, so I suspect it's simply lack of information rather than a conscious choice by historians. The source for this claim here is definitive that volcanic rocks covered all of Bali. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruptions of comparable intensity include… is followed by a long list, all but one of which are dated.
Added date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eruption that formed the caldera was first recognized in 2003—I don't understand this. Did people not realize prior to 2003 that the big thing which had erupted 15 times since 1847 was a volcano?
They did, but not the particular eruption that formed the caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Research history
[edit]
  • The major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores and from medieval records in the northern hemisphere; I get what you're trying to say here, but surely the major volcanic event was first identified by the people of Indonesia in 1257?
Most likely yes, but it only came to wider knowledge when scientists in the 20-21st century first found traces of the eruption in ice cores, and later linked it back to the Samalas event. I am also not entirely sure about when Babad Lombok was written, it's possible it happened some years after the fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, 13th-century Bali was thoroughly interconnected with other Asian cultures. Do any contemporary Chinese, Indian or Islamic sources mention the eruption or its effects?
I confess that this is a language barrier too far for me but I suspect that no historical sources on the eruption exist or are known yet - other than the climate aftermath mentioned in the Northeast Asia section and of course Babad Lombok. None of the English language sources discuss any references to the event in Chinese, Indian and Islamic sources and I suspect it's not simply a language barrier issue or sloppy science - English-language sources about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption 3-4 centuries later definitively reference Chinese sources about the aftermath of that event, so if there were obvious references to the Samalas one there I'd expect the sources to mention that at least offhand. Could be that we find evidence in the near future, just like Babad Lombok was known already before but linked to the 1257 event only in 2013. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • …with the global spread indicating a tropical volcano as the cause; at first a source in a volcano near Greenland had been considered; this seems a bit of a non-sequitur.
What it's trying to say is that at first it was proposed that a volcano close to Greenland was the source; then that was discarded in favour of a tropical event. Would it work better in a chronological order? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Climate effects
[edit]
  • How did the effects of this compare to Krakatoa, which is realistically going to be the only Indonesian volcanic eruption most readers have heard of?
Added a bit about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another effect of the eruption-induced climate change may have been a brief decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide—with the disclaimer that I know nothing about climatology, this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely an event causing mass plant die-back is going to increase the CO2 level?
Added a sentence to explain this one. There are complicated oceanic and biological responses to volcanic eruptions that seem to end up with a drop of Co2 concentrations. That sentence is perhaps too long but I dunno how to split it up wisely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Samalas eruption, together with another eruption in the 14th century, set off a growth of ice caps and sea ice—where was the other eruption in the 14th century, and do we actually know that the Samalas eruption was the cause rather than just a contributing factor? The view of people like William Ruddiman that climatic variations are primarily the result of fluctuations in human activity may be a minority view but AFAIK hasn't been discredited yet. The remainder of this paragraph is full of "may have" and "coincides with", but this first sentence states it as undisputed fact without qualification.
I've qualified the statement as that source was the only one to make the claim without qualification and corrected it a bit as well as it seems like I misread the source as saying "eruption" rather than "cooling" originally. As an aside, I don't know this Ruddiman but a human cause for the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age has certainly been advanced, but I can't say whether it's a widespread view - the climate-historiography of the LIA has certainly changed over the 20th-21st century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre needs to be more specific as to what's actually meant. Israel was founded in 1947 and obviously didn't exist at the time, so where are we talking about? Plus, by "sea level" are we talking about the Mediterranean coast—in which case, how could the sea level only drop at the Israel end and not affect the rest of the Med, since the sea level dropping by 50cm in Marseille or Constantinople would certainly have been noticed—or just the usual fluctuations in the Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea?
The Crusader states per the meta-source; I've added that information. As for why not "mediterranean coast" - sea level changes are not necessarily similar across even limited areas as oceans are not communicating vessels and things like wind changes can push the sea in one direction only. Also, maybe I have less faith in chronists than you, but the discovery that many significant volcanic events at Etna happened in historical times but are unrecorded in contemporary history makes me a little wary on relying on historical sources to establish that something did not happen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • little evidence that tree growth was affected in the Western United States, where the eruption may have interrupted a prolonged drought period—surely a prolonged drought period by definition would have affected tree growth? Plus the same grumble regarding "United States" as per "Israel" above, given that the US wouldn't exist for another five centuries.
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Social and historical consequences
[edit]
  • Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano will earn you an entry at Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment, but probably ought to be removed unless you want EEng making sarcastic comments.
Yanked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question first well documented food crisis in England; there are numerous contemporary records of the famines in the wake of the Conquest, in particular the Harrying of the North.
The source does not seem to be aware of any pre-1200 famine so while the author's credentials seem good enough I am guessing they didn't research far enough back in time; I'll remove this for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting famine was severe enough that grain was imported from Germany and Holland—what's unusual about this?
The source and meta-source do seem to consider it a big deal that food was imported. I am not that familiar with medieval famine management to know whether that would be unusual or not. AFAIK in the Bengal famine and the Great Irish famine centuries later in much more interconnected worlds part of the blame has been laid to the lack of/reduction of food imports/continuation of food exports, so I would not necessarily assume that shipping food over is a normal response to medieval famines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The effects of the eruption may also have hastened the decline of the Mongol Empire—I don't get this at all. The decades after 1257 were the reign of Kublai Khan and the high-point of Mongol expansion.
Division of the Mongol Empire does hint that in the years subsequent to that some wheels did begin to fall off. The source itself hedges quite a bit, they think that the volcano could have hastened the decline that happened after the partitions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are almost all minor nitpicks. Provisional support pending clarification of "A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre", which is the only thing I'd consider an actual issue rather than a "personally I think this could be clearer". ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano – I'm torn between WP:ASTONISHME and WP:BLUE on this one. Hard as it may be to believe, that's not the worst that's wrong with that particular sentence, which I present here in its magnificent stumbling entirety:
Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano and, through their effects on climate, significant human hardship, including famine, away from the volcano although the social effects are often reduced by the resilience of humans.
EEng 18:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Answered a couple of points. I'll get to the others tomorrow as I am almost falling asleep but I rewrote that sentence EEng flagged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got most of them now and commented on other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to ping: @Iridescent and EEng:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "Volcanic Explosivity Index". Why the upper case initial letters? I note that the article is inconsistent in this usage.
Standardized as all uppercase as it's a proper name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ash from the eruption fell as far away as Java" It would be helpful to indicate the maximum distance at which ashfall has been recorded, as well as, or even instead of, that this was Java.
That would be difficult as ash fall exponentially thins with distance and at some point is no longer relevant; but there are some distances mentioned in the "eruption" section including a commented out section Even farther away, an ash layer in Lake Malawi in Africa has been linked to the Samalas eruption.[1] (the commenting-out is due to the source saying in Lake Malawi sediments (1°S, 34.5°E), as a thickash layer of age within dating uncertainties (100 yr)of 1258 A.D. (T. C. Johnson 2006, personal commu-nication).. I've added a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These pumices fell as far away as Sumbawa in the east", Which is how far?
Specified, but not sure about the wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The emplacement of these pumices was followed". "Emplacement" reads oddly to me; is there a better word or phrase?
Maybe "deposition" but that is already used several times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flowing around obstacles such as older volcanoes as they flowed across the island incinerating the island's vegetation" flowing and flowed within 10 words; island twice in 4 words, and three times in the sentence. Would it be possible to rephrase to cut the repetition?
I've rephrased some things here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The duration of the P1 and P3 phases is not known individually, but the two phases combined (not including P2) lasted between 12 and 15 hours." That doesn't really make sense - to me. Did the flows not occur in number order?
That's an odd quirk in the source, presumably because they created similar deposits which we cannot clock separately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estimates of the volumes erupted during the various stages of the Samalas eruption have yielded variable results." Seems a little clunky to me. How about 'There are a [wide] range of estimates as to the volumes erupted during the various stages of the Samalas eruption' or similar?
Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Samalas Tephra"; "Samalas tephra". Could you standardise?
Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around 1259[60] - 1257" a, should be an en dash, not a hyphen; b, should be unspaced; c, the reference should be after, not within, the date range; why is range counting down?
Done, the ref has to stay there as different ages have been given by each source. I can't do endashes on my laptop AFAIK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died" Quotes of less than 40 words should be contained within the text. If you don't want it in the text, use a quote box.
I am pretty sure this is a quote box. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other records of the eruption's impact include … frost rings" Do we know where these occurred? The locations of all of the other records are given, so this absence stands out.
Yeah, there are many places where frost rings have been observed, thus I've opted to have only a generic mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably because the large sulfate output altered the average size of particles and thus their radiation forcing." Should that be Radiative forcing.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " For comparison, the radiation forcing of Pinatubo's... " Could you move the link to first mention.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Southern Annular Mode " Why the upper case initial letters?
It's apparently a proper term for that concept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by ash and high-speed sweeps of gas and rocks" Is "sweeps" the correct technical expression? If not, would it be possible t have a more felicitous word or expression?
My vocabulary is failing me on an alternative here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also - together with other texts - the source of the name "Samalas"." Those hyphens should be spaced en dashes.
See my previous note about en dashes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how it has happened, but there is a comma after Babad Lombok, after the block quote, which shouldn't be there.
Seems to be an artifact of the {{quote}} template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swollen and rotting in groups of five or six, the dead lay abandoned in pigsties, on dunghills, and in the muddy streets." See above re in-text quotes and quote boxes.
I dunno, is there a better format for this? I think such a quote needs to stand alone, if only to catch some attention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Europe and the Near East" includes information from the "Middle East".
Changed the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northern Africa" might be better referred to as North Africa and linked.
Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the long term, the cooling of and sea ice expansion in the North Atlantic" I don't understand this; is there a word missing between "of" and "and"?
It's supposed to refer to "North Atlantic"; would it work better as "the cooling of the North Atlantic and sea ice expansion therein"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a nice piece of work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Remedied and replied as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So I have boldly sorted it out to a condition which I am happy to support - en dashes, quote boxes, a couple of new words, incorporating your suggestions (which were good). It seemed easier than going back and forth several times. That said, it is your article, so if there is anything you are not happy with, let me know here and we'll discuss.
Having gone through for a third time, I am even more impressed.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:Changed "fall" to "deposition" as it's not entirely clear it was a fall from the sky deal, otherwise left your edit in place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I am happy to support. (I had typed "deposition", then thought about your comment on its frequency and changed it.) A fine FA standard article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this case IMO a bit more repetition is the lesser evil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

All of the images are appropriately licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking now and finding some prose issues....

  • The first sentence is jarring. I would rearrange material by placing the location (sentence 3) into the first sentence. Then put the caldera/aftermath as sentence 3 (after measurement of hte eruption)
  • The remains of Samalas form the Segara Anak caldera, with Mount Rinjani at its eastern edge - I'd change to "Its remains form the Segara Anak caldera, with Mount Rinjani at its eastern edge" as there are alot of "Samalas" in the sentences here.
Attempted rewrites to cover both issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Not sure that The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257 CE on Lombok Island in Indonesia. It had a probable Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7, is a good replacement text, as "it" refers to the eruption but in that sequence it appears to refer to the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I need to look at it again. I just think it needs a rejig for flow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I've changed a bit in the lead. Does the flow work better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores - why are we saying the year range here if we've established it as in 1257?
Because at first it was not clear in which year it took place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should it be "A major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified...." as the way it is written it's not clear it is Samalas at this point...or is it? It it is, then "This major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores.." might help link it to the previous section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Went with A major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first discovered from data in ice cores; Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the winter of 1260–01 was very severe in Iceland, Italy, and elsewhere - presume this should be "1260–61"...?
Rectified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Europe, excess rain, cold and high cloudiness... ...err, what's "high cloudiness"?
An unusually large cloud cover/cloudy weather, basically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the material from historical records is a bit scant (probably because of meagreness in sources), but if there is more it'd be good to embellish/flesh out.
Yeah, the science of connecting historical records to climate events is not very advanced so far. The "Social and historical consequences" section is basically all that I could dredge together on the topic that is explicitly linked to the 1257 event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusive link between these events and an eruption of Samalas was made in 2013 on the basis of historical records in Indonesia: the Babad Lombok, a series of writings in Old Javanese on palm leaves,[51] written in the 13th century, induced Franck Lavigne,[53] a geoscientist of the Pantheon-Sorbonne University[76] who had already suspected that a volcano on Lombok may be responsible, to conclude that the Samalas volcano was responsible. - this is really long and hard to follow. The way it's written suggests there are other sources reporting the eruption. If this is so they should be list. If not, then I'd remove "historical records in Indonesia:" and write something like "These events were linked to an eruption of Samalas in 2013 by the discovery/analysis of the Babad Lombok, a series of 13th-century writings in Old Javanese on palm leaves."
There is only Babad Lombok plus some tree data. I've split the sentence up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In which case recommend removing "historical records in Indonesia:" - the segment is still pretty wordy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted a further rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The signal is the strongest in the southern hemisphere for the last 1000 years - "for" is awkward here. "over"?
That works, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • one reconstruction even considers it the strongest of the last 2500 years - surely this can be tacked on somehow onto the 1000 years sentence?
Did so, but I wonder now about the next sentence, it looks a bit lonely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long cold period during the last thousand years. - how about, "The eruption had a possible role in triggering the 450-year long Little Ice Age" or somesuch.
Did a variant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I feel the prose has a choppiness to it but am having trouble identifying ways to smoothe it out. Am reading more..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Actioned the comments so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree re. choppiness based on my own reading and light ce a few days ago, although I think (not just through my ce) that it's looking better. Cas, are you ready to take another look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking better apart from part of one paragraph in body of text discussed above. Also I am in two minds about the lead, but I can't make out any alterantive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the lead and that paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ian Rose: tell me what you think of this rejig of the lead (which I have reverted for the time being). I think it should be congealed into two paragraphs, and this way is more chronological and presents the eruption in a sequential fashion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: You know, that lead actually looks quite good. Less stubby-paragraph style than the current one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok great. I think so too. Some bits might go better in slightly different locations, but have a play with it. I have just unreverted - just experiment ... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Did some more changes. Anything else to do? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there....one final query - how important is it to say " This eruption had four distinct phases" in the lead? Would any meaning be lost by removing it? (particularly as there don't appear to be four phases then listed...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:Not really important, I'd say. In fact, yesterday I was wondering whether to yank it. I've removed it now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, smoothing out the lead has been really important for the article and I think we're across the line now. Nothing is jumping out at me now prose-wise (I guess if I looked really hard I could find some stuff but it isn't obvious) and it's pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 May 2019 (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) 6 May 2019 [18].

Hannah Glasse

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Glasse is an interesting figure in English culinary history. Although she copied some of the recipes in her book (as did every other writer of the time), she checked most of them, updating, changing and improving the recipes as she did so. She didn't have an easy life, and eventually had to sell the rights to her book to cover her debts. This has been rewritten recently, with additional sources and coverage. Any and all comments in good faith are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent

[edit]

I've not checked sources or images. This version is the version reviewed.

Lead
[edit]
  • I can see why you've used the title page with the signature—it's more interesting than a dusty cover—but prepare for someone to complain. (I assume that the first edition was leather-bound and didn't have a "cover design" as such.)
  • This is a preference rather than anything stronger, but I think you should include how her name was pronounced (assuming we know), since I can think of at least three different and plausible ways to pronounce "Glasse".
  • best-selling volume of its type—is the type cookbooks in particular, or how-to books in general?
  • Maybe a stupid query—and not directly relevant to this article—but why were the Marquess of Donegal's estates in Essex rather than Donegal?
  • Again, something I'll check on, just to make sure I've reflected the sources adequately - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all their estates were in Essex. The first Earl was a Devonian (where the family had estates) and in 1641 he put down an rebellion in Ulster for which he was made the Earl of Donegall. I can't find any other references to Essex on the other Earls, but the several sources are adamant that the 4th Earl was living in Broomfield. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her books were plagiarised for others is a bit jarring to me, as on first skim I read that as a misprint of "plagiarised by others". Maybe something like "other authors plagiarised her writing"?
Biography
[edit]
  • The first paragraph has a definite surfeit of Hannahs and it's not clear who was who. I think what's being said is Isaac had a wife called Hannah with whom he had a child named Lancelot, and a mistress who was also called Hannah, with whom he had a child who was also called Hannah, but it's definitely not clear.
  • I believe (but haven't changed it in case I'm wrong) that you've confused the DNB and ODNB.
  • Although her family were angered when they found out, cordial relations soon resumed—up to this point, there don't appear to have been any cordial relations with her family. All we've heard of them thus far is that her mother is dead, her father is a philandering wastrel, and her grandmother has forbidden her from socialising.
  • Agreed this may seem odd, but it's what the source tells us: Hannah wrote to her aunt apologizing for the secrecy but not for the marriage. Friendly exchange of letters recommenced between Hannah and the Allgoods in 1728 is from the ODNB. Although her father was a PW, it seems (reading between the lines) they sort of got on - and she did with her half-brother, as he visited her in London later in life. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earl of Donegal or Marquess of Donegall? The title (and the spelling of Donegal/l) is inconsistent with the lead.
  • If the family were always broke, do we have any idea how they managed to send the kids to the two most expensive schools in the country?
  • Possibly because they did send their sons there! Sadly the sources aren't clear on this. We know she had her "an annual income and a sum of capital" (as we say in the second para), but how it was spent, or her levels of income/outgoings aren't clarified anywhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains illustrations from later editions of the book; were they there in the original, or were they later additions? Did she draw them herself?
  • There is nothing specifically about the illustrations in the RS. My original research shows nothing up to the fifth edition (which was the one she sold the copyright on). So any illustrations were later than that and she would (probably) have had no hand in them at all. I'm going back over the sources to see if I can find even a trace of something I can use, but no dice so far. - SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that she had "so many coaches at her door", the patronage of the royals etc, have we any idea how she racked up £10,000 in debts?
  • None that I have found. The sources on her life are a bit scant. This is what one or two historians have pieced together from trade directories, London Gazette, etc, rather than any contemporary biography or account. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cook had been in a feud with Allgood—Isaac or Lancelot? Neither the text nor the footnote makes it clear which Allgood we're talking about here.
Books
[edit]
  • 150 years before the introduction of the Oxo brand bouillon cube; firstly, the Americanism of "bouillon cube" is jarring to me; secondly, why single out Oxo cubes? Lemco were making beef stock in Britain decades before the Oxo cube came along.
  • Did "A Certain Cure for the Bite of a Mad Dog" and a "Receipt against the Plague" work? I know we're slipping into WP:MEDRS territory if we give specifics, but I imagine readers would be interested to know.
  • I've not found anything more than a passing reference to the existence of these 'recipes'. I've gone over some plague literature in the search, but nothing came up that I could find. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
[edit]
  • If her signature appeared in the front and all editions from the fifth edition onwards bore her name, how was her identity as the author lost?
  • It was printed in the US in 1805 and was popular in Williamsburg, Virginia—is there any particular significance to Williamsburg? This seems to me to be a 19th-century US equivalent of "it was sold in the UK and was popular in Macclesfield".

All very minor nitpicks, quibbles and "not how I'd have done it"s rather than actual issues, and nothing to preclude support. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks indeed, Iri. I'm much indebted to you and will enjoy going through these shortly. (Unfortunately the sunny day and my missus with a list of DIY jobs to do gets in the way first!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, add another one: the article says Glasse departs from many of her predecessors and does not provide a section of medical advice (and she makes the same claim), but on actually leafing through the book she doesn't seem to have been able to resist—e.g. virtually everything on these two pages. The instructions for making "artificial asses milk" from crushed snails, ginger and hartshorn definitely raise more questions than they answer. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little extra on this. No so much medicine, but "nutritious food for invalids", as Eliza Acton once called it. Thanks once again, and I think I've done the best I can with your comments. The sources are annoyingly thin on Glasse, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see this article on an under-represented topic at FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "and The Compleat Confectioner, which was published undated, but probably in 1760" - probably too many commas here and a bit complex for the lead - I'd suggest "and The Compleat Confectioner, which was probably published in 1760"
  • "respectable family" - what's a "respectable family" in this context? (we don't want to endorse 18th century norms, necessarily). Should this be "respected family"?
  • Do we know what Glasse's background as a cook and/or lady of the house managing cooks was? This would be helpful in explaining how she came to write a successful cook book, which is unclear at present. Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely nothing! It is, I suppose, possible that while her husband worked as an estate steward for the Earl of Donegall, she would have been employed in some way in the house, but I can't find anything to suggest that in the sources. I'm still going over them to find something for Iri's review, so I'll bear this point in mind while searching. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

A brilliant topic that I'm very happy to see here. I'm sure I'll learn something interesting.

  • "best-selling recipe book that century" In the UK? Europe? The world?
  • "She copied extensively from other cookery books, and around a third of the recipes are from other books." To avoid repetition, can I suggest something like: "She copied extensively from other cookery books, with around a third of the recipes originally published elsewhere."
  • "providing Glasse with an annual income and a sum of capital" Is it appropriate to call her "Glass", here, given that this wasn't her name at the time? Same in the next paragraph.
  • Yes, no, maybe..! I have had extensive grief from one or two individuals about the naming of subjects. I think we're OK to use the "name best known by" throughout the article, regardless of her maiden name, but if there is some guidance from MoS or similar that suggests otherwise, I'm happy to change it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As was the practice for publishers at the time, Glasse had to provide the names of subscribers—those who had pre-paid for a copy—who were listed inside the work; 202 were listed at the front of the first edition; that number increased for the second and third editions." Could I recommend splitting this sentence?
  • Who was the author of The Whole Duty of a Woman?
  • "recipes were not covered against copyright" Is against the right word here?
  • "£10,000 in 1754 equates to around £1,490,000" In what year? 2019?
  • "There are other possible dates for the publication, including 1760[54] and 1762.[55]" 1760 isn't another date - it's the one mentioned in the prose
  • "Information about Glasse's identity was lost for years." I feel this is something that might belong in the lead!
  • You refer to "Stead" before you've introduced her; perhaps it would be useful to mention who she and Bain are? (Historians? Food writers?)
  • You refer to "the 1971 reprint", but haven't actually mentioned it. Until that point, I'd guessed that the first 20th century publication had been in 1983.

I really enjoyed reading this. I even chuckled. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, but this is a new topic to me, so I may have missed something. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

The (very minor) points I raised at the peer review were all attended to then, and I have struggled to find anything more to quibble at.

  • In the penultimate paragraph of the article "The 310th anniversary of Hannah Glasse's birthday" might possibly be better as "The 310th anniversary of Hannah Glasse's birth", given the strange quirk of the English Language that one's birthday is not the day of one's birth but the first and subsequent anniversaries of it.
  • I wonder why you have singled out "confectionary", "pye" and "tye" for a sic each, when you (rightly in my view) allow "compleat", "gellies", "oeconomy", "expence" etc to escape sic-ing.
  • In the Sources, if you feel the reader needs to know that Stroud is in Gloucs, Totness in Devon and Abingdon in Oxon perhaps a similar geographical aide memoire would be appropriate for Harmondsworth.
  • Not strictly to do with this review, but this is a convenient place to mention that I think the wizards at the Photography workshop might well be able to improve the three very yellowed scans from the 1828 book if you ask them.

The article meets all the FA criteria in my view, and was a pleasure to reread for this review. – Tim riley talk 08:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Tim: I am very much obliged for your double-duty on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley, disambiguating "Harmondsworth" isn't as simple as Stroud, Abingdon etc. Harmondsworth (better known to the rest of the world by the name of its former outlying hamlet Heathrow) got batted around between different local authorities quite regularly in the 20th century. "Middlesex", its traditional county, would be misleading as by the point this book was published the last vestiges of Middx had been dissolved, "London" would be true but misleading as the urban sprawl hadn't reached it yet even though it had been redistricted into Greater London in 1965, while "Hillingdon"—technically the local authority that covers it—is also misleading as Harmondsworth is at the extreme opposite end of Hillingdon Borough from Hillingdon Town. Penguin have finally abandoned the pretension of trying to pretend they're not in London, but this has always been a problem with referencing their earlier publications and there's no clear right answer. Rather than scrabbling around with some kind of "formerly Middlesex but now technically within the boundaries of London albeit geographically separated and with its own cultural identity" formula it would likely make more sense to just like Harmondsworth. ‑ Iridescent 08:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One solution would be replacing all of them with "England" or "United Kingdom". Josh Milburn (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what practical help is it to readers to say where a book was published? With the year and ISBN/OCLC the book is pinned down unambiguously, and it isn't all that ad rem where the publisher's offices were. Heresy? – Tim riley talk 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an argument I've seen before and, indeed, I have sympathy for it. Including an ISBN/OCLC does exactly that, but I have seen some people argue against the inclusion of ISBN/OCLC, which seems to be problematic to me. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

I'd read about Glasse, so great to see this. A couple of points you may wish to consider

  • subaltern on half-pay perhaps subaltern then on half-pay or similar, assuming it wasn't a permanent state of affairs
  • Although Glasse was banned from attending social events by her grandmother I visit Kenwood House when ever I can, and I'm aware that a former interesting resident Dido Elizabeth Belle couldn't attend formal family functions, not because of her mixed race or slave ancestry, but because she was illegitimate. Do we know if that's the reason for Gran's ban?
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim. Yes to your first point (now amended) and no to the second. Unfortunately real information about Glasse has proved scant, and the sources just don't cover most of the information I'd like to have included (skim through the responses to the reviewers above and it's the same litany of "not in the sources"). All very annoying, but hopefully some historian will get lucky at some point in future and fin something we can use. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the answer I was expecting, thanks anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?

Support from SN54129

[edit]

Looking good. Some—gulp!—tasty fare on offer  :)

  • Talking of tasty fare, does Glasse have recipes for sandwiches? Just wondering, as you've got a little MOS:SANDWICH poking in the TAoC section; I think this can be resolved by moving some of the later images down a piece, as they don't seem specific to their sections? (For example.)
  • Well the curry recipe is next to the mention of Glasse's use of the recipe. It's only three lines on a wide screen, so it's not too much of a problem I think (I only tend to bother when it looks bad on narrower screens or when it's a significant chunk of text sandwiched). - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note b) "the first published date"; sounds odd, and seems to beg a hyphen. "Date of first publication"?
  • Note g) "based on Consumer Price Index"; "based on the Consumer Price Index"—or even "based on the Consumer Price Index's".
  • Ah! Avoiding TR and his false titles I see  ;) "described by the historian Madeleine...and by the historian Gilly". Repetition, though?
  • "...Half the trade know this."—inline citation, as it's a little abandoned atm.7
  • Talking of false titles, who's Wendy Hall?
  • "(now sometimes called Welsh rarebit)"—h'mmm; could this be recast? "Later known as..."? After all, when is "now"...
  • First mention of Fench cooking, link French cuisine.
  • Any reason Robb-Smith's ODNB piece is referenced under "Journals" rather than "Books"? (Or "Internet", if you like)
  • Should probably still link His Nibs of Donegall; since that's the only redlink in his line, the odds on him having an article at some point seem more favourable than otherwise.
That worked up an appetite. Anyone gotta Pêche Blair?! ;) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

With a few quibbles:

Early life

  • "Allgood's wife died in 1724 and he fell ill; Glasse was sent to live with her grandmother." → "Soon after the death of his wife, Allgood fell ill and Glasse was sent to live with her grandmother." The semi-colon is a little jarring.
  • "Her family did not find out about the marriage for a month, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly" → "Her family found out about the marriage a month later, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly"
  • "Although her family were angered when they found out..." -- a little repetitive (found out), assuming you opt for my variation above. Could the two sentences be combined? "Her family were angry when they found out about the marriage a month later, when she moved out of her grandmother's house and in with her husband in Piccadilly. Cordial relations soon resumed, and a warm and friendly correspondence followed."
  • "Hannah's first letter to her grandmother apologised for the secrecy surrounding her marriage, but did not apologise for getting married." → too many "marriages/marrieds" and apologise/apologised. etc. Do we need to be reminded of the marriage in "surrounding her marriage", bearing in mind it features only in the previous sentence?
  • "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734; they were in lodgings until 1738, then moved to Greville Street." → "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734 where they lodged for four years before moving to Greville Street." Did they lodge in Greville Street? Not important, but if they did why is it important enough to mention? If they bought it, perhaps say, although I'm not sure I would.
  • The source uses the word (or similar) and I think it's more the point that although she was at one stage comfortably(ish) off, finances meant they did not purchase somewhere.
  • "The couple struggled constantly with finances, and in 1744 Glasse tried to sell Daffy's Elixir, a patent medicine, but the project did not take off." → I would probably drop the conjunction in favour of a semi-colon here.

Later years

  • "The book contained what was described as 'an essay upon the lady's Art of Cookery'" – Who described it as such?
  • "...described by the historian Madeleine Hope Dodds as a 'violent onslaught'" -- described/described
  • "...she was imprisoned as a debtor at Marshalsea gaol in June that year before being transferred to Fleet Prison that July." – that year/that July. "...transferred to Fleet Prison a month later"?

Legacy

  • Is there a reason why the google doodle factoid, dare I say, is a) included, and b) in a sentence all on its own?
  • I've merged it with the preceding para. I think it's worthy of inclusion - she is an oft-forgotten individual, and to reach several million Google users for a day is a relatively big deal. - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glasse has been admired by several modern cooks and food writers. The 20th century cookery writer Elizabeth David writes..." -- writers/writer/writes.
  • Did Fanny Craddock provide a forward or a foreword?

All minor and nothing to prevent my support of this excellent article. CassiantoTalk 20:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Verifiability: ref 101 contains a total of 13 page references. Where would I begin to look, if I wished to verify this content?
  • The recipes are cited in order of appearance. I've made this clearer, so the footnote now reads: "(Grigson 1993, pp. 31, 33, 37, 58, 139, 191, 225, 231, 240–241, 242, 260, 271–271, 283); recipes cited respectively." Does that work OK for you - the alternative would be to cite them separately, which I tried with this version (footnotes 97 to 109), which we can always go back to.
  • Formats:
  • Ref 74: p. range shows an mdash
  • Books, Glasse 1748: you could give the publisher location as London, and "published by the author".
  • Links: In the internet links, The British Museum is returning error 503, "service unavailable".
  • The whole British Museum site is down at the moment (or at least it is for me!) I'll keep an eye on it for a day or two and archive it when it's up.

Subject to these minor points, it appears that in terms of presentation, quality and reliability the sources meet all the standards required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ritchie333

[edit]

Looks good so far, most of the issues have been addressed by the look of it.

  • "Allgood took Reynolds and the young Hannah" - do we need "young" here? I assume this is to distinguish her from her mother in this sentence.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph in "Early life" has two clauses both starting "Glasse" which just jars a bit with repetition; can one be changed?
  • "Although Glasse was banned...." - this sentence is a bit long, can it be split?
  • "cordial dealings soon resumed, and a warm and friendly correspondence followed" - does this have to be in passive voice?
  • off topic - when I read " that they would rather be imposed on by a French booby" I think of this :-/
  • "She was not alone in plagiarising from other recipe writers" - not sure about "She was not alone", maybe "This plagarism was typical of the time"
  • "and the organisation was wayward in places" - what do we mean by "wayward"?
  • "Glasse's work included the essentials of sweet-, cake- and ices-making" - what is "ices-making" in this context?
  • "Copies of The Servants' Directory were also heavily pirated in America." - is "heavily pirated" a good choice of phrase here?

That's all I can think of for now. A good read and an insightful glimpse into the origins of modern cookery. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a support from me - well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]
Just under the wire, no doubt!

Support just a few things:

  • "John was also a widower" I don't know what the "also" is doing there, and it may lead to conclusions that this implies that there was a first widower lurking somewhere earlier in the paragraph, perhaps the lord.
  • " 4th Earl of Donegall" is it not possible to avoid the redlink by a pipe to the article on the title?
  • "The Glasses moved back to London in November 1734 where they lodged for four years before moving to Greville Street." this reads a bit confusingly given that Greville Street is in London.
  • "As was the practice for publishers at the time, Glasse had to provide the names of subscribers" had to implies compulsion, something stronger than mere practice.
  • "although these were often anglicised to remove the heavily flavoured sauces from meat dishes.[72][69] " The refs are in reverse order. Possibly you intend it so.
That's it. I'll leave you to these nitpicks. An interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carabinieri

[edit]

Hi. Maybe I'm missing something, but the structure of the article doesn't really make any sense to me. There are "Biography", "Books", and "Legacy" sections. The The Art of Cookery is discussed extensively in all three sections and the way the information is spread over those three sections seems arbitrary to me. The book's discussions of French cuisine are covered in both the "Biography" and the "Books" sections. Could you explain the structure of the article?

The use of "[sic]" (which is overlinked) also seems arbitrary. -- Carabinieri (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are possibly right on the Biography and Books sections (looking at it in the light of your comment), but I think the Legacy section covers a different area (all after her death). Let me go over the Biography section again - there may be some of that info that can be dropped down into the Books section (which I think is the better way for the info to move). I may have missed some parts where sic should be added: I'll look out for those too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain the initial rationale, the Biography section deals with the book and Glasse's writing of it and the content; the Books section is more an examination of the book's contents from a third party view, or placing it in terms of the advances of science, household developments etc. yes, there probably will be some overlap, but that was the original rationale used. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri, have a look now. I've moved all the 'contents' of the book down to the Books section and left Glasse's history and approach in the Biography section, where I think it should stay. The Legacy stuff I have left untouched, as it is all post-Glasse information. I've tweaked the sics too. Thanks for your thoughts on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's better. I'd consider moving the long quote about French cuisine to the paragraph that discusses Glasse's views on French cooking.
The "The television cook Clarissa Dickson Wright..." paragraph didn't exactly track to me. The first sentence places Glasse within the history of English cooking. Wouldn't be more at home in the legacy section which also discusses Wright's views on Glass? The next sentences are about Glasse being part of the trend towards more savory rather than sweet dishes. But then the quote seems to be criticizing this trend. Maybe I'm missing something. Does this mean that her desserts were more savory than earlier recipes?
"According to the historian Caroline Lieffers, Glasse..." again seems to be about placing Glasse within the broader history, so it would also seem to belong in the legacy section. It segues into discussion of the contents of the book, so I can see why it goes here, but I wonder if the information should be organized differently to avoid this jumping back and forth.
  • With this and the CDW reference above, we are placing Glasse's work in the context of 18th century English cuisine, which is important. The legacy section is just that: the effect Glasse had on later writers, cooks and cookery. I'm happy that we keep the distinction between the two eras separate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the use of "[sic]": I'd actually suggest removing all of them. I think readers will get that her spelling is now obsolete. If you prefer to keep them in, "desert" and "publick" at the very least need them, but arguably "any Thing","every body", and "calves feet" do too. I'd strongly suggest dropping the [sic] after "The Compleat Housewife" since none of the other book titles have it. Footnote p then uses [sic] outside of a quote and features both "pye" and "pie". Did she use both spellings? (Also, maybe add a link for "bon chrétiens pears"?)
  • In reverse order: yes, I've added a link to the pears; yes, Grigson used both spellings; and I'm fairly ambivalent about the use of sic, but on re-reading the comment of Tim riley above (whose comment I misread first time), I see he also advocates removing them. Tim, before I do so, do you agree that I remove all of them, as Carabinieri suggests? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should certainly do so if it were my decision. The antique spellings are pretty obviously the ipsissima verba, and I really don't think readers are likely to be puzzled, or to imagine that Wikipedia has misspelled them. In my view "sics" break the flow of the prose, and are best kept for the rare cases where there is a real chance of misunderstanding. – Tim riley talk 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more comment: I don't see much of a case for using the "pye" spelling in the footnote. This isn't part of a quote, so shouldn't we use the most common spelling?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s the name of the fish as used by Grigson and Claase, so I think it’s best left as is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk),
The caption under the first image reads: "Glasse's signature at the top of the first chapter of her book, The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, 6th Edition, 1758, a defence against rampant plagiarism". I don't really understand how a signature prevents plagiarism. Also, this isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it's not referenced. I'd consider removing the caption and mentioning this (with a reference) elsewhere in the article.
The phrasing in some paragraphs feels repetitive: "The first edition included ... later editions included ... practical directions, including "about as much thyme ... Glasse also included ... but also ... The book also includes ... The 1756 edition also contained ... Later editions included"--Carabinieri (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Carabinieri I'll act on the sic point once Tim has chipped in (I suspect in agreement with you), but all done, except where I've commented otherwise. Given the changes I'll have another read through shortly to see what the overall looks like. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sics now deleted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri, can you let us know your response to the above replies/actions? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with the article as it is now.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think any remaining minor points from the above can be dealt with post-promotion, thanks everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (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) 6 May 2019 [19].

The Boat Race 2019

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've been doing this a few years now, once the dust has settled, each Boat Race article is there, or thereabouts, good enough for FAC. I look forward to addressing any concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Quite impressed by a FAC the day of the event, I don't want to postpone comments, few, I guess:

Please check tense, - I believe that at least the image caption of the course has a future which is now past.

Background

  • "The autumn reception" is not obvious to someone reading this article and none before.
  • Why "The 165th men's race", and not just "the men's race", like "the women's race"?

Trials

  • please get top pics aligned, and do something about the overlong image caption for "Men"

I expect that some press coverage will follow, and come again. Nice work so far! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt that's all addressed, thanks. I appreciate any comments, but you're right, it will evolve in due course. But it's probably 90% complete. And given the glacial movement of FACs, if this gets promoted before July, I'd be surprised, so let's get all the technical crap out of the way!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on what will come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the 90% is still there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, read and commented. Perhaps I'll see more in daylight, but for now, that was all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at reception, and is it my lack of English, or is what the rower says (last sentence) a bit too rich in "that"? - Let me know if you are done with Reception, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I think you're right, so I've removed one instance, see what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I support now, but think one more "reaction" would be nice, aller guten Dinge sind drei ;) - Good sports! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

Support It is remarkable how the enthusiasm of one editor and his ability to communicate it make even the most uninterested reader (i.e. me) read on with enjoyment in an article about rowing. I have reviewed a few of The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles before, and this is well up to, and I think, even better than, his previous standard of excellence. He and I have had exchanges of views about some drafting points in the past, but I find nothing to quibble at here. Admirably clear, in the best English, and engaging. I take comprehensiveness and good sourcing as givens, and, as I have remarked before, you couldn't guess whose side the author is on unless you happened to know. (I see The Guardian is getting its undergarments in a convolution about the age of this year's competitors. Worth a mention? I just raise the point - ignore ad lib.) Regardless of that, one way or t'other, happy to support this high-speed and excellent arrival. Tim riley talk 18:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, and thanks for your kind words. I did take into account previous comments of yours when it came to some of the style of prose, so I'm glad it's hit the spot. I will definitely look to expand the reaction a little, as you note, there has been some cynicism over the Cracknell inclusion (and not just from the Grauniad), so this should definitely get some coverage in the article. I'm on it. And thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a shame the Grauniad don't have TRM on their copyediting team. Then they might avoid strange head-scratchers such as "The enduring consequences include the end of his marriage, about which his wife, Beverly Turner, has written affectingly."  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what bilge. Never mind. I'm still trying to work out a NPOV way of factoring in the "horror, think of the kids" reaction to Cracknell taking part (and I don't want it derailed by his "affecting" wife's comments, so more soon, but a rapid turnaround trip to Belfast has left me somewhat jaded in preparation for my birthday in 56 minutes. I'll be here most of tomorrow to celebrate with all of you who love me so much...... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many happy returns, dear boy! And many returns to your fine WP articles too, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

My attention was drawn to the Crews table, and I noticed Sophie Deans is listed as an Australian/New Zealander. That's surprising, considering her father is a former all-black. ("Robbie Deans' daughter Sophie Deans wins historic Boat Race") So I went to the cited source [20] and couldn't find it. The team is listed, with their weights, but not their heights. I think another sources was used to construct the table? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my bad. It's from the official Boat Race website, I'll add. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links are working according to the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: I am disappointed to see The Sun cited among the various newspaper sources. I thought that we had established that tabloids are not acceptable as high quality, reliable sources. The Sun is used to verify the statement: "Cambridge's Blondie and Goldie won the women's and men's reserve races by five lengths and one length respectively." Can this information be cited to a more acceptable source?
    I thought that was only The Daily Mail but no worries, I'll replace it with the only other source I've since found. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the matter of The Sun, sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability. Therer are no issues relating to formatting. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the check. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Anyone care to say why this has now languished without comment yet unanimous support for two weeks? Little wonder there's not much faith left in FAC these days if we get precisely zero feedback from any of the delegates/directors despite requests being made nearly ten days ago.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Languished? This FAC has only recently passed the three-week mark, which is when things start to get closer scrutiny -- if you want quicker attention why not try using the {{@FAC}} ping per the instructions? It works for most people... There are older noms than yours with support that I'll be processing before this one, but if you want leave to nom a new article, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

I haven't commented on an FAC for a long time, but TRM's request for feedback caught my eye. I should admit that I don't know much of anything about this sport or this event. But I do have some opinions on the writing quality:

  • "They were also live-streamed on YouTube, and by multiple media organisations around the world including Germany, South Africa and China." – Germany, South Africa, and China are not media organizations.
    Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 74th women's race was umpired by Richard Phelps, a former rower who successfully represented Cambridge in the 1993, 1994 and 1995 races." – Was 2019 the 74th women's race? This is the only part of the article that refers to a 74th race. If someone is not familiar with the Boat Race, this kind of language will make them stumble.
    I don't understand, you got it spot on, the 2019 race was the 74th race. Besides, the Background section covers this in sufficient detail. Any more detail can be found at Women's Boat Race. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first time in the article that you refer to a "74th" anything. For someone like me, who is coming to the article with little previous knowledge of the Boat Race, it disrupts the flow of my reading to interpret what "74th" means. Especially since the races have not been held every single year since 1927 and 1829. In the lead of the article, it may be helpful to say something like, "This was the 74th women's race, and the 165th men's race." Zagalejo^^^ 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I really honestly don't follow your logic but I've added your requested sentence into the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a little extra thing to provide a smoother reading experience. Thanks. Although one other thing I just noticed: the lead does say that the race is "held annually". From what I can tell, the races have not been held every single year since the start. Things were kind of erratic during the 19th century, there were gaps during the World Wars, and the women's race didn't become an annual tradition until the 1960s. Maybe we could drop "Held annually", since now, the lead has another sentence that establishes the long history of the event. Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's annual now. For the history, see th main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You do have some history in this article, though. For example, the first part of the "Background" section. If you're going to mention some of this history, I think you need to acknowledge some of the nuances. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an annual race. This is an article about specific year. For more history see the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me try to explain this another way. The article presents several facts that, taken together without extra context, don't add up. I'm told that it's an annual race, that was first held (for men) in 1829, and that the men's race has occurred 165 times. The math doesn't work. If I look at the navbox, I can deduce that the race was not held every year since 1829, but I shouldn't have to interrupt my reading to scroll down to the navbox. I don't think that this article should be completely "self-contained" -- I wouldn't expect you to explain all the rowing terms, for example -- but if you're going to mention these specific facts, the article should acknowledge why the numbers don't add up.
    I think you could retain "Held annually" in the lead if you explain somewhere else how long it's been held annually. Zagalejo^^^ 00:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it is held annually. For the specific history of the race, you can use the main article or the featured list List of The Boat Race results. I don't think any of our readers are "doing math" between the infobox and the number of the event in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I've said what I wanted to say on this matter. Zagalejo^^^ 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He has previously umpired the men's race once, in 2014." – This verb tense will become dated.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 165th men's race was umpired by Rob Clegg who rowed for the Dark Blues in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 races." See similar comment above. I assume that 2019 was the 165th race, but that’s not immediately obvious, especially if the first race was in 1829.
    Again, your understanding is spot on, and the history is covered in brief in the Background section and further information can be found in the The Boat Race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See my response above. A single sentence would clarify things for readers like me. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oxford's trial race was held on the Championship Course on 7 December, between Reggie and Flea, named in commemoration of Second Lieutenant Reginald Fletcher, who rowed for OUBC in the 1914 race, and Lieutenant Colonel William Fletcher, a member of the Dark Blue crew in four consecutive races between 1890 and 1893." – Where does "Flea" come from? The nickname is only mentioned in a caption in the William Fletcher article.
    The article says the boats are named in commemoration for the two individuals, the source of the nickname is not relevant to this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Flea" is an interesting nickname. You've caught my attention. I want to learn more about it. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but it's not directly relevant to this specific article. What's needed here is the name of the boat and the origins, if you want more on Flea then that should go in Flea's article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Flea" is not an obvious derivation from his given name, so the origin of the boat's name is not complete. Looking at this, I get the impression that "Flea" was an ironic nickname, since he was a large dude (for the standards of the time). We don't have to go into a paragraph-long explanation of the nickname. A short, parenthetical aside would help. Or if not that, we could refer to William Fletcher as "William 'Flea' Fletcher", to at least establish that "Flea" was a nickname, and then use the William Fletcher (rower) page to explain the nickname in more detail. Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all interesting stuff for the individual's article, but sufficient detail exists in this race article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrugs Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It took place without Oxford's president, Felix Drinkall, who was absent due to injury." – Antecedent for "It" is not clear. There are lots of nouns in the previous sentence.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cambridge's men's trial took place on the Championship Course on 10 December, between Roger and Lancelot, also named in honour of two alumni killed in action during the First World War." – "Also" is jarring; the First World War has not been mentioned to this point.
    Also removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final race, from the Bandstand to the finishing post, was dominated again by Cambridge who coped with the difficult conditions better than their opposition, to win by three and a half lengths." – I would add a comma after "Cambridge" and drop the comma after "opposition".
    I wouldn't, horses for courses this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comma usage, in general, is a bit iffy at times, but arguing over commas gives me a headache. If someone else wants to chime in, I'd appreciate it. Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Charming. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should clarify. It's more often the lack of commas that bothers me. For example: "Donald Legget, who rowed for the Light Blues in the 1963 and 1964 races acted as a supporting coach, along with coxing coach Henry Fieldman (who steered Cambridge in the 2013 race) and the medical officer Simon Owens." -- Why is there a comma after "Legget", but not one after "races"? Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to copyedit my “iffy” comma usage, I’m not going to debate every sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, am I wrong about this one? Zagalejo^^^ 00:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in your opinion, obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the same sentence structure as one of the examples here: "Fred, who often cheats, is just harming himself." Zagalejo^^^ 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well since my ability to use commas is so "iffy", feel free to copyedit the article to your preference as it's clear that I'm not capable of doing that job properly. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still acting like you don't believe me, so I'd rather disengage. Good luck. Zagalejo^^^ 16:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no act. You simply stated my general usage of commas was iffy, so it seems unlikely that this dripfeed will cease with just adjusting a single iffy comma instance. If it's such a deal breaker, you can fix it yourself of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fixture between CUBC and OBUBC, due to be held on 13 March 2019 but postponed because of adverse weather, was held on 24 March." – Why jam so much text between the commas? This could flow more naturally.
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At around 3.30 p.m., police dispersed a protest by 'Cambridge Zero Carbon' and 'Oxford Climate Justice Campaign' on Hammersmith Bridge. Both organisations were protesting against investments by both universities in fossil fuels." – This sounds interesting. Is there more to say?
    No, they appeared on the bridge and the police dispersed them. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the nature of the protests? Signs, chants, etc? This is a chance to add some extra flavor to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, it's a passing protest which was quickly quelled by the local constabulary. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reference provides a lot more information. Why is the Wikipedia article so coy about this aspect of the event? Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the article is about the race and only needs cover tangential events in summary style. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrugs Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotes in the "Reaction" section are so bland. Did no one else talk about the race?
    No, the afterparty is rather dull these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for an event that's supposed to have viewers around the world, I'd expect something more. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't "supposed" to have viewers around the world, it does have viewers around the world, and yes, it's a shame isn't it, but I can't just make up stuff that doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did viewers think these were especially exciting races? Was there any sort of audience reaction worth noting? With the Super Bowl, it's easy to find articles like this ("That Super Bowl was so boring"). Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what viewers thought, I simply used the reactions that I could find. Feel free to add more if you can find them. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll take your word for it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You don’t have to do that, as I said if you can find anything else, feel free to add it. ~~||
  • Why "south-west" and "team-mates"? Those hyphens seem quaint. Is that a British English thing? (You do use "teammate" at one point, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quaint, much more readable than the American affectation to remove all hyphens to produce horror shows like "reenter".
    I guess I don't really care, as long as you're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 02:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed, thanks Zagalejo. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other general point: there are several times in the article where you refer to "poor weather conditions" or "deteriorating conditions". Could you maybe be a little more descriptive? That would make for a more enjoyable read. Zagalejo^^^ 02:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm paraphrasing sources so as not to infringe copyright. I think it's fine, but feel free to modify it as you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been rowing, so I may not have the best vocabulary to describe racing conditions. I'm not looking for extra-flowery language, just a bit more detail. What are "deteriorating conditions"? Bad winds? Big waves? Sea monsters? ;) Zagalejo^^^ 15:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Any of the above, conditions which adversely affect the ability to row. No-one needs to be an expert or even have to have rowed to appreciate what "deteriorating conditions" means in this context. 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    Shrugs Zagalejo^^^ 18:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo addressed once again. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zagalejo responded again. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Some very worthwhile points were raised here and the nominator has made reasonable attempts to action those. The few that are outstanding are, in my judgement, somewhat subjective (although I do agree with a few of the comma suggestions, and have implemented myself). I think therefore it's time to put this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (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) 6 May 2019 [21].

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:

The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

@FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest |upright=1 for all portraits
Nikkimaria: both changes done. tks! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

Shall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:

  • Lead. At first sight it seems very short – at 107 words – for an article of more than 3,000 words, but having read through the article I can't see what else could usefully be added to the lead. The MoS says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and I think this lead, though short, does that.
  • "relatively unchanged" crops up three times in the article. "Relatively" seems to me an unsatisfactory, vague word here: relative to what?
  • "de facto" is not italicised in our article on the term, and I doubt if it should be here.
  • I paused for a bit about the bills in 1902 and 1903: the first originally proposed to abolish the Inspector General's Department and the second proposed to abolish the post of inspector general (and his department?) but no reason is mentioned. It would be relevant and interesting to say why the idea was mooted.

Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

As this is the nominator's first time at FAC, this will require a source spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Thanks for asking, Gog the Mild. --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First FAC checks - pass

[edit]
  • Paraphrasing already checked.

Cite spot checks:

  • Cite 2 - tick.
  • Cite 65 - there should be a comma after "p. 268". I struggle to see how some of the pages cited relate to the paragraph in question. Could you clarify? Specifically, but not necessarily only, pages 268, 295 and 309. (See also comment against cite 68, and the final sentence of my summary.)
    • Sure. 252 cites In the period after World War I, the inspectorate dealt with many problems, including complaints over misdirected mail, misconduct by soldiers and damage to civilian property 268 is unnecessary. 295 cites and Germany (until 1923). 309 cites Russia (until 1920), 313-14 cite the same year a plan to severely limit the Department's responsibilities was proposed. and 330, 1, and 2 cite By 1920, 33 officers were in the Office of the Inspector General, while 54 remained at camps or in the geographical departments. In 1915 the office had handled about 9,500 actions, while by 1921 it processed nearly 17,700.67.242.19.37 (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 38 - tick.
  • Cite 16 - tick; tick.
  • Cite 42 - tick.
  • Cite 25 - reorder pages in numerical order.
  • Cite 69 - specify page number(s)
  • Cite 68 - this cites 20 pages to cover "By the mid 1930s the War Department inspectorate was averaging about sixty major investigations annually. The department became responsible for inspecting the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933." It is probably possible to boil this down to two pages.

Nb, these are in addition to spot checks I carried out, but did not specifically record, at GAN, ACR and the ordinary FAC source review above. Actually I am impressed. Apart from a tendency to over-cover with Whiitehorne it is good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m out of town until Tuesday. I’ll get to it then if that’s ok. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you can Eddie. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 *cough* Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: I think I got them all on 22 April... Let me know if I didn't Eddie891 Talk Work 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie891. Apologies if I have missed a ping. That all seems tickety boo to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank

[edit]
  • This nomination page has the wrong title; the second "the" should be lowercase. When this page is promoted, I'll put the blurb review at the correct talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank see the note and cited page in the article -- it is actually the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army (hence the OTIG acronym). See their website. I'm not sure why P. S. Burton moved the pages.

This status was noted symbolically in 1924. General Helmick, along with several other department heads, was authorized to capitalize the word The in his title. A precedent for this practice was made in 1907, when General Ainsworth converted his office from Military Secretary back to Adjutant General. The general order directing this change specified that the word The would precede the title designation of the department head. Since then the heads of other similar departments periodically agitated for a similar distinction, achieving success in 1924. At this time General llelmick had the title of The Inspector General. Although the use of capitalization was restricted to the head of the department or agency, the office acronym reflected the change- for example, Helmick's office symbol changing from OIG to OTIG

— page 320
Eddie891 Talk Work 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it appears to be lowercased everywhere in Wikipedia other than this page title, or it was when I checked. I won't take a position on this. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to. The common and accepted usage is "The". Wikipedia should reflect this, even if it is going be a Canute-type task rolling back all of the Wikipedians who assume that they have found a typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing until the capitalization of this page title, the article title, and the article's first sentence match each other. Again, I don't care which way you go, but it has to be consistent. Also, the first sentence isn't up to FAC standards; I can't think of a single Good Article or Featured Article that starts off by simply quoting an institution's opinion of itself, using promotional language. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank: I moved this page. After reading MOS:INSTITUTIONS ("* The word the at the start of a title is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage (researchers at the Ohio State University not researchers at The Ohio State University).) I have determined this is essentially the same thing, and it should be moved. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- Guys, changing the name of an article mid-FAC is probably best avoided these days as it seems to play merry hell with FACbot at promotion time, and also day-to-day as I suspect it's the reason this nom keeps getting moved towards the top of the list each day. Frankly I'd prefer to see the move reversed and then do it again after that nom has closed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article is the same as it was when I commented; it's the name of this page that was changed to match the article. (I do see that it confused FACBot ... maybe now that it's on FACBot's list, it won't do that again?) - Dank (push to talk) 05:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, but the article name was still changed after the FAC started. No, FACbot hasn't adjusted to the new name of the nom, it's pushed this page to the top of the list two days running. Hawkeye7, what would you suggest as the best way forward to get everything back on track? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to never changing the article name or the nom page name during FAC, if that's what you want ... as long as we can fix either or both after promotion, if they need fixing. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The FACBot reads the nominations page containing the nominations, gets their change histories, and sorts them into order. In this case, the page referred to was the redirect, so it was using the date of creation of the redirect which was being used. The simplest solution (which I have effected), is to change the name of the template on the nominations page to the underlying page, thereby bypassing the redirect. The FACBot can determine if a page is a redirect, but how to proceed requires thought. I have created a fix that reads the page, and if it is a redirect, uses the date of the target page. I don't want to implement it until next week though. There are some further issues with redirects that I would like to test. I recommend not promoting the article until then, if that is possible. The Bot should be able to seamlessly cater for page renames. I realise that this is necessary in some cases. Changing it after the review can be just as disruptive to the Today's Featured Article and Featured Articles Not on Main Page runs. Unfortunately, the Bot cannot carry out the renaming procedure for you, as that is an admin function, and I'm not an admin, so I cannot operate an admin bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Sounds like we don't want to change the FAC nom page name after promotion, if I'm understanding "disruptive" right. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every time we fetch a page, there is the possibility of it being a redirect. Sometimes we want the redirect page, and sometimes we want the redirect page. Here's an odd case. The Bot needs the target page to assess its date of creation; but we don't change the entry on the nominations page when we update it (although we could). There are various potential problems with redirects. The one I most fear is putting a star on the redirect page. There is a tricky situation if page and its nomination page do not match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The lead is very short. I suggest expanding it to two paragraphs.
  • "nearly abolished on several occasions". According to the main text it was abolished on several occasions and later reinstated
  • "None of the European systems of inspecting worked well for the Continental Army, but elements from all three, particularly the British system, were incorporated." Why were they unsuitable and which elements were incorporated? The text below suggests an initial French influence, a manual written by a Prussian adopted until 1812 and thereafter wholly US ideas. How did British ideas come in? How long did the foreign influences last?
  • I would mention that d'Arendt and von Steuben were both Prussian.
  • "The duties of inspector general were performed by Abimael Y. Nicoll" Presumably after Pike's death, but you should say so.
  • "to assume responsibility for technical proficiency inspections of the army's nuclear surety program worldwide". I am not clear what this means. Inspection of the adequacy of programs for preventing accidental or rogue launches of nucler weapons?
  • "In 1961, instruction was delivered to Republic of Korea Army officers in Seoul, Korea, and to Nationalist Chinese Army officers in Taipei, Formosa." Is this worth mentioning? The British army gives instructions to officers of many foreign armies every year and presumably the same is true of the US army. (If it is mentioned it should be Taiwan, not Formosa.)
    • I think it shows that the United States IG program has become very proficient and has spread across the world. While giving instruction to other armies is not notable, it is rather uncommon for the IG program to be providing instruction. I can remove if you feel it necessary. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and foreign influences need expansion, but apart from these points the article seems to me close to FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • I have some queries on the expanded lead.
  • "when caseload of the department rising 360 percent from 1916 to 1917." This is ungrammatical.
  • "Investigations rose further after the war under Hugh Aloysius Drum." 1. "after the war" usually refers to WWII. "between the wars" would be clearer. 2. Why pick out Drum? His own article does not even mention that he was IG in the lead and states that he was in office for a year. I would delete the mention of him here. 3. The main text appears to say that there was a decline. It says that officers peaked at 248 in 1919 and nearly 17,700 "actions" by 1921, down to 40 officers by 1923, then an expansion in 1930s. No numbers are given on officers in the 1930s but 60 "major investigations" annually. This still appears a decline compared with WWI but what do "actions" mean as opposed to "major investigations".
  • "During and after World War II, the department increased in size to the point that it had around 2,000 officers in 1993." But the article says 3,000 officers in 1945 so there was a decline after the war. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (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) 5 May 2019 [22].

Battle of Caen (1346)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the Hundred Years' War. At least it is not about Gascony. This features the much-vaunted English army of Crécy a little earlier in the campaign. Completely out of control both before and after they stumble to victory in their assault on Caen. A stain on England's record which neither discomfited them nor persuaded the French to battle. It has just gone through ACR and I think that it is there or thereabouts in terms of FA class; if not, don't hesitate to let me know. I am grateful to @Nikkimaria, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, Jens Lallensack, and Sturmvogel 66: for reviewing at ACR; if you would care to kick the tyres again I would be even further in your debt. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Support by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to remark upon then. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Just some minor comments here.

  • By 12 August they were 32 km (20 mi) from Paris Both the UK and France didn't use metric units so Imperial units ought be the primary units here.
Someone had added "disp=flip". It wasn't me and I don't know why it was added, so removed.
  • which was to last one hundred and sixteen years --> "which was to last 116 years"
I thought that I had caught all of those. Thanks.
  • 32 km (20 mi) from Cherbourg Same as above Imperial units ought be the primary units here.

As above. That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Thanks for that. All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working
  • No formatting issues
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, nice work. Just a few minor observations/comments from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • offered the town surrender terms: do we know what these were?
Added. Did my style become too summary? Apologies.
Change looks good. It can sometimes be difficult to balance between too much detail and not enough. It is difficult to know what will interest some readers (and reviewers for that matter!). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caen was garrisoned by 1,000–1,500 soldiers...: suggest maybe splitting this sentence. Potentially, this might work: "Caen was garrisoned by 1,000–1,500 soldiers, a large proportion of whom were professional crossbowmen, and an unknown but large number of armed townsmen. They were commanded by Raoul, the Count of Eu, who was the Grand Constable of France, the senior figure in the French military hierarchy."
Done.
  • preempted --> "pre-empted" in British English?
The dictionaries I own seem confused on this. That said, I inherited the word and am a little disconcerted that I haven't picked it up myself. Changed.
No worries. My dictionary uses "pre-empted", but if others disagree, I'm happy to be corrected. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word. Tim riley talk 22:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, suggest moving the link for Ormrod to the 2008 work as it appears first
Done.
  • in the Sources section, Clifford J Rogers appears to be overlinked
Tactfully put. Done. (As was DeVries.)
Good pick up. I'd spotted DeVries, but for some reason didn't note it. Must have gotten lost in the excitement, as I was watching the football when I was typing out my review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sources section, the ISBN for Ormrod 2012 uses a different hyphenation scheme to the others
Fixed.
  • in the Sources section, move the link for Boydell Press to the first mention
Done.
Hi AustralianRupert. As ever, many thanks for your scrutiny. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great work as always, Gog. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Just booking my place. Shall look in tomorrow, I hope, or shortly thereafter. Tim riley talk 21:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roll up! Roll up! Special offers on FAC reviews. Why, thankee kindly sir. (I'm trying for seven in the first four months of the year.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article extravagantly. A few quibbles:

  • "5,000 of the ordinary soldiers and townspeople were killed" – a remarkably precise number. Would a "some" or "about" be in order?
The sources say 5,000. I believe that there was a careful body count and it just happened to produce a round number. Statistically, that is bound to happen occasionally.
True, and I don't press the point.
  • "20 mi" – 20 miles? And subsequently, "mi" for "miles" in ordinary text looks odd to me, but if that's the prevalent form, so be it.
Someone has been playing with the convert templates. I have tweaked them for you.

"enormously superior" – the quotes seem a bit odd. It's an unremarkable phrase that doesn't seem to call out for quotes, assuming ref 18 substantiates it. Likewise "achieved complete strategic surprise", later.

A peccadillo of a previous reviewer. Removed.
  • "many ships deserted, having filled their holds. They also captured" – They were presumably not the deserting ships, which is what this says.
Picky, picky. Sloppy of me; fixed.
  • "the island formed between the Orne and the Odon" – formed? Like the Île Saint-Louis in the Seine? Just checking.
Correct. If you scroll about a third of the way down (LINK REMOVED TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATING BLACKLISTED SITE) there is a map.
  • "populus" – not in the OED. Possibly the populace?
I have spelt it correctly elsewhere in the article, so I am not even being consistent. Fixed.
  • "melee" – the OED gives this its diacriticals: mêlée
As usual, different dictionaries give differing results, with the older ones tending to agree with you. I am happy to be traditional. Changed.
  • "he was summarily executed by the French king" – a citation would be good for this. (And if we're being really pernickety, the king had him executed but, I imagine, didn't do the job himself.)
Citations? My goodness, you are fussy today. It's in the cite at the end of the paragraph, but just for you I have researched and added another, from a different source, at the end of the sentence. And applied appropriate delegation to the king's whim.
I hope I am always fussy, but fussiness now addressed satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I look forward to supporting when I revisit this review shortly. – Tim riley talk 19:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Tim. Thanks awfully for dropping by. I hope that it wasn't too much work. Your various comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibbles now attended to. Very happy to support promotion to FAC. Meets all the criteria in my view, and is a really good read into the bargain.

Query to coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Gog, I honestly don't recall this showing up on my notifications but perhaps it was temporary blindness -- anyway pls feel free to start another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2019 (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) 5 May 2019 [23].

Operation Hurricane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Britain's first nuclear test, which was conducted in Western Australia in 1952. Britain became the third nuclear power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I'll do this one tomrrow but could tell me which English you use for the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses Australian English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a specialist in Australian English so please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • as little as 1 to 10 kilograms (2.2 to 22.0 lb) would is kilograms an Australian English word? Also the nought at the "22.0" isn't necessary.
    Rounded. "kilogram" is correct (see p. 178 of the Commonwealth Style Guide, Sixth Edition (2002) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vice Admiral Edward Evans-Lombe. It held its first meeting in May 1951. Hm the Britons use Vice-Admiral instead of Vice Admiral so do you Australians also use Vice-Admiral or just Vice Admiral?
    We don't use the hyphens (cf [24]) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The yield was estimated at 25 kilotons of TNT (100 TJ). Shouldn't kilotons be kilotonnes?
    Yes. (p. 183) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • participants of the British nuclear testing program I saw that you used two kinda "program" one is British (programme) and the other one is American (program) which one do you Australians use?
  • which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. which kinda tone do you mean? Long, short or tonne?
    When you're waving your arms around and talking about thousands, it doesn't matter. Bur I have replaced with "tonnes" for consistency.
  • This included two 25-ton bulldozers same as above which kinda tons do you mean?
    Long tons. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Marshall Islands.
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Robert A. Lovett, the Deputy Secretary of Defense "American Defense"
    Added "American". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link Hermite Island, Trimouille Island, Alpha Island and Northwest Island?
    None of them have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When queried by a Labour Party backbencher, Emrys Hughes suggest to add British between a and Labour.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[96][87] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • their wooden bottoms were easily holed by coral outcrops.[86][85] Same as above.
  • and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth.[90][72]
    All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure but shouldn't the metric be first and then Imeprial/US style of measurement. Because it took place in Australia. I mean I don't mind if you use Imperial/US style of measurement instead of metric because it is about British history.
    Sigh. WP:METRIC: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional (Here that is kt of TNT) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a grader, tip trucks, portable generators, 1,800-litre (400 imp gal) water tanks Just let you know that Americans have their own gal style just let you know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7: Hey Hawkeye, my last comment hasn't be addresed in the last three weeks could you be kindly to adress my last commen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MEASUREMENT: Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "primary unit", displayed first, followed, when appropriate, by a conversion in parentheses ... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units... In this case, the source unit was imperial gallons, and the conversion is to metric, which is the primary throughout the article. Where an imperial unit is not part of the US customary system, or vice versa – and in particular, where those systems give a single term different definitions – a double conversion may be appropriate. So I must have imperial gallons (as the original quantity) and put litres first, but I cannot flip the order and give two conversions. Since a conversion to US gallons is purely optional, and its appropriateness is questionable, it has been omitted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5, can you let us know your thoughts following Hawkeye's changes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PM

[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, then again at Milhist ACR in 2017. I had little to nitpick about it then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Op_hurricane.jpg: per the template, please provide details of first publication. Same with File:Cleament_Attlee_and_Doc_Evatt.jpg, File:HMAS_Karangi.jpg, File:Operation_Hurricane_cloud.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Corrected the spelling. The date of publication is inconsequential; Crown copyright expires 50 years from publication, world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Formatting
  • Links: All links to sources are working
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 93. The Mirror is a red-top tabloid – is that the best source we can find?
    It is used only for a single quote, so it can be omitted if you feel that is appropriate. (I had to look up what red tops were.) It links to a nice archive of official documents though.[25] (They used the map I made for this article!) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to these minor points the sources appear to meet the required standards of presentation, quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Operation Hurricane was the test of the first UK atomic device". As there were more tests it should be "Operation Hurricane was the first test of the first UK atomic device"
    Changed to "Operation Hurricane was the first test of a UK atomic device." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but am I correct in thinking that an implosion device consists of a non-critical mass of plutonium surrounded by a conventional (or uranium) explosive which compresses the plutonium to bring it to criticality?
    Yes, that's right. Shaped charge explosive lenses compress or reshape the core to achieve super-criticality. The core can be surrounded by a tamper, which has the function of containing the explosion for a few microseconds, thereby increasing the yield. Lead was used in the Hurricane device, but the production model used depleted uranium, which further increased the yield through fission reactions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldermaston is linked to the article about the town. Should it not be Atomic Weapons Establishment?
    Yes. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The three leaders agreed that there would be full and effective cooperation on atomic energy" I would take atomic energy to mean civil uses, but presumably you mean nuclear?
    "Atomic" and "Nuclear" and are interchangeable in this context. The former was preferred in the 1940s and 1950s, but the scientists always preferred the latter, and it has since become more common. Both civil and military use is meant here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think adding "civil and military" would make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such data would complement that obtained about an underwater explosion by the American Operation Crossroads nuclear test in 1946, and would therefore be of value to the Americans." Why was the value to the Americans a consideration when they were refusing cooperation? Ditto about "for fear that it might jeopardise its far more important relationship with the United States". As you have said that the Americans had refused Pacific Proving Grounds, you should say that they were still considering requests to use other sites.
    The Americans were not considering other sites; the British were. The value to the Americans was a consideration as one of the objectives of the British nuclear weapons program was the re-establishment of the Special Relationship with the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You say at the end that re-establishment of the Special Relationship was one of the aims but saying it earlier would explain the repeated references to not upsetting the Americans. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added as an extra paragraph to the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while negotiations with the United States site were ongoing" Negotiations with a site?
    Ooops. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canadian scientists and technicians would have access to all technical data, but Australians would not." Because Australia had not signed up to the Modus Vivendi? Did they complain?
    Yes, because Canada was a party to the 1948 Modus Vivendi, whereas Australia was not. Under its terms, they could not share restricted data with other nations. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Under the new act, everything within a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius of Flag Island was declared a prohibited area." Things a prohibited area? Also this is the only mention of Flag Island.
    Have you got a better wording? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete "everything within" and say "a 72-kilometre (45 mi) radius around Flag Island was declared a prohibited area". But why Flag Island? You have not mentioned it before. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because it was small and central. I have marked it on the map though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The map is very helpful but it could do with a scale. Presumably HMS Plym marks where the bomb exploded? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Blue Danube design". You mention this in the summary but I think it should also be in the main text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As successful as it was, Operation Hurricane fell short on both counts." Why did it fail on independence - because the technology was too dated to be useful? This should be clarified.
    No, because the UK still had to rely on the US until the bombs and bombers were ready. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but the map needs a scale. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2019 (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) 4 May 2019 [26].

Gadsden Purchase half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that never was, important because President Hoover's veto of the proposal was long cited by presidents of both parties in turning down such proposals, and by the very fact that Hoover spent his first veto on this and was applauded by The Washington Post for it. Times change. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • First para needs tweaking to thin out the number of vetoes.
  • Link "El Paso"
  • Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo: "Guadaloupe" spelt differently from linked article.
  • The bill was engrossed means nothing to me as a Brit. Link or gloss?
  • New Mexico Congressman Simms perhaps New Mexico's Congressman Simms?
The last is proper in AmEng. I've made the other changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First para much better, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TR

[edit]

On Jim's point, above, about engrossment, the phrase is in use in Britain for turning a draft legal deed into a finished one, but I agree a link or note would be helpful. As to Mr Simms, I doubt if British disdain for false titles will ever cut much ice with American writers, despite the animadversions of the NYT style guide. Only one comment from me: the vignette of the bloke on the Philadelphia bus is nice, but it seemed to me more a sidelight than real corroborative detail. Still, it's only 49 words out of more than 2,000, so this is hardly a point of any consequence. And that apart, the narrative is clear, a good read, and well referenced. It is evidently comprehensive, impartial and balanced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Neither official said very much of interest, this was the best sound bite I could pull out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks done
  • Refs 20 and 25 require the subscription template
  • There seems to be a red objection to the date format "March 10 and 17, 1930" in the sources

No other issues. The sources are otherwise consistently formatted, and appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.(Brianboulton)

Thank you for that. I've added the tags. I don't plan to alter the date format for that one, it is correct and the reader does not see the warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

I've read through twice (and made a number of small edits) and support on prose and comprehensiveness. Very well-written article. Moisejp (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

There are three images, all properly licensed. It all seems good. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for both reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anything preventing promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support / SN54129

[edit]

Nice article, sorry to be late to the party.

  • Can you swap the images around just a little, perhaps like this? Reason: There's a MOS thing about not having an image directly beneath a section header, so it should be on the right...Confession: I can't remember where that particular guideline actually is.
It does not apply to Level 2 headers, as I understand it. I think given the limited length of the sections, and the possibility of images encroaching, one of them needs to be under a Level 2 header, but I've made it so just one is.
  • Should "Congress had wisely decided" be a quote, if that's what Mellon declared? At the moment it reads as if WP considers it to have been wise.
I've rephrased slightly.
  • "returning it unsigned to the House of Representatives where it originated"; I wonder if the last three words are necessary. That it came from the HoR is implicit in the fact that he was returning it too them, and, in any case, the HoR's article mentions the passage of legislation in its second paragraph.
I am echoing the constitutional language there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thanks. All that is done or explained.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, good enough for me. ——SerialNumber54129 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. The deprecation of the subscription field is causing some problems right now but this article is clear of that anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Could the article either be promoted or some explanation as to what is lacking be given?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see Serial Number had not formally supported. Thanks for the review and support, and perhaps that disposes of any impediment?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2019 (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) 4 May 2019 [27].

Antiochus XI Epiphanes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Alexander the Great died, his generals split his empire, and the Hellenistic period started. The Seleucid empire is probably the most intriguing polity that rose out of Macedon, but its weakness was the civil wars between its princes. The last civil war began when two rival half-brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX died in 96 and 95 BC respectively. For the next decade, Syria was split between six kings, five sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of the IX. This article is about Antiochus XI, the king who enjoyed the shortest reign, yet, like most members of his dynasty, his story is a pleasure to read, despite having only few coins and couple of short lines in the works of ancient historians mentioning him. I planned on bringing the articles of the six kings to FA, and, after almost a year and a half, this is the last article. It was copy-edited by a guild editor, and I made sure it satisfy the FA criteria. Cheers.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Done

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll read soon, but as usual, some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link the people and terms mentioned in the image captions.
  • There are a bunch of duplinks.
  • No Wikiproject Syria tag? It even has a Greece tag, which seems less relevant...
Done. I left the links to Seleucus I. Its first mention, and in the last paragraph where the text is about the statement of Lucullus regarding the Armenian king's capture of the heirs of Seleucus. Readers might not know which Seleucus we are talking about if I remove the link
  • "The name Antiochus is of Greek etymology" Not sure if the term etymology can be used like that? But as I'm not a native English speaker myself, I'll ping Gog the Mild, who I suspect has a better grasp...
Hi FunkMonk. For some reason I didn't get the ping, but I was browsing this review anyway, looking for what I missed when I copy edited that others had picked up; always trying to improve. IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable usage. (Etymology can be used in two different ways; this is an example of the less common one.) One may prefer a plainer 'The name Antiochus is of Greek origin', but I feel that Attar-Aram Syria is looking to convey a little more subtle. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Maybe you also have a view on the "do not mention much details" sentence mentioned below... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I missed that. *red face* Well picked up. You were correct, and the current formulation, "many details", is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! I was unsure about both, so good to get confirmation... FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seleucid dynasty should be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done
  • Link Cilicia in body?
Done
  • "On all jugate coins, Antiochus XI was portrayed in front of Philip I" How is it known which is which? They look pretty identical?
The name of Antiochus XI comes before that of Philip I
Maybe this could be clarified in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "where his unattractive features and stoutness are emphasized" This seems incongruenct with "luxury and magnificence"? What underactive features are emphasised?
Mostly his fleshy features are emphasized. The king was depicted fat, or chubby lets say. Maybe today our perception of luxury and magnificence is shaped by the perfect Hollywood stars, but in the past, being fat, showing the effects of heavy eating and comfy life, is magnificence. Actually, even today in Mauritania for example, the fatter the girl, the better husband she gets
Could perhaps be clarified in the article, but only if the sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source used does not mention this particularity. I will try to do some more research when I have more time as Im busy with exams now.
Oh well, it didnt take long. I added a note to explain the meaning of fatness
  • "but estimating the annual die usage average rate of the King suggests a reign of several months" Since you present a counterclaim to another claim, you should probably state who made the counterclaim too.
Done
  • "However, the historian Glanville Downey, observing Malalas' writing style" In what language?
Greek. Added
  • "do not mention much details" I think this should be "many details".[28]
Done
Thanks FunkMonk, your reviewes always made the articles better.

Support from Constantine

[edit]

Will start my review soon. Constantine ✍ 14:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • at the hands of his minister in 96 BC. Who was that minister? Either mention his name (and link if he has an article) or, if he is not important, simply omit this entirely.
  • (Optional) Before starting the analysis of the coinage, I would perhaps place an introductory statement, something like "Much of the speculation is based on numismatic evidence."
  • highlighting that the vow was fulfilled I would link here to the section below, to make clear just how the vow was fulfilled.
  • I would recommend adding a map, with at least Antioch, Mopsuestia and Tarsus highlighted (either reuse your maps from other articles, or use {{Location map+}}).

That's all from me. I did a few minor copyedits here and there, but the article, as usual, reads well. I am afraid that the casual reader will be a bit overwhelmed with numismatic information, but I understand its necessity, and much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem. Not really my area of expertise, but it certainly appears to be a thoroughly researched article, again as usual. Constantine ✍ 08:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your effort Constantine :)
Looks good. Happy to support, once again well done! Constantine ✍ 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "a period characterized by the constant civil war". Grammatically you should say either "a period characterized by constant civil war" or "a period characterized by the constant civil wars".
  • "and a quick succession in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX" You can't use "succession" in that way. It is, by definition, an instantaneous event. A minimum change would be to 'and the succession, in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX'. (Note the additional comma.) Or do you mean 'the successive successions'? Plus that entire sentence is confused. I remember noticing that when I copy edited; I meant to come back when I had read the rest of the article and actually understood what it was trying to say. I forgot to; sorry. Could we try and come up with something now which is a little more comprehensible? Maybe breaking it into several shorter sentences?
  • "Antiochus XI declared himself king together with his twin brother Philip I." Do you mean 'jointly with'?
  • "but the numismatic evidence proves otherwise, as the earliest coins show both brothers ruling jointly". Can I suggest "proves" -> 'suggests'. I don't see how it can be proven; it is possible, however improbable, that a very early coin of Antiochus XI ruling alone will be discovered tomorrow.
  • "tryphé": I believe that this is a foreign word, and should be in italics at each mention. Could it also be linked at first mention.
  • "when evidence of a coin struck by him in Antioch was published" This seems an odd formulation. Possibly "evidence" -> 'an account'?
  • "Philip I kept the royal title but remained in the city which was his base". Why "but"? Would 'and' fit better? Or 'while remaining'? "but" seems to beg a question.
  • "estimating the annual die usage average rate" I think that you mean 'estimating the average annual die usage rate'?
  • "with Antiochus XI leading the army in the field" Suggestion only, "army" -> 'armies'.
Done for all the points above. Gog, I re-wrote the "quick succession" paragraph. What do you think now?
  • I think that it is fine. You have polished out the only real rough spot I could find.
  • Optional: IMO much or all of notes 2, 3, and 5 would be better in the text. However, I realise that tastes on this differ and so this is a suggestion only.
I also doubted if they should be in the text, but decided to keep them in the notes after Constantine pointed that "much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem." Specially note 2 is problematic if it was integrated into the text, as it is not about the biography of Antiochus XI and more about the general Hellenestic practices regarding gem cutting
  • Fair enough.

Solid work. Makes comprehensible a very confusing period.

Thanks Gog, and specially for the copy-edits

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another fine article on the period. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a smple of spotchecks for verifiability. Mostly these check out but there are a few minor issues:
  • Ref 2: Downey 2015, p. 68: ARTICLE: "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was named after Antiochus, father of Seleucus I, the founder of the Seleucid dynasty;" SOURCE: The source appears to ascribe the founding of the Seleucid dynasty to the gods Zeus and Apollo.
The reference is used to support the statement that Antioch was named after Seleucus I's father. Seleucus I being the founder of the dynasty is something I did not think needs a citation (Downey is telling the account of John Malalas regarding the holy founders of the dynasty, but its a common knowledge that it was Seleucus I who founded that dynasty, not Greek deities). To avoid any problems, I changed the sentence, and wrote that Seleucus I was the founder of the city.
  • Ref 38: Wright 2011 p. 46: ARTICLE: "Drawing his legitimacy from his father, Antiochus XI appeared on his coinage with an exaggerated hawked nose, in the likeness of Antiochus VIII". SOURCE checks out, but p. refce should probably be pp. 45–46
Done
  • Ref 45: Rigsby 1996 p. 466: ARTICLE: " Eusebius' statement is doubtful because in 86 BC, Rome conferred inviolability upon the cult of Isis and Sarapis in Mopsuestia, which is proven by an inscription from the city." SOURCE does not refer to Eusebius' statement, which is probably contained on the page before the preview and the page refce should reflect this.
Actually, the previous page, 465, does not mention anything about Antiochus XI or Eusebius. Page 466 indeed mention Eusebius, but not in the main text. In note 23 in page 466 we can read: "The statement in the Armenian translation of Eus. Chron. (123 Karst) that Antiochus and Philip now destroyed the city in retribution for Seleucus is weak testimony in its own right, and now contradicted by the Roman grant of 86 B.C."
  • Links to sources are all working, per the external link checker tool
  • Formatting:
  • Josephus 1833 is listed as a source but is not cited
Deleted
  • Downey 2015 requires "Press" not "Pres".
Corrected
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) 4 May 2019 [29].

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. The above article is about American rapper Amil's debut studio album. For those unfamiliar with Amil, she rose to prominence in 1999 and 2000 as a protégé of Jay-Z and the "First Lady" of his record label Roc-A-Fella. A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal includes songs about wealth and Amil's personal life. The singles – "I Got That" with vocals from Beyoncé and "4 da Fam" with verses from Jay-Z, Memphis Bleek, and Beanie Sigel – were released in 2000 to promote the album. All Money Is Legal peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and received a mixed response from critics. Following the album's release, Amil took a hiatus from music and was subsequently removed from Roc-A-Fella.

I believe that the article fulfills the criteria for a featured article, but I would be more than happy to receive suggestions/recommendations for further improvement. This article and FAC is part of my work on more obscure subject matters, and I hope that it inspires others to look into more obscure articles. In the beginning of last year, I received very helpful suggestions during its first FAC. I am pinging the reviewers from the first FAC (@Nikkimaria:, @Yashthepunisher:, @Numerounovedant:, @Ssven2:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Ceranthor:, @J Milburn:), but please do not feel obligated to respond. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

There are some new files compared to my last review:

  • Amil's singing voice was commented on by two critics (who are both cited in the sample's caption) so I believe that justifies the audio sample's inclusion. However, if you believe it is not necessary, then I will remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beyonce.jpg: Use seems OK, lack of EXIF data is a little worrisome but it was kept on Commons, so.

OK-ish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have commented on the use of the audio sample and the Beyoncé image. I would greatly appreciate any input, particularly on the audio caption part, as I greatly appreciate your recommendations. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: It occurs to me that File:Beyonce Knowles at age 19.jpeg would probably be a better fit for this article. It depicts Beyonce in 2001 (or possibly 2002—check the page about this shoot on the photog's website), much closer to the recording of A.M.I.L. than the current 2007 photo. It's also a professional studio portrait. The image's license at Flickr was confirmed, and the photographer's professional website links to the Flickr account on his "About" page, meaning it's legit and accurately licensed. (File:Jay-Z-01-mika.jpg shows Jay-Z in 2000, but there's less of a difference between 2000 Jay-Z and 2003 Jay-Z than between 2000 Beyonce and 2007 Beyonce—and besides, the current photo of Jay-Z is a portrait, while this other photo is Jay-Z plus a random crowd of people.) —BLZ · talk 21:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from Ceranthor

[edit]

Will post any suggestions by tomorrow. ceranthor 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal focuses on wealth and Amil's personal life. Some commentators wrote that she adopts a gold digger persona for the music." - The second sentence seems out of place in the transition to the third sentence
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for all of the album's tracks." - What does "developed" mean here? Seems a bit different from writing
  • I used "developed" to avoid repeating writing in the same sentence, but I agree that it is far too ambiguous in this context. I have just revised it to "wrote". Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roc-A-Fella dropped Amil when she took a musical hiatus following the album's release." - nitpick, but I'd add the year to give a sense of how fast it was
  • ",[4] and received the nicknames, the Diana Ross and the First Lady of Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - don't need the comma before [4] and I think it's actually a bit disruptive to the flow of the sentence as is
  • "However, he stopped after the two women frequently fought on tour.[8]" - stopped what? unclear
  • "Prior to the release of debut album," - missing "her"?
  • "The second song "I Got That" features Beyoncé as part of its chorus, and encourages women to become more independent.[21] ' - I'd take out the comma before "and encourages"
  • "and raps about the shame of shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[22]" - extra words here?
  • "Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella following the album's release.[4] " - Again an explicit year would be nice

Nice work here. ceranthor 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Sometimes I go a little too comma crazy lol. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I either missed anything or you notice something new that needs to be addressed. Have a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. Everything looks good; the restructured lead looks especially great. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from CluelessEditoroverhere

[edit]

Taking a look. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I made some edits, I also recommend omitting commercially in that last para, but I know someone recommended it in the GA review that I looked at. Whatever's consensus. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments and the edits. I agree that "commercially" is unnecessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly what the italicized part of this sentence means. "...Amil began performing in New York City talent shows and rap over hip hop music by groups..." Need clarification. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CluelessEditoroverhere: Here is the full sentence from the source (Her earliest influences were classic rap groups, such as Run-D.M.C., who she would mimic and practice rapping over when she was young.). It means that Amil practiced rapping over/while listening to rap music. It is similar to how singers practice singing by listening to music by other artists and singing over it. Let me know if that clears that up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Oh. I think "rapping over music by rap groups" is more appropriate. Change made. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 1a, 2a, and 2b. The article looks good. Nice work! CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, user below is doing so. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo

[edit]
Sorry my bad :x Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is all good. Sorry for the double message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Figureskatingfan

[edit]

Support from Argento Surfer

[edit]
  • I've made some copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revise as needed.
  • "Amil began performing ... at age 12." - This feels vague because the rest of the article uses years to establish a timeline, not her age. I recommend added her birthdate or adding the year she was twelve to ground this sentence.
  • "In 2007, she formed the girl group Major Coins with Liz Leite and Monique" - Is this year right? The next sentences jump back to the 1990s, and the next paragraph sets the groups break up prior to 1998.

More to come... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's raps for previous collaborations, she wrote all of her own lyrics for the album." - I think the first half of this sentence belongs in a prior paragraph when you're talking about their collaborations. I'd move it myself, but I'm not sure which of the two citations it should go with.
  • "Jay-Z has never publicly addressed..." - He's still alive, so I think this sentence needs an "As of" or similar qualifier.

These are the only issues I found. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Argento Surfer: Thank you again for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aoba47: - any comment on the years she was 12? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Argento Surfer: Apologies for missing that comment. I have revised it and adjusted the year and reference used. I saw an incorrect date on another source (a BBC source that was mostly likely a user edit/addition). That was my mistake as I should have used a more reliable source. I have used the Vibe article which helps source her birth year (1973) as it just mentions her age and not her exact birthday (however the full date is not necessary for this particular article). I will hunt around for a source for her full birthday to add to the main artist's article. Apologies again for the mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually have a quick question about that part. I have found some conflict reports about her birth year when doing further research. The Boombox says 1978 while Joel Whitburn says 1976. Would it just be best to remove the first two sentences of the "Background and recording" section altogether and lead with the Major Coins sentence since when she started rapping may be more relevant to the artist's main page? Apologies for the confusion. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm about to start a formal source review, to get that hurdle cleared. I'll also probably make some general copyedits, and if I have non-source-related comments I'll bring those up here as well. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partway through the source review now. Have to take a break. Here are my revisions so far, usually with an edit summary explaining the rationale. I've made a few editorial changes along the way too based on a review of the source; check, for instance, my changes to the way the Terry Sawyer PopMatters article is cited. One other note: through WestLaw, I have access to a news database that includes print newspaper sources that are offline. There are a lot of newspaper reviews of AMIL that were published contemporaneously, but don't seem to be available elsewhere. I haven't read through all of them but I'm assuming that many, if perhaps not all, will be worth citing to some extent. I'm going to collect those and send them to you later, probably via email since it's copyrighted material. —BLZ · talk 01:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. I greatly appreciate all of the help and feedback. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a site like Newspapers.com so I would greatly appreciate any newspaper reviews that you can find. I always had trouble finding newspaper reviews, but I will try to be better at it in the future. Apologies for all of the work. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Unfortunately, most newspapers have done a lackluster job making their archives generally accessible. I will send the sources tomorrow when I can. All told, it looks like there are about 23 sources that reference Amil and All Money Is Legal. I haven't read through them yet, so some of them may mention the album in passing or not substantially enough to be useful. I'll also do another search tomorrow looking for just "Amil", to look for content that might relate to the album but before it had a title. I'll pass along the ones that seem worthwhile, or at least possibly worthwhile.
  • Here's one source I found via WestLaw, but which is also available on Google Books: Kenon, Marci (August 19, 2000). "You've Come a Long Way, Baby". Billboard. 112 (34): 36 – via Google Books.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) Relevant portion:
Like Da Brat (aka Shawntae Harris), who is acting and developing talent, many women in hip-hop are diversifying and branching out. Amil, a Roc-A-Fella/Columbia recording artist, is shooting a film as her highly anticipated debut album, "All Money Is Legal," gets ready to hit the streets Aug. 29. "I tried out for the role and had never read the script," says the artist who was introduced on Jay-Z's single "Can I Get A..." Amil (Whitehead) plays Tonya, one of the main characters in the film "Get Down Or Lay Down," being distributed by Miramax through a joint venture with Roc-A-Fella. "I have a little experience from the Sprite commercial," Amil says. "I loved doing it."
I have no idea what became of "Get Down or Lay Down", if anything, nor what it was meant to be. A feature film? A short film? Some kind of longform music video, or music video anthology? Get Down or Lay Down is the title of a 2001 hip-hop album by Philly's Most Wanted—with Just Blaze on production no less—but not released via Roc-A-Fella and with no other connection on its face. It seems noteworthy that Amil had been working on some kind of Roc-A-Fella film project just before the album's release, especially a seemingly ambitious collab between the label and a major indie film studio. Is there any other info about this that you know of?
  • I have added the information to the "Background and recording" section. "Get Down or Lay Down" seems to be a film from the context of the article, but it is odd to put a film title in quotation marks rather than italics. I have tried to find more information, but I could only find some information on the album you mentioned above. I have also added information about a Sprite ad campaign that Amil appeared in prior to the album's release. I remember finding information and videos on that during my initial research on the album, but I must have forgotten to add it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the "One in Amillion" source, it was a straight to video film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other question: why did you choose "Get Down" for the sample, rather than sampling one (or both) of the two singles? The question strikes me because of the revisions I made to the sample box caption, changed that stemmed from my close reading of one of the sources. I don't ask this question to discourage the use of "Get Down", necessarily, or to suggest that it is a "wrong" choice. For all I know, it may be the best exemplar of the album's style. And it does feature Amil singing, which does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the album compared to her previous features, when she only rapped. (Confession: despite working on this article for a little while now, I still haven't actually heard any of it—I hope to remedy that soon—so I don't actually know yet whether either of the two singles have Amil singing.) But one or both of the two singles would seem to be more obvious choices to an outsider. Plus, one (or both) of those samples could be thriftily reused for the article(s) on the individual song(s). —BLZ · talk 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have been told in previous GANs and FACs to always keep non-free media to a minimal and only use audio samples on album articles when the sample represents the album as a whole rather than an individual song. I used the “Get Down” single because the singing aspect seemed to be a somewhat recurring element in critics reviews (although only three critics really brought it up so saying it was “recurring” is somewhat of a stretch). I would say that the “Get Down” sample is not really that representative of the album outside of that as there is much more rapping than singing. I am going to remove the sample and reread through the reviews to see if I could find anything for a new audio file caption.
  • I primarily picked this article as a project because the state of female rap and hip hop was a major topic in music news for a bit so I thought it would be interesting to explore a more obscure case. I have grown to like the album as I worked on the article, although it could be a weird case of Stockholm syndrome lol. I agree with reviewers that "Smile 4 Me" and "Quarrels" are the more interesting songs and they represent a different viewpoint from the rest. I am interested to hear your response to it! Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oop, one other thing: I noticed none of the sources have access dates. Truthfully, I don't think access dates are too important compared to archives/archive dates, and your dedicated archiving of links is awesome. Then again, dates of access can be useful for determining a date when a link was active/last active, if it becomes dead at some point later on. Access dates can be especially important for future scholars, who may rely on our citations for purposes we can't foresee or perhaps even comprehend (thought experiment: what if the world wide web goes down in the year 2145, but a trove of hard drives loaded with a backup of Wikipedia survives?). Aside: it seems crazy to me that access date and date of access are both currently red links—librarians of the world, you're slacking! Anyways: I've accessed most of the links as of my yesterday, which was April 13, 2019. I bet I'll click on most of them again tomorrow, or the next day, whenever I finish the source review. Bottom line: Don't worry about this last comment, you don't have to fill out the access dates, I'll do it; it's unfun work and I don't want to tediously assign it, and it's no trouble for me to do it fairly quickly. —BLZ · talk 09:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also surprised that an article about access dates does not exist either. I am sure one will be created sometime in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I remember a past FAC reviewer had advised me to remove access-dates from any archived source to avoid having so many dates in the reference section and they believed they were not necessarily due to the archive. After getting that advice, I have generally removed access-dates from archived links, but I will definitely think about it more in the future as I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting. I suppose an access date would be unnecessary if the archival occurs simultaneously with the access, using a site like archive.today. But most of the time, I use the Internet Archive and select the best-available date for my purpose; sometimes that date is close to the time I accessed the link, but other times I need to show the site as-of an earlier date closer to publication.
  • I would be fine with keeping the access-dates if necessary. I am curious if there was ever a larger discussion on Wikipedia about whether or not to keep access-dates in archived references or if it is already in MoS? Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the next few hours I'm going to collect all the offline sources I found, copy-paste them all into a document, and save them into a pdf (or two). I've also just send you an email; send me an email back so that I can reply with an attachment once it's prepared. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for all the help. This is actually really fun to work on (but I am a nerd lol). I responded to your email a few minutes ago. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*@Brandt Luke Zorn: I have added newspaper sources from Newspapers.com. It is interesting to look back at old newspapers. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Apologies for the random ping. I believe that I have fulfilled BLZ's request for newspaper sources. Unfortunately, BLZ has not been active on Wikipedia since April 20. I would imagine that this would be ready for promotion as it has received a substantial amount of commentary, but I was just curious on your opinion. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I'm back. Work and other IRL things have kept me away from Wikipedia for a while (but I should have given a status update earlier to you, Aoba47, and for that I am sorry). I think I can wrap this review today or tomorrow. I finally narrowed down the newspaper sources from WestLaw to avoid redundancies (e.g. syndicated reviews published in multiple papers) or near-useless sources (mere announcements of the week's releases). I will check out Aoba47's most recently added sources from Newspapers.com, many of which overlap with what I found.
One quick question: Are we sure Dan DeLuca was a Philadelphia Inquirer writer? I ask because I found his review syndicated across multiple newspapers—among them the Miami Herald, the Contra Costa Times, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Roanoke Times. The Inquirer was not in the WestLaw database, but the earliest publication I could find was in the Miami Herald on October 6, 2000. That means the Inquirer published his review earlier, but it makes me wonder two things: (1) if it was published somewhere else earlier still, which is not of central importance, and (2) if DeLuca was an Inquirer employee, or a critic who was employed by another company (such as these newspapers' parent company or some other third party). Either way, this uncertainty could be cured by rewording "The Philadelphia Inquirer's Dan DeLuca said" to "Dan DeLuca said in The Philadelphia Inquirer". (Irrelevant sidenote: these newspapers seemed to have some discretion in assigning their own scores to these syndicated reviews. The Miami Herald gave Amil's album 3.5/4 stars, while the Contra Costa Times gave it an A–). —BLZ · talk 19:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, and I hope that everything is going well for you. Apologies for all of the trouble. I have changed the DeLuca source according to your suggestion. I actually noticed that as well when looking through the newspaper sources. It is a very odd thing, and I was not entirely sure how to handle it. I will get to the new sources as soon as possible. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than emailing the remaining sources to Aoba47, I've decided to copy-paste them here. They ended up being less numerous than I believed at first, and for longer articles I've excerpted only the portions that are relevant to this article. I also believe placing them here helps keep the "source review" process transparent, since I'm in the position of reviewing existing sources but also introducing new ones. My suggestions appear after the excepts. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from WestLaw news database
  • Jones, Steve (December 27, 1999). "Amid hard knocks, the real deal". USA Today.
[…] Aside from his own album, Jay-Z will be busy next year getting albums by Roc-a-Fella artists Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Amil (the female rapper from Can I Get A . . .) on the market. The company also launched a clothing line this year and has two Miramax-distributed films in the works. One is a documentary about his tour, Backstage: A Hard Knock Life. The second is an untitled film about three Harlem hustlers. […]]]
I think this snippet could be used for the background section and possibly the lead. It indicates that Amil was part of a slew of new talents Roc-A-Fella was promoting in 2000, which helps situate her within the history of the label. (Btw: other sources I can go back and find indicate that Amil appeared in Backstage, and several reviews noted that she is the only prominent female in the film.) I would add: It would even be worth adding something to the lead along these lines: All Money Is Legal was one of several albums from up-and-coming artists at Roc-A-Fella, along with Memphis Bleek's The Understanding and Beanie Sigel's The Truth. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker, Soren (January 22, 2000). "Assault Case Won't Stop the Music—or the Sales". Los Angeles Times.
[…] It's a sign of his musical range that he [Jay-Z] can convincingly tour with DMX, whose music is built around a far more abrasive style of rap than Jay-Z's, and record with someone as mainstream as Carey.
That's a delicate balance, and one that Jay-Z seems intent on maintaining. It may have made business sense to release the duet with Carey, "Things That U Do," as the first single from the new album. The likely radio exposure from that track might have added considerably to the collection's first-week sales.
Instead, Jay-Z released the gritty "Do It Again (Put Ya Hands Up)," which features virtually unknown rappers Amil and Beanie Sigel. Jay-Z—who grew up in a Brooklyn housing project and has alluded to drug dealing as a teenager—points to the decision as an artistic statement.
"That's what an artist is supposed to do--things that people didn't expect them to do," he says. "Why are we here if we can't push the envelope, do different things? We're not here to do everything that's expected of us." […]
  • Fink, Mitchell; Rubin, Lauren (June 7, 2000). "Gossip: Bebe Waves Bye-Bye to Beau George". New York Daily News.
You already included this source, so I won't paste the text—just confirming that I was able to confirm the accuracy of your citation of this article as part of the source review. One note: in WestLaw, the article was attributed to both Mitchell Fink and Lauren Rubin. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farber, Jim (August 20, 2000). "Underdogs have their day" New York Daily News.
Ditto the above, you already cited it so no need to copy-paste text. But I was able to review this article in full and thus confirmed that you cited it faithfully. —BLZ · talk 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker, Soren (September 17, 2000). "Pop Music Record Rack". Los Angeles Times.
** Amil, "All Money Is Legal," Roc-A-Fella/Columbia. The New Yorker gained instant fame on Jay-Z's 1998 single "Can I Get A . . ." On her uneven debut album, the nasal-voiced rapper should have featured Jay-Z more often, as many of her songs lack the spark that marked her tag-team debut. Amil is better as a second fiddle than she is on her own, although she shows promise when she becomes more personal in her storytelling.
Albums are rated on a scale of one star (poor), two stars (fair), three stars (good) and four stars (excellent). The albums are due in stores Tuesday.
You already cited a syndicated version of this review; this is the original, which gives a score (2/4 stars, which can be added to the "Professional ratings" box) and the author's name (Soren Baker).
  • Jones, Steve (September 20, 2000). "Amanda Ghost writes a spirited debut – Rap: Amil, All Money Is Legal" USA Today.
Amil, All Money Is Legal ( * * [two stars out of four] ) The first lady of Roc-a-fella finally gets to show that she's more than an ornament in the Jay-Z camp. It turns out that she has stories of her own to tell. Having established herself with verses on songs by Jermaine Dupri, Mariah Carey, Beanie Sigel and, most famously, Jay-Z's Can I Get A . . ., she shows she is comfortable on her own two feet. While labelmates Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Jay-Z himself lend support, some of Amil's strongest songs are solo raps. And not all of the songs deal simply with getting paid. The blunt Smile 4 Me tells the story of her rough upbringing, while the soulful Quarrels (with Carl Thomas) finds her dealing with a variety of temptations. The clever Girlfriend finds her renegotiating her maintenance agreement with her married lover. The album's funniest cut is Heard It All Before, on which she and Jay run game on each other.
  • Thompson, Anthony M. (September 22, 2000). "New Music Reviews: Amil, A.M.I.L. (All Money Is Legal) (Roc-A-Fella/Columbia)" San Antonio Express.
This long-awaited debut from the female rapper known from the cute/infectious cameos on Jay-Z's sets shows that there's more to her than a sweet-edged, teenlike voice and a nifty phrase.
A la Rah Digga, Amil is on a full-court press in the hip-hop magazines, telling all that she writes her own rhymes and is not Jay-Z's lyrical puppet. It's the truth: Read the liner notes.
Except for Jay-Z co-writing (and appearing on) the bumping, guitar-laced "Heard It All" and the catchy but formulaic "That's Right," Amil wrote or co-wrote all the tracks. And with the exception of the immature "Girlfriend," rap's newest honey hits the mark.
Amil also helped produce this set, which has a distinct, woman's touch as in the sisters' independence anthem "I Got That" (featuring Beyonc‚ Knowles of Destiny's Child), the danceable "Get Down," "Ya'll Dead Wrong" and the title track, with the phat Grace Jones, "Pull Up to the Bumper" refrain.
She even gets philosophical with "Quarrels" (featuring) Carl Thomas and puts out a deep ode to all those women loyal to their lovers who are locked up with "Anyday," which features a phat sample of "Collage."
To top it off, Amil mixes it up rough and rugged with the best of them on "Raw." Even the obligatory posse track, "4 Da Fam" (featuring Beanie Sigel, Memphis Bleek and Jay-Z), is off the hook. That's saying a lot, since every hip-hop artist is part of some crew and there seems to be a posse cut on every release.
'Nuff said. Go get this one - quick. *** 1/4 [out of ****]
  • DeLuca, Dan (October 6, 2000). "Street Sounds" Miami Herald.
Already cited, just confirming that I verified the text.
  • Righi, Len (January 6, 2001). "Spotlight on the Best and Worst Discs of 2000" The Morning Call.
[…] 7. "THE MARSHALL MATHERS LP" (Aftermath/Interscope), Eminem -- He spouted homophobia and came dangerously close to self-pity, but, more important, the baddest of rap's bad boys fearlessly offered his vision of the truth. Also righteous: "Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai, The Album" (Epic/Razor Sharp/Sony Music), where Wu-Tang Clan chief RZA's grooves for Jim Jarmusch's film proved that, in rare instances, two weird tastes can taste great together. And Amil's "All Money Is Legal" (Rock-A-Fella/Columbia), where the streetwise New Yorker with the coolly seductive voice and hot bod demonstrated gritty self-assurance and a fierce determination to match her lust for diamonds and major coins.
This list is a little odd. It's ranked, but each entry contains recommendations for other albums within the same genre or style—sort of like honorable mentions, I guess, but not described or presented in those terms. So The Morning Call didn't rank A.M.I.L. the 7th best disc of the year, but you could have a sentence after Righi's initial review saying "Righi later named A.M.I.L. among the best albums of the year."
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: I believe that I have added everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added access dates to all the web sources, but you had made two edits and I got an edit conflict. It was really tedious to add the dates to each and every source, so I decided to override your edits rather than do it all over again. You'll have to redo those edits, my bad. I'll look over everything once those edits are reinstated. —BLZ · talk 21:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything newly added from Newspapers.com looks good. Great job. One last question (I promise): is there anything else that can be mined from the academic paper that cited Amil as an example of the "gold digger" archetype? I wonder if there's anything more that can be quoted—especially anything that is more analytical than descriptive—about Amil's adoption of the archetype and/or the prevalence of that archetype in the hip hop of that era, or anything else interesting they say about Amil. For example, did they say that Amil put any distinctive twists on the otherwise rote "gold digger" persona, or (conversely) did they comment that Amil's use of the archetype was generic? Even if there isn't anything about Amil, perhaps some of their overall thesis would be contextually useful. This, from the abstract, interests me:
"To understand how meanings become scripts unique to adolescent African American women's experiences, it is important to look at how their images have been framed within a racialized and sexualized sociohistorical context. The remnants of the foundational Jezebel, Mammy, Matriarch, and Welfare. Mother images of African American womanhood remain today, as exemplified by similar, yet more sexually explicit scripts that include the Freak, Gold Digger, Diva, and Dyke."
Any additional commentary would be helpful. Otherwise, the source review is concluded. —BLZ · talk 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. The article cites Amil, as well as Trina, as examples of the "Gold Digger" script, but it does not drill down into further detail on whether either women were generic or more subversive with the archetype. I believe that it situates both as generic examples of how this image is used in music (if that makes sense). The Amil song is used as an example for this type of "Gold Digger" behavior:

"The Gold Digger will supposedly resort to any and all sexual means to gain whatever financial rewards she wants or needs, seeing men as stepping stones to provide for short-term needs. Short term is not defined so much by a length of time, but rather a mind set whereby the male is good for as long as he can meet the Gold Digger's demands. She takes whatever she can, and when the well runs dry, the Gold Digger is history."

The article as a whole is actually very interesting. I could forward it to you if you would like in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I promised I was finished but two other things came up. First, I randomly stumbled on this Rolling Stone list by Rob Sheffield published last year. The list is about 1998, but in its entry on "Can I Get A..." it notes in passing: "The Irv Gotti-produced Hard Knock Life highlight introduced Ja Rule and Amil, who made her own kick-ass album with the excellent title All Money Is Legal." Second, it may be worth noting that the album was issued in both a "clean" and an "explicit" version, which of course was de rigueur for hip-hop albums of the late CD era (not sure how common that division is anymore). The AllMusic release page backs this up. —BLZ · talk 21:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: I have added the Rolling Stone source to the retrospective review paragraph and I have added a part on the explicit/clean releases. I have lost a lot of connection with contemporary music trends, but I think that "clean" edits are still made for radio and sold for certain audiences who for whatever reason prefer it over the explicit version. Thank you for both suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new additions look good. I expanded the gold digging paragraph to add a little more context and to incorporate that quote; my full reasons were stated in the edit summary. Now that the article is cited for multiple purposes, I think it would be best move the journal citation to the "Bibliography" section and then cite the individual page numbers in footnotes. That article seems like it would be a tremendously useful resource for a "Women in hip hop" article—that link currently redirects to the hip hop article, but notes the possibility for fuller treatment of the subject matter.
  • The expansions are very helpful. It is sometimes hard to remember (at least for me) to remember those who may not be familiar with these cultural ideas and terms. I will move the journal citation down to the "Bibliography" section momentarily. There should definitely be a "Women in hip hop" article as it is a topic that is frequently discussed within music journalism. I know there is a Women in Latin music article that is quite detailed and informative. I have also found female hip hop to be fascinating (and it inspired me to work on this particular article). Fortunately, there are a large number of female rappers active right now as opposed to the previous idea that there can only be "the one". Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, the source review is very much concluded. I snuck in a few general comments in this section rather than the one below (since we were already talking up here), but the source-specific review here is complete and I feel confident in the reliability, comprehensiveness, and formatting of all the sources, as well as the accuracy of their use in the text. So, without further ado... (scroll down) —BLZ · talk 02:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I will look at the general comments in a few. I greatly appreciate all of your help. The article has improved so much, and I am really proud of the work for this. I will definitely be taking what I have learned from this FAC in the future (although I will not be nominating an FAC immediately after this because I could use at least a small break lol). Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/support from BLZ

[edit]

I've made copyedits as I go, I'm part of the way through but should finish later tonight (it's currently noon in my timezone). General comments so far:

  • "According to a 2015 Fact article, Amil's signing to the label became the subject of industry gossip." — my own rewording of the sentence there before, but it still seems a bit vague. You mention the Foxy Brown rumor, but the Duncan article also mentions a rumor that she was "pregnant with a married man's baby" ("married man?" Who? Not Jay-Z, but someone). You later quote lyrics that share some similarities with this rumor. Do any other sources comment on this? The Fact source only vaguely alludes to the rumors, but it's clear that whatever rumors they're referring to were salacious. I can understand restraint on your part in not vividly rehashing rumors of a sexual nature from 20 years ago about a female musician, but Amil herself was frank about the details when rebutting them in the Duncan article. Besides, mentioning that there were rumors without unpacking them is almost worse, because it suggests some unspecified debauched conduct while leaving the details entirely to the reader's imagination.
  • I agree. I believe that the rumors referenced by the source are primarily about her alleged romantic relationship with Jay-Z. I included in the sentence about how she denied this along with the reports of a pregnancy. I always err on the side of caution for rumors. There are some weird ones out there about Amil, including how she said that she had a romantic relationship with Beyoncé. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The added sentence is an improvement. I'm not sure of the full range of rumors myself having not looked at the sources in-depth yet, but I'd say (at a minimum) that any rumors Amil addressed are probably worth including. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list the three executive producers but at no point list the producers. You do mention Just Blaze, who it seems reasonable to single out in the lead if his contributions were more noteworthy, but it seems like you should name the others in the body somewhere, either the background/recording section or the music section.
  • "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, including six music samples." Something about this formulation seems a little odd to me. The fact of the album having six samples distributed among 13 tracks seems like an almost arbitrary correlation to draw—especially since this fact isn't gleaned from a secondary source that found the presence of the samples inherently noteworthy, but from the album credits. To me, this would be an ideal place to highlight the full roster of producers: something like "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, with production credits from..."
  • "Lyrics include Amil's boast that she is 'the only hot bitch you're gonna hear this year' — this seemed a little divorced from context on its own, so I added the fact that this was interpreted as a slight to Lil' Kim and Foxy Brown. Still conspicuously missing: what song is this from? A Google search only turns up the Browne article and the Wikipedia article. According to Genius, the song "That's Right" uses the words "hot bitch" but not as quoted by Browne, and with a different meaning.
  • I removed the sentence. If the lyric is not on the actual album, then it should not be included here. I should have checked beforehand but I trusted the source as it is mostly reliable. Maybe they used a different version of the album for the review but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good—I thought it was strange too. Seems possible that Browne misheard or misremembered lyrics when he submitted the review, since a song at least shares some phrases with what he quoted, but who knows. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They highlighted the lyric "You know I gotta keep tricks up the sleeve, leav' em bankrupt with blue balls till the dick bleed" as an example." — Song?
  • "For his part, Jay-Z raps about becoming a father in the verse: 'I got four nephews and they're all writing ... and I'm having a child, which is more frightening.'" — Whoa whoa whoa! I revised "becoming a father" to "expecting a child", since Jay-Z did not become a father at any time before 2012 as far as anyone knows. Given that Jay-Z and Beyoncé are one of the most famous (if not the most famous) couples in the world, it's a huge bomb to drop that Jay-Z was even expecting a child in 2000 without providing further context. Since the cited source provides these details, it may be worth clarifying that Jay-Z never made further comment about the expected child he mentioned on "4 da Fam", and that this line came well before Blue Ivy Carter.
  • Thank you for the edit as it is a much better wording. If you are interested. here is another source about Jay-Z supposedly expecting a child back in 2000. There is a few articles out there about it, but they are mostly just rumors and speculation. Jay-Z has never explicitly said who the mother was or what happened so providing further context is a little difficult. I have included more details from the source, but I did not include the reporter's speculation on a miscarriage. I am not sure that kind of gossip should be included. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you included was good. I made some wording tweaks but it's substantively the same info. And I think you're right to omit the miscarriage speculation, which is speculation on top of speculation—for all we know the "child" was just a literary device for the song and nothing more. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked that Vibe source you linked, and I think it's worth including. I've written it as: "A column in Vibe interpreted the line as a pregnancy announcement from Jay-Z, who was an uncommitted bachelor at the time, but he never publicly commented on the lyric." All that's left is to add the citation. Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I have added the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is all good. There is no reason to rush. I honestly just want the article to be in the best shape and be as accurate as possible. I will definitely check out the timed text option. Thank you for the links! It actually looks like fun to try out in the future (starting with this article). It is nice even for non-deaf hearers to have subtitles right there lol. Again, I hope that I am not rushing you. I only pinged you to let you know about my responses being posted. Take as long as you need. I am just grateful for your help because you have helped to improve the article a great deal! Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that I added the timed text. It was a lot easier than I expected. I ended up replacing the audio sample for one with the chorus as I feel it shows Amil's vocals more clearly, which was subject of two critics' commentary. Feel free to let me know if the audio sample is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think having at least one sample from an album is almost always a good idea, and I think the current sample works to demonstrate her vocal style. The TimedText captioning also looks great. —BLZ · talk 03:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "[The music video for 'I Got That'] was uploaded to Amil's Vevo channel in 2009." I took out the Vevo dates for the two singles, it's not really pertinent to the album promotion. That info would be better suited to the individual song pages.
  • "Although Amil's verse has been criticized, Jay-Z has received praise for his contribution." This sentence originally said "Amil's verse was criticized" and "Jay-Z received praise", which implied (along with the general flow of the paragraph) that the reception you were referring to was roughly contemporaneous with the album release. In fact, the sources cited were retrospective assessments from 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017. I'd still rather have a little more about the attribution and specific critical assessment of those things: who said what about the song, and what specifically did each of them have to say?
  • I am just terrible at formatting them, and I honestly do not find them to be particularly useful (however that is a personal preference). I have tried my best to add one though. Apologies for any mistakes with it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and remained on the chart for eight weeks" — is that an additional eight weeks after its peak, or a total of eight weeks? Either way it should be clarified and reworded. —BLZ · talk 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album also peaked at number 45 on the Top Album Sales Billboard chart, and stayed on the chart for six weeks" — Misleading, but unless I'm mistaken this is Billboard's fault not yours. Prior to December 2014, there was no Top Album Sales chart. At that time, Billboard began including streams on the Top 200, but they created Top Album Sales to continue the old stream-free Top 200 methodology. Post-2014, Top Album Sales is just "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming." Pre-2014, it looks like Billboard has decided to pretend that there always was a Top Album Sales chart even though it's identical to the Top 200 for that era. I've removed the sentence. —BLZ · talk 05:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizationally, I think it would make sense to include everything in the "Release" section starting with "Amil was removed from the Roc-A-Fella roster..." into a new section between "Reception" and "Track listing", titled "Aftermath" (or something like that). I think you could also consider using the free-license photo of Amil from her Wikipedia page in that section. It's from 2014, but that makes it appropriate chronologically for an "Aftermath" section about how she largely dropped out from the public eye. Besides, it feels right to include an image of her since we have the option—otherwise, Jay-Z and Beyoncé illustrate it, but not her (aside from the album cover photo).
  • Revised. I have also added more from the Billboard interview where she said that she intentionally sabotaged her career and regretted being on a major label in the first place. The entire thing is actually a lot sadder than I thought. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there's only one edition of the album, is the "Release history" necessary?

With that comment, I've now gone thru the whole article text. I'll complete the source review soon. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – At this point, after a very thorough review (with lots of delays—thank you for your patience, Aoba47), I am very satisfied with the condition of the article. I believe that it meets all the FA criteria, that it is now as comprehensive and informative as it could possibly be (given its scope and subject matter), and that it should be a compelling read for both a general readership and readers with more familiarity. The article reflects Aoba47's very laudable work to tell the story of an otherwise obscure album that illuminates fascinating aspects of recent hip-hop history. —BLZ · talk 05:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Emile-Geay et al. 2008, p. 3140.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2019&oldid=898720122"