Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2017

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 [1].

Der 100. Psalm

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a monumental composition by Max Reger, a setting of Psalm 100 as a choral symphony. It was featured today in a concert for the Marteen Luther jaar, and I was reminded of the peer review a while ago. Luther wrote the translation to German, and his perhaps most famous chorale is the cantus firmus in the fourth movement, the climax of a double fugue. The most similar article is Requiem (Reger). Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Asking David Levy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I lack this information. Pinging Rettinghaus, the uncropped version's original uploader. —David Levy 07:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking into it. It's just a good image of Reger showing that he was also a performer. We could take another one if needed. I'd try to keep the score page where it is, for those who might actually look at it when reading about the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, that it was a Carte de visite published by Hermann Leiser in Berlin. Not quite shure about the date. --Rettinghaus (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Dumelow about this one and the Konzerthaus, - please check the licenses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I am not an expert on image copyright by any means, just trying to help out. I think I selected the right tags. It is the first time I have come across the second clause of the PD-1996 tag (I had previously thought that all works PD abroad in 1996 by virtue of death of the author +70 years were automatically PD in the US?). I would welcome any clarification on this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those two look fine; Reger image still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "It was published that year and premiered on 23 February 1910 simultaneously in both Chemnitz, conducted by the composer, and in Breslau, conducted by Georg Dohrn (de)." - simultaneously both is redundant
Thank you. I am on vacation, please excuse that I get to it only now. Dropped "both". --GA
  • "Reger used both, late-Romantic features of harmony and dynamics," - Don't think you need a comma after both
Never sure about commas in English, sorry. Removed. --GA
  • It was first performed in Wiesbaden, where the composer studied, in 2003. - link to this place?
yes --GA
  • The celebration of the Reger Year 2016 led to several performances. - No idea what this means
It's (perhaps too) short for: In 2016, Reger's centenary of death was remembered. There were more performances of his works than normally, even of this monster of a work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raised Catholic, he was still inspired by Lutheran hymns, writing chorale fantasias such as Zwei Choralphantasien, Op. 40, in 1899." - did he only write them in 1899? the date part of this sentence throws me off; the rest is fine
We can drop the date if it bothers you. --GA
  • " A year later he began the composition.[2]" - don't think it would hurt to add "of Der 100. Psalm", assuming that's what you mean by composition
I thought that was clear, but changed, had to change also the next sentence, or it would be a duplication. --GA
  • "He based the composition on Psalm 100 in the translation by Martin Luther.[1] He composed the work in Leipzig, beginning on 24 April 1908 and working on it until the beginning of July that year. He dedicated it "Der hohen Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Jena zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Jena" (To the high Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Jena for the 350th anniversary of the University).[1] " - redundant sentence structure; need to vary it more
tried, see last point --GA
  • A reviewer wrote in the journal NMZ: - which stands for?
Neue Musik-Zeitung, but not Neue Musikzeitung, - it was new at the time, - will search for a link. --GA
Found this in the German wikisource, but no article, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rather short psalm calls to rejoice in the Lord, serve him with gladness, come before his countenance with joy, realize that he made us, go enter his gates, because he is friendly" - this seems like a run-on
It it a summary of the topic of the four movements. How would you do it? --GA
  • The call to rejoice leads to music, especially suitable for festive occasions. - Is this original research or backed up by a source?
It's a summary of what follows, Jubilate and festive occasions. --GA
  • arranged it for congregation, organ and orchestra for the coronation of Elizabeth II, becoming ubiquitous at festive occasions in the Anglophone world.[13] - the second half of this sentence doesn't agree with the first half
Can you explain? --GA
  • "organ, and strings" - If you're not going to use the serial comma throughout the article, don't use it here either
see comma comment above, dropped --GA
  • " short instrumental introduction, marked Andante sostenuto" - might be useful to translate this for a general reader
linked to Tempo, - "sustained walking speed" would be awkward --GA
  • "In a middle section the divided voices express, mostly in homophony, gradually more intense: "Er hat uns gemacht und nicht wir selbst zu seinem Volk" (He has made us, and not we ourselves, his people)" - seems like there's a word or two missing here
What do you miss? --GA
  • The movement closes by a reprise of the first topic, this time ending pp. - does this indicate pianissimo? It's not clear
use full word with link, -keep forgetting that musical notation is not everybody's language, sorry. --GA
  • "mysteriously, almost spectrally" music - adverbs don't describe music, which is a noun
You are right, but how to quote the adverbs (from the source) without having to make notes about using adjectives? --GA
I stayed closer to the wording in the source, to keep the grammar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and noted how these elements also characterize Reger's life." - does this have a citation?
now doubled, still same reviewer speaking as before. --GA
  • the work was performed at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig on 11 May, his day of death in the town. - Day of death in the town? Clunky
How to say that he died in that same town? --GA

More comments after these are addressed. Weak oppose for now based on the prose. ceranthor 03:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I tried what I understood, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony." - No need for the comma after movements, I don't think.
No need, but I thought it's a new and independent thought. Comma dropped. --GA
  • "He moved to Munich in 1901. In 1902 he married Elsa von Bercken, a divorced Protestant. In 1907 Reger was appointed professor at the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig." - How much of this is directly relevant to this article?
Looking at other FAs on pieces, a short introduction is common. His bio is not as well known as that of others. Knowing that worked as a professor is related to his honorary doctor's degree of the other university for movement I, I think, and the Protestant wife a bit for the choice of hymn for movement 4 which is highly unusual for a catholic composer. --GA
  • Keep the serial comma, or the lack of it, consistent throughout the article.
  • "Reger completed the composition of the psalm, by adding three more movements, from May to August 1909." - Don't think the commas are needed here.
done --GA
  • "The psalm has been set many times," - What does this mean, that it's been "set"?
short for "set to music", repeated now --GA
  • "The themes of the first psalm verses are paraphrased in the opening movement of Bach's 1734 Christmas Oratorio, Jauchzet, frohlocket, with a later contrasting section Dienet dem Höchsten mit herrlichen Chören (Serve the Most High with wonderful choirs)." - citation?
I will copy them from the Christmas Oratorio, but not right now. It's this very text, - "Jauchzet", "Dienet", I thought that was enough. --GA
Spitta said it in 1880 (reprinted 2014), Rathey in 2016, now added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reger's setting had not been intended for church use; it was written initially for a secular occasion and then for the concert hall." - citation?
Well, - look at all performances. The first in a university celebration, for which it was intended. The premieres in concerts. All performances I know of in concerts. It's way too "big" for liturgical use, too expensive and too long. - More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
now doubled --GA
  • "Reger structured the text of the psalm in four movements, as a choral symphony,[15] in the typical structure of a symphony:" - redundant to say symphony twice in such close proximity
"Well, it happens, inserting something and not checking, - but now I also don't know how to avoid it, because Choral symphony and Symphony are different, and we need both links. --GA
  • "The first movement corresponds to the opening movement of a symphony, which is often in sonata form. The movement sets the first two verses of the psalm, which call for three actions: "jauchzet" (rejoice), "dienet" (serve), and "kommt" (come). The three topics match two contrasting themes of the exposition of the sonata form, and its development. They are followed by a recapitulation of the two themes." - citation?
This paragraph was created as an overview/summary of the structure of this complicated movement, as suggested by Finetooth (below). It has the same facts - condensed - as below, but I'll copy the refs, for safety. --GA
  • "It is quiet, marked sostenuto and pp" - wouldn't pianissimo suggest even more extreme than just merely being quiet? Wouldn't it be very quiet?
I meant quiet more generally for the whole section, as a contrast to the "explosion" of the first one, this section begins pp, but has a cresc right away to mp. --GA
  • "and noted how these elements also characterize Reger's life.[16]" - I understand the sentiment here, but I'd like this better as a separate, complete sentence, rather than as a continuation of a previous sentence. ceranthor 04:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the prose per 1a. Thanks for fixing all of my comments in a timely manner, GA! ceranthor 18:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

No expert in the matter, or any music in fact, so all I can offer is a layman's view. Some comments:

  • Reger completed the composition in 1909.[1] -> do we need a reference in the lead? Is this statement controversial?
dropped, was just left over from copying --GA
  • He requests -> why present tense here when rest is past tense?
changed --GA
  • It was first performed in -> which one is "It" referring to?
The organ version just mentioned before, - what else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After his studies he -> not clear if everything before this sentence only applies to his time as a student.
His first compositions were made when he was a student, yes. --GA
  • in 1898 -> would it not be better to group the 2 references to time together into this sentence. Something along the lines of "In 1898, after completing his studies, "
done --GA
  • still inspired by Lutheran hymns -> a bit of help for the reader would be nice. That "still" might not be obvious to all.
What do you suggest? Perhaps "Although he was raised Catholic, he was inspired by Lutheran hymns? --GA
  • he began the composition. -> I would write "he began composing Der 100. Psalm." but that's just a matter of style.
changed per comments above --GA
  • Die Hörer des Psalms müssen -> I don't think this long quote in German is necessary. I think just rephrasing what he said suffices.
Necessary no, but highly unusual, so why not for those who can read it? I like to listen to what the composer has to say ;) --GA
  • "Noch unter dem Eindruck -> also not necessary
same
  • the translation by Martin Luther. -> he was already linked
removed --GA
  • the translation by Martin Luther -> from which language?
The psalms were originally in Hebrew, and Luther translated from Hebrew, but what does it add to the understanding of Reger's music? --GA
  • motet needs a link
done --GA
  • verse(s) of the Psalm -> why this capital P
said "Psalm 100" now, because it s this specific one --GA
  • tradition of Johann Sebastian Bach - > already linked before
removed --GA
  • often contrasting theme of the sonata form, often -> two 'often' close together
changed one --GA

More later, but looking good so far.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I'll look, hopefully later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. Sorry, just a few small things:

  • invention',[19] -> is there a closing " missing?
  • used for the climaxes." -> where is the opening " ?
  • isbn format inconsistent

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all good catches, hopefully clarified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
I'm in a bit over my head here as regards content, but I can offer suggestions related to prose, the Manual of Style, and things a general reader might wonder about.
Lead
  • ¶1 "Der 100. Psalm (The 100th Psalm), Op. 106, is a composition in four movements by Max Reger in D major for mixed choir and orchestra, a late Romantic setting of Psalm 100." - A bit too complicated? Since "four movements" is repeated in ¶2, maybe this would be better: "Der 100. Psalm (The 100th Psalm), Op. 106, is Max Reger's late Romantic rendering of Psalm 100, composed in D major for mixed choir and orchestra."
You will have to convince me that mentioning the four movements early is not wise. The usual psalm setting is one movement along the text, a few minutes. This is a monumental symphony of more than half an hour, the most unusual psalm setting I know. How to say that best? ---GA
It's probably best to leave it as is. My knowledge of psalm settings is approximately zero. Finetooth (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "The celebration of the Reger Year 2016 led to several performances." – Readers will probably not know what Reger Year 2016 means until they have read the rest of the article. Suggestion: "The celebration of Reger Year 2016, the centenary of the composer's death, led to several performances.
taken, with minor changes ---GA
History
  • ¶1 "He dedicated it "Der hohen Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Jena zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Jena" - Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, I would italicize this and most of the other German phrases and expressions in the article except titles and proper nouns like the names of people, cities, buildings, orchestras, and so on).
To my understanding, quotations are not also italicized. The idea of italics is to separate from normal text, which the quote marks do already. ---GA
I wouldn't mind having a third opinion on this one since I rarely encounter many long quotes in languages other than English. I poked around in the MOS some more and found a guideline in MOS:QUOTE in the foreign-language quotations subsection. It says in part, "When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems), and to use actual and (if at all possible) common English words in the translation." Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But see my next note down. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, I'd be inclined to put the English translations first and put the German originals in parentheses. Beyond that, I share User:Edwininlondon's concern about some of the long passages in German. Most readers will skip over the German to get to the English. A compromise might be to use English in the main text for the long quotations (not the short ones) and to put the German originals of these long ones in notes at the bottom of the article. They would be there for readers who know German and would not slow the readers who don't.
Food for thought. In a way, I hate to put anything in quotation marks that is translated, because even the best translation changes the meaning. I come from FA Kafka, where his German comes first, then a translation. I'll think about it, and about footnotes. How do you feel of divided blockquotes for the long quotes that makes skipping easier? Tried for one. ---GA
I like it. Set off like that, it is much easier to read, and the italics, imho, would be redundant and cluttery. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to treat the other long one the same, because I did the translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what is causing your hesitation. If you mean the quote starting with "Noch unter dem Eindruck des Gehörten...". Citation 4 is the RS for the German text. I don't think you need a separate RS for your translation since any reader who can read both languages well enough to have an opinion can change the translation or, better, discuss it on the talk page. So I think citation 4 can be used for both the original and the translation, just as it does now. All you'd be changing is the layout. Or am I misunderstanding? Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, I try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. If others raise no objection, I think that will do it. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "the band of the 71. Infanterieregiment Erfurt" – The period here is a bit confusing since it looks at first glance like a terminal period. Could this be recast as "the band of Infanterieregiment 71 from Erfurt". Even better, imho, would be "the band of Infantry Regiment 71 from Erfurt" with no translation since the cognates are so close.
done ---GA
  • ¶1 "Reger demanded many rehearsals from the conductor" – I think "of" would be better than "from" since "from" suggests that he gave them to Reger, which he didn't.
done ---GA
  • ¶1 "So be good and take care for that." – A better translation, judging from the context, would be "So be good and take care of that"; that is, "of" rather than "for".
Can I improve the translation given in the source? Probably only with a note that I changed, which I think is clumsy for such a minor change. ---GA
  • ¶2 "The work was published by Peters in Leipzig, first the vocal score with piano in September 1909, with the piano reduction prepared by Reger himself. The score and the parts appeared in December that year." – Active voice and sentence-splitting might work slightly better. Suggestion: "Peters in Leipzig published the work, starting in September 1909 with the vocal score with piano. Reger prepared the piano reduction. The score and the parts appeared in December that year." Then link piano reduction and parts for clarity.
trying that, with minor change ---GA
  • ¶2 "...wrote in the journal NMZ..." – Spell out, italicize, and abbreviate, as in "...wrote in the journal Neue Musik-Zeitung (NMZ)?
done ---GA
Structure and scoring
*¶Since SATB and four-part choir link to the same SATB article, perhaps on first use something like "SATB (four-part choir)".
removed second link ---GA
Jauchzet
  • ¶1 "marked ff" – Maybe "marked ff (fortissimo)" for clarity?
word added, but ff is a dab page ---GA
  • ¶1 "The choir first sings a quart motif..." – I'm not sure what "quart" means in this context. Quart is a unit of volume. Perhaps quarter-note or something similar?
Forgive me, octave (Oktave) works from Latin, but learning now that it's fourth (Quarte), not from Latin ;) - fixed. ---GA
Nothing to forgive. I'm always happy when I catch something. Otherwise I might have to change my user name to Toothless. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 Since pp and pianissimo link to the same pianissimo article, perhaps on first use "pianissimo (pianissimo)"?
done like for ff above ---GA
Erkennet
  • ¶1 "marked ppp" – More clear as "ppp (as soft as possible)"?
trying "extremely soft", or should we say "pianississimo"? I've seen pppp, so it's not the end of softness.
General
*Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
Will do, forgot for images added later. Tried to solve overlinking mentioned below.
  • No problems with dablinks.
  • No dead URLs.
  • Minor overlinking. "Theme" is linked twice in ¶2 of the Jauchzet section. Others linked more than once in the main text include "Johann Sebastian Bach" and "Lutheran hymns", as well as the "SATB - four-part choir" and "pp - pianissimo" pairs noted above. - Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helpful comments. Please check again. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through again, I have just three more questions or suggestions, as follows:
Jauchzet
  • ¶2 "It has been compared to the second, often contrasting of the sonata form typical for first movements of symphonies." – I think this should say "contrasting with" rather than "contrasting of", and I'm not sure what "second" refers to. I think it needs a noun to go with it.
Another good catch, - I think it was a linked "theme", which I meant to copy and delink, and possibly lost. The movement is possibly the most complex thing there was at Reger's time, - it's not you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶2 "In measure 111 the third topic appears..." – What is the second topic? Is it "Dienet"? And is the first "Jauchzet"? I'm not quite clear on this. The Jauchzet section is the hardest for me to follow because of my limited musical background.
I called these topics, from the text: rejoice / serve / come. I tried now to explain the overview before going along the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more clear to me now. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation
Good idea! - Did you know that I found two more sources, one already inserted, but I could use it for more background, one a contemporary review about a 1923 performance (in my sandbox). I wonder if I should add at this point, or better leave it as it is. I added a second organ version, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The addition about the second organ version looks fine to me. I have no opinion about adding the contemporary review of the 1923 performance. How much is too much? Maybe flip a coin. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good. Switching to support on prose with the caveat that someone very familiar with the vocabulary of music might see things that I have missed. Btw, yesterday I listened to the YouTube Reger-Chor International version of this work. Passionate and lovely. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for support, but even more for making everything clearer by your questions, and yet more for listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment

[edit]

The lead contains the sentence: "It was first performed in Wiesbaden, where the composer studied, in 2003." Can you clarify what "it" refers to? Hindemith's version, or the organ version? Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was clear but you are the second to ask, will repeat "Organ version" although it was just mentioned before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should add "of the complete work" to the final sentence of the lead, otherwise it's not clear what "led to several performances" refers to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't stressing "complete" sound as if there were also performances of parts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated the title, instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I'm way outside my comfort zone on content, so I've basically been looking for things that aren't clear to me. That's likely to be due to my own ignorance, so feel free to ignore any or all of the following:

  • "Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott"—this redirects to the English A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. On en-wiki, if the English version is well-known enough to be preferred for its own article, shouldn't it be used in your text?
No, because Reger knew nothing about "A Mighty Fortress". I went and a created an article on the German hymn (on which all Bach and Reger and German national stuff is based), because I believe there's enough material on both topics to warrant two articles, but it was not welcome. It's at present in user space (and in the archive of the mighty fortress, of all places, not by me of course), but it will hopefully resurface by the time this may be TFA. Did you know that most Lutheran hymns are under their German title? See {{Lutheran hymns}}. --GA
  • appointed professor—"of music" I assume?
Well, typically it's some more specific department name, and I confess not to know. Composition perhaps. Will try to find out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reviewer wrote in the trade paper Neue Musik-Zeitung—Here and elsewhere you give the original text as well as the translation. I don't think that is either necessary or normal practice elsewhere when dealing with quotes.
This was asked above: I like the composer's and others' original, and with the help of Finetooth, we found a way to make it visible for longer quotes, so someone for whom it means nothing can easily skip it. - We used consistently German with English in brackets for Franz Kafka, which as you may know became the most successful TFA so far, - for me it's normal ;)—GA
  • KMD (director of church music) —I'm not sure what the "KMD" adds
It adds notability to an otherwise not known person. Will try to find a link eventually. (de:Kirchenmusikdirektor) It's for church music what GMD is for secular conductors. --GA
  • In 2016, a Reger Year reflecting the centenary of Reger's death—are there other Reger Years, or did you mean that 2016 was designated as Reger Year to commemorate the centenary?
I don't know, it was the first I came across, but I was careful not to say The Reger Year, because there may have been a centenary of his birth or whatever else.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for good finds, and especially for your trust! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

A number of points need attention:

  • Ref 9: The short citation is "Palestrina 2016" Neither that name nor the year seem to have any relation to the actual source, so what's it supposed to convey?
Well, references are two kinds, those present in the GA, and those added when expanding, this is of the later kind. Generally, I take "author(s)/year" for references, but sometimes we don't know, such as here. What do you suggest. I picked "Palestrina" because all it had to support is that Palestrina also set Psalm 100. ---GA
  • In general, short citations in the Harvard scheme should provide at least some visible identification with the appropriate listed source. In a number of cases this is not the case - see refs 28, 33, 35, 37 and 38. I'm sure that these are the correct sources for these citations, but why be so cryptic?
same as above, open to suggestions: publisher perhaps, when no author is known? ---GA
  • Ref 17 is dated 2004, but the source article is from 1953
fixed --GA
  • Ref 20 lacks a page reference
fixed --GA
  • Ref 31 is shown as "Dresden 2016" but the source year is 2004
Where do I find that source year? --GA
  • Ref 32: year 2016 duplicated
fixed --GA
  • Ref 34: "Benda" in citation, "Wenda" in source
fixed --GA
  • "Bibliography" is an inappropriate title for your list of cited sources - t's too general a term. You should subdivide your references section into "Citations" and "Sources"
changed --GA
  • I notice that you give website details as publishers in many of your online sources. More correctly, you should use the "work" field for websites and give the site publisher's name. Also, at present, there are inconsistencies in italicisation.
I changed "publisher" to "website" as I saw Nikkimaria changing. Not sure which name you mean by site publisher's name, and where to use it. Ready to learn more. ---GA

Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will check, but it's about midnight here when I'm likely to make more mistakes, and tomorrow will be mostly RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking (again past midnight): I fixed most of the specific things, and will try more general adjustments, but only later today. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some more replies with questions above. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, would you have time to look again. I don't know what "site publisher's name" I would use, and how, for the town of Leipzig, for example, and the Protestant deanery of Weiden. I don't add italics, but relied on the templates doing them, - is that wrong? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new source, and would like to know if it matches your expectations: [1]
"Leipziger Universitätschor gedenkt Max Regers mit Festkonzert". Leipziger Universitätschor (in German). 3 May 2016. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
{{cite web
| url = http://unichor.uni-leipzig.de/modules/standards/feAdmin/newsletter/newsletterCont.inc.php?id=51
| title = Leipziger Universitätschor gedenkt Max Regers mit Festkonzert
| date = 3 May 2016
| work = Leipziger Universitätschor
| language = German
| accessdate = 30 November 2017
| ref = {{sfnref|Leipziger Universitätschor|2016}}
}}
  1. ^ Leipziger Universitätschor 2016.

.. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Here's the first half:

  • I might throw a "German" into the first paragraph, possibly "German composer" before "Max"
I don't go for composition by composer, nor do I think nationality matters much in music (per a friend who quotes "the only real nation is humanity") --GA
  • "Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony." I'm not sure the comma is necessary.
That's the second time the question comes up. It's short for two sentences that are independent. --GA
  • "In 1922 the biographer Eugen Segnitz noted that the work of intense expression was unique in the sacred music of its period, with its convincing musical interpretation of the biblical text and manifold shades of emotion." I might change "the work" to "this work" and put "of intense expression" within commas.
done, good point --GA
  • "a divorced Protestant." Reger's own religion should be made clearer if his wife's is important enough to note.
clearer than "Though raised as a Catholic" in the previous sentence? --GA
  • I wonder if the dedication should be in italics. It is not, after all, a title.
Normally, things in quotation marks are not also italic, but willing to learn. --GA
  • "350jährigen" there's no space between the number and the word, correct?
yes, as in the source --GA
  • "for the university's anniversary." This tells us nothing more than was in the translation. I might say "at the ceremony marking the 350th anniversary" or similar if the source will support.
taken --GA
  • "Reger conducted the church choir of St. Lukas and the municipal orchestra (Städtische Kapelle), with Georg Stolz at the organ of the church St. Lukas." I might say "Reger conducted the choir of St. Lukas church and the municipal orchestra (Städtische Kapelle), with Georg Stolz at the church's organ." It might simplify if you mentioned the performance took place at the church, which I imagine it did.
Yes, it did, but that was something I found out only recently (per the new source), and then added it too simply. Rewording, with thanks for such a sharp eye. --GA
  • " or his swan song" this seems a bit flip and not truly necessary.
I tried more precision. It's better known as Schwanengesang than Opus ultimum, but I didn't want to leave readers with the German term. Not sure if "swan song" is understood without a link? --GA
Swan song is a fairly common idiom, it will be understood. It's a bit informal in English, which was my objection, but I'll withdraw it.
  • "(NMZ)" why give an abbreviation when you never use it?
history: it was only abbreviation first, dropping that --GA
  • "the Lord is friendly". (in "Psalm 100 and settings") Is this how the Psalm is generally translated in English? I don't object to this word as a translation of the Luther, but I'm a bit dubious where you're rendering it as the translation of the Pslam itself. I'm offline, but the Gideon Bible I have handy translates this as "The Lord is good".
There are several Bible translations, - this (mine, of Luther, not the original Hebrew) is called "literal", and "freundlich" means "friendly", not "good". --GA
I won't presume to argue with Luther on Biblical translation, but the Hebrew is "kee tov", "because good". Do English language sources translate as "friendly"?
I was not clear. This is not a Bible translation, but a translation of the text that Reger set to music, and - without source, but probably any dictionary - will give you "friendly" as Luther's "freundlich". ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it became ubiquitous at festive occasions in the Anglophone world" this is a 1953 work and you are citing a 1953 source. Unless it immediately became ubiquitous, I'm a bit dubious. It doesn't seem prevelant in the US, by my (limited) personal experience.
You are right, and I fail to remember what made me write that, possibly something in the JSTOR article that I don't find again right now, only the preview. - Possibly it should better read that Old Hundredth became ubiquitous (compare Psalm 100, not the specific coronation setting.
--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for good ideas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more:

  • "It has been compared to the second theme of the sonata form." It's not clear what this refers to.
Same "it" as in previous sentence: "'Dienet', the second topic". Sonata form was linked (even twice), for those who don't know that typically there's a first theme and a conztrasting second theme. Better wording welcome. -- GA

"leading to the first topic, "Jauchzet"." I might use "returning" or "reprising" in the phrase, since we've been to that topic before.

we are (measure 111) still in the development section where the material is worked on, including material from the first topic, while the reprise of the beginning (with a link of the term) comes in measure 130. --GA
  • "connecting both the musical form and the content of being created God's people and serving him with gladness." I would cut "both". I take it content means like "substance" rather than satisfaction?"
The German would be "Inhalt", as in TOC and theme (literary), - a better word welcome. How to avoid, without "both", that the connection is not between musical form and content, but between these two and the same in the first movement? --GA
Maybe "connecting the musical form with the theme of being created as God's people and serving him gladly" or some such.
I was not clear, again: Reger quotes the musical theme from the first movement, - by using the same musical theme he connects the two things expressed with it, the one in the first movement (serving with gladness) and the one in the second (created as God's people). - The same music connects two topics, in short. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for careful reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: The external link to "Max Reger / 19. März 1873 – 11. Mai 1916" is dead. Otherwise I think we are good to go once Brianboulton is happy with the source review. Sarastro (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter of the dead link is resolved, I think any further tweaking/tidying of sources presentation can be done post-promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, as its an external link, I don't think we need to wait. Sarastro (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2017 [2].

Elizabeth David

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth David was a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today. This article has undergone an extensive rewrite and expansion recently, and a well-attended and very productive PR. – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check caption grammar throughout - centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated, captions should end in periods when complete sentences and otherwise not, etc.
  • File:Elizabeth-David.jpg: don't use the unique histor ic images tag for this purpose. {{non-free biog-pic}} would be more appropriate.
  • File:Elizabeth_Gwynne_(David)_1923.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Norman_Douglas.jpg: Commons history indicates this photo has been edited, which would seem inconsistent with the requirements of the licensing tag?
    • It looks as though they are not requirements but requests, and, as the image is in the public domain, presumably unenforceable. More to the point, perhaps, the one here and the original in the Congress Library look the same to me, and the one here is not "colorized or cropped". What think you? Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A_Book_of_Mediterranean_Food_cover.jpg should include a more expansive FUR

While I'm here, I'll also mention that citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some examples: many of the citations are written freehand, but then some use templates. 162 and 262 both cite WorldCat, but look quite different. 285 and 289 are both online newspapers, but are ordered differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is down to me, as SchroCat kindly indulged his senescent collaborator and left my mediaeval system of citations intact. I think I have now (third attempt!) got them all into shape. Thank you – as ever – for your eagle-eye and patient help, Nikkimaria. Tim riley talk 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and your most helpful input at PR. Tim riley talk 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto! Many thanks Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "According to an interview with Chaney" It is obviously David speaking, but you should say so.
  • "Tony David proved ineffectual in civilian life, unable to find a suitable job, and ran up debts, partly from a failed business venture." This does not look right to me grammatically.
  • "and to put distance between her and her husband" I would say "herself" rather than her.
  • "In 1977 David was badly injured in a car accident" I think a sentence giving more information about the accident would be helpful.
Thank you for these, Dudley. Looking forward to any further thoughts you may have on the piece. Tim riley talk 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There have been many flashings of neon in the postwar food firmament, but there is only one star. Her name is Elizabeth David." I doubt the value of this quote from 1970. One on her role in improving cooking would be good (or even English life as with the Auberon Waugh comment), but not a near 50 year old claim that she is the only star.
  • "Janet Floyd, the professor of American Literature, identifies that David" I find the word "identifies" jarring in this context. "points out" or "argues" would be better.
  • "The message of "real food"," The source does not use the pretentious term "real food".
  • This is a very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I add my thanks to SchroCat's for your comments and support. Much obliged, sir! Tim riley talk 16:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Edwininlondon

[edit]

Very nice piece of work. I had never heard of her, and although initially I found the personal life bits a bit questionable, but gradually I got to see why those bits are there. The prose is of enviable quality. Very few things to question:

Again, a remarkable effort. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Brianboulton

[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article twice: a detailed review in 2011 when I was young, and a briefer version a couple of weeks ago, when I found little of substance to quarrel with. I did raise a slight caveat about possible over-detailing, but no one else has echoed this concern. I agree that the general quality of the prose is excellent, and the presentation superb. So no further quibbles from me (except, see sources review below). Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for both reviews, Brian, and for your support here. I have pruned the books section a little, following your comments at the second PR. Tim riley talk 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing my thanks, too, for your thoughts at PR and here. They are much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • General point re online newspaper sources: when the source is a website rather than the paper itself, you need to add a retrieval date. You have done this with, e.g. 283, 287 and 288, but not 33, 77, 120, 133, 182, 189. 193, 227, 249, 255, 262, 273, 275 (list may not be exhaustive)
    • I don't know what the source is for that alleged requirement. I've been away from WP, it's true, but this is certainly a new one on me. For verification purposes the date of publication in whatever medium is all that is required as far as I can see, and I can't think what extra value is added by saying when I looked at it. Though I suppose if we've done it for some we might as well do it for all. I'll wield the clipboard accordingly. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tim, I think I've caught all these, but could you cast your eye over to make sure I've not missed any? - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 63: The source is "Imperial War Museums" (plural)
  • Ref 120: the article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
  • Ref 158: Wrong WorldCat link
  • Ref 187: The title is "The Cult of Elizabeth David" – and retrieval date required.

Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality, and are impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, BB, my querulous comment notwithstanding. These points will be dealt with by SchroCat (who is ahead of me, I see) and self. Tim riley talk 22:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Brian. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning retrieval dates. I think the argument is that the online version of a newspaper/journal article is generally a transcribed version, and may not be identical to its printed original. If the article can be accessed in its original format (as with Proquest), then the need for retrieval dates does not apply. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

I can't match Brian's double Peer Review, but I did nit-pick my way through the second and I've really nothing further to query or quibble over here. It is a superb, collaborative, piece of work. I knew of David, but nothing in detail of her life and impact. The article presents all of this beautifully, and it's undoubtedly one of the best Wikipedia has to offer, fully meriting Featured status. KJP1 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, thank you for that. She was quite a gal, wasn't she? So glad you enjoyed the article, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 17:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts at PR and here KJP1 - all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by William_Avery

[edit]

Speaking as one who can be quite picky about prose, I found this a pleasure to read.

One possible addition has occurred to me since I commented in the last peer review, which is that the auction of the subject's kitchen effects brought unexpectedly high prices, with at least one notable buyer, and was widely reported at the time. However, I'm not sure it's covered in good enough sources; but I'll put some links here anyway.

William Avery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this support, and for your input at the peer review. The auction is covered in detail in the Chaney biography. Having divided up the sections between us when we started overhauling the article, I'll defer to my co-conspirator SchroCat on whether to add details, and if so what. Tim riley talk 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks William Avery; I've added a small sentence or two at the end of "Later years", which should cover the important points. Thanks also for your thoughts at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim

[edit]

Comprehensive and a great read, agree totally regarding garlic presses and shop bread. Just a couple of quibbles you are free to ignore

  • ancestor on her father's side, also Dutch and Sumatran seems too vague. I could probably describe myself as a Viking on that basis
    • To be honest this is a sop to a previous editor who made a production number of her ancestry, which I have reduced to the present wording. I wouldn't mind making it smaller still, but discretion is the better part of valour here. Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link the now-defunct Yugoslavia?
  • Why "funghi" spelling? You are not quoting as far as I can see, so I'd expect English sp?
  • Why are regions of France (Corsica) and Italy (Sicily) linked, but not US states (California)?
    • Fair point. Shall link.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And cheers, not to mention warmest thanks, to you Jim for comments and support. (I'm not sure I agree with you and Mrs David about garlic presses, but please keep this to yourself.) Tim riley talk 19:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim – I'm much obliged to you. (I agree with you and her about shop bread, which is why I bake my own, but was shocked when I found out she preferred instant coffee to real coffee). - SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the changes, although "mushroom" comes to mind as an edible fungus possibility. (Off topic) I acquired some blewits recently, delicious with a cream and brandy sauce on toast (home-made bread of course) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

[edit]

I haven't much to add to the careful comments above, having already said most of what I might have said at Peer Review. It's a fine article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, CC, for your input here, at PR and throughout the article. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssven2

[edit]

Good to see you two stalwarts back in the midst of things after a while. A very interesting and pleasant read. My only query is that you can archive all the references (URLs that is) to avoid any dead links.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:50, 29 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2017 [3].

John Tyndall (politician)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent fascists in British history, a man who went from an involvement in various Neo-Nazi militia groups in the 1960s to becoming leader of the National Front in the 1970s and the founder of the British National Party in the 1980s. Although Tyndall is dead and the parties that he was involved with now drift around in political obscurity, he remains a central figure in the history of the British far-right, ranking alongside Oswald Mosley and Nick Griffin. The article is particularly topical given the recent media interest in fascist and Neo-Nazi groups in both Britain (particularly National Action) and the United States. It has been a GA for some time and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg should use {{non-free biog-pic}} not the historic images tag, and FUR should be expanded
  • File:Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg: based on publication date PD-US would not apply

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 221: I'm not too happy about having to accept an avowedly racist publication as a reliable source. I suppose that as it's only used to cite the date of Valerie Tyndall's death it's OK, but I'm uneasy
  • This is an issue I also grappled with when working on this article. However, it seems that Valerie Tyndall's death was only covered on far-right websites; she was insufficiently notable for the mainstream press to take attention. Thus, we are left with either using such a source, or having no source at all. I'm happy to follow the consensus on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 222–224 require publisher information
  • In Sources, "BBC News" should not be italicised
  • The missing isbn for Taylor 1982 is 978-0-333-27741-6
  • On isbns generally, the 13-digit form is preferred, and can be obtained by using this converter.

Subject to the above, all sources appear of appropriate quality and are in consistent format. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I'm working through the prose – I've done the "Life" sections, "Policies and views" to come. Many of the comments are nitpicks; I've made a few unimportant edits to the article itself. Here are my comments to date:

Lead
  • Overall, I think the lead is somewhat overdetailed and therefore too long. I've drafted a shorter version for you to consider, here - losing about 25% of the wordcount.
  • I don't personally find the lede to be excessively lengthy; it is already at least two or three lines shorter than the more important political biographies that I have brought to FAC in the past (Lenin, Mandela, Biko etc). I'm worried that some of the proposed removals are too important to lose; for example, his creation of Spearhead, likely the first Neo-Nazi terror group in the UK, would be lost from the lede. However, I have tried trimming down the prose at various points in the lede to shorten it (scrapping "newly established" etc) and have acted on some of the proposed changes (removing the name of the NF factions etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1957 he co-founded the National Labour Party (NLP) with John Bean; an explicitly "National Socialist" (Nazi) group". The semicolon isn't quite right here. A slight rephrasing: "in 1957, with John Bean, he co-founded the National Labour Party, an explicitly "National Socialist" (Nazi) group" – eliminates the semicolon
Youth
  • Describing Tyndall's O-level results as "fairly moderate" is surely over-generous. I'd say "substandard" (and that's still generous)
  • Copsey, who we cite here, refers to "a moderate three O-levels". This is a difficult issue to resolve. We could be rid of "fairly moderate" altogether, but then readers may not be familiar with how impressive (or unimpressive) three O-levels were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A member of the Royal Horse Artillery, during the service he rose to the position of lance bombardier." Lance-bombadier is a rank, not a position, and it needs a hyphen. Also, "rose to" suggests attaining some promotional height; in fact it's a one step promotion of no special achievement. The words "during the service" are unnecessary. I'd simplify to "Serving with Royal Horse Artillery, he achieved the rank of lance-bombardier."
  • Does Hitler need the description "the late Nazi leader"? Universally understood, I'd say.
  • I'd have thought so, but you never know. Is Hitler as well known in, say, Indonesia or Zimbabwe as he is in the West? And will he be as well known to readers in thirty or fifty years time as he is to us today? I find it best to cover our bases in a case like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The National Labour Party and the first British National Party
  • "the secondary school teacher Colin Jordan" sounds as though he was The One. I'd prefer the formulation you used with John Bean, which would be "Colin Jordan, a secondary school teacher".
  • "Tyndall briefly left the NLP" – any reason given for this?
  • "In April 1961, Tyndall published a pamphlet that he had written..." – you could lose the last four words
  • "Both Bean and another senior member, Andrew Fountaine, were concerned..." You need to insert "BNP" after "senior", to clarify that Bean and Fountaine wwere not members of Spearhead.


The National Socialist Movement and Greater Britain Movement
  • "20 April 1962" was the anniversary of Hitler's birthday.
  • In the sentence "The police then raided the group's London headquarters, with its leading members brought to trial at the Old Bailey..." the word "with" is not an appropriate connector, dubious grammatically. It should be something like "The police then raided the group's London headquarters, after which its leading members were brought to trial at the Old Bailey..."
  • For what it's worth, Jordan's WP article deals with the Dior marriage rather differntly: "In October 1963, while John Tyndall was still in prison, Jordan, who had just been released, married Tyndall's fiancée, Françoise Dior". Not cited, and probably wrong, but I thought I'd mention it.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I followed the citations for this article, so I'm not really sure what the Dior article was using as its basis, but if in future I find any RS offering a different explanation of these events then I shall make sure to amend this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arguing that he "still had a lot to learn" – probably needs "then" after "that"
The National Front 1967–80
  • "This proved more successful, for the LEL..." Without a comparison, "more" is redundant. And "for" would be better as "as"
  • Some dodgy capitalisation, e.g. "Vice Chairman", "Chairman", "Directorate", none of them justified in my opinion. There may be other examples in the article which I haven't picked up.
  • "This NNF" – "The NNF"
Establishing the British National Party
  • No issues
Growth of the British National Party
  • I'm not sure how inviting William Pierce to speak was a counter to the influence of Combat 18
  • As I understand it, it was an attempt to prove the BNP's 'militant' credentials by having such a speaker, thus trying to undermine C18's claims to being the truly militant group, as opposed to the 'softy' BNP. Should I make this clearer in the actual prose? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tyndall stood as the BNP's candidate for Bow and Poplar, there gaining 3% of the vote." – some unnecessary verbiage there: "Tyndall stood in Bow and Poplar, gaining 3% of the vote" will do. Likewise, in "Tyndall stood as the party's candidate in the East London constituency of Poplar and Canning Town", you can lose "as the party's candidate".
  • Numbers expressing quantities require a comma after the "thousand" digit, e.g. 2,500 not 2000. I've dealt with a couple of earlier ones.
  • "used instead by Tyndall for personal uses" is awkward. Perhaps "expenses" in place of "used"?
Final years 1999–2005
  • No issues

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My remaining points:
Policies and views
  • "openly approve strongly" – do we need the second adverb? It reads clumsily.
  • Third para, first sentence: "or not" is redundant
Race and nationalism
  • The words "biologically racist" should not be duplicated in the first line. Thus: "Tyndall had "deeply entrenched" biologically racist views,[175] close to those of Hitler and Leese".
  • The word "for" that begins the quotation should be deleted as it interrupts the prose flow.
Views on governance
  • "This Prime Minister could be dismissed from office in a further election that could be called if Parliament produced a vote of no confidence in them". I think "passed" rather than "produced". Also, the use of "them" as a gender-free singular pronoun is questionable grammatically. Nothing would be lost by deleting the last two words.
  • "He believed that the apartheid system of racial segregation utilised by these countries should be retained forever" – "these countries" being South Africa and Rhodesia. Although both countries practised racially discriminatory policies, I don't think that the Rhodesian system amounted to "apartheid" in the South African sense, in which black Africans were not considered as part of the nation but as citizens of so-called "homelands". Deleting "apartheid" from the sentence, and pluralising "systems", would resolve the problem.
Social views
  • I just wonder why the use of single quote marks in line 2?
  • Conversely, the quote-within-a-quote in the penultimate para ("what's he on about?") does require single quotes.

Overall, this is an excellent article, a fine model for political biographies despite the repellant nature of the subject. I'm happy to support when the above points have been answered. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support now added. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vanamonde

[edit]

I reviewed this in detail at GAN, and am comfortable with the changes made since then. FWIW I am not to familiar with British politics, but have worked on articles on a number of controversial political figures. This is a fine article on a difficult topic. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

An interesting read. Here's the first tranche, to the end of the biographical section.

  • "His paternal family were British Unionists living in County Waterford, Ireland.[4] and had a long line of service in the Royal Irish Constabulary.[5]" Some issue with a sentence fragment here. If you're cutting the full stop after "Ireland", or replacing it with a comma, I might change "and" to "who"
  • "as the anniversary of Hitler's birthday" I might simply say "as Hitler's birthday". The reader will know Hitler was dead.
  • "The new NF initially excluded Tyndall and his GBM from joining, concerned that he may seek to mould it in a specifically Neo-Nazi direction," shouldn't "may" be "might"? As I see another instance later in the article, it may be an ENGVAR thing.
  • "the former GBM soon rose to become the most influential faction within the NF, with many of its members rapidly rising to positions of influence." the "rose/rising" is a bit of a clash. I might change "rose to become" to "became".
  • "and Tyndall again met with Jordan in Coventry in 1972, there inviting him to join the NF." I'm not sure the "there" is really needed.
  • "in the East London town of Millwall" Is Millwall a town?
Just a couple more:
  • "as a way of hoping to appeal to the masses." I understand the authorial voice doesn't want to get to close to the point of view, but "seeking to appeal to the masses"or similar is certainly easier on the eye without getting hands dirty.
  • "He argued that Britain should establish a White Commonwealth bloc, calling for a better relationship with South Africa and Rhodesia.[207] He believed that the systems of racial segregation utilised by these two countries should be retained forever.[208] He claimed etc, There;s a but if a drumbeat in the he argued he believed etc that I'm not sure I like. I'd try to break it up a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Wehwalt. I have acted on all of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Glancing through the article, it seems that we have quite a lot on Tyndall's own views, and quite a lot about his reputation in far-right circles. Is there perhaps a danger that we are looking at him through too narrow a lens? Perhaps I've missed it, but should we be talking about how he was perceived in wider political circles, or by the press and general public? I am not recusing, nor opposing, nor saying that anything is missing here, but I would just like to clarify this point: are we putting him into a wide enough context? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point; unfortunately the reliable sources produced by academics and journalists specialising in the far-right do not seem to give much information on how Tyndall was received in more mainstream sectors of British society. It may be that he was largely ignored by the mainstream. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I think we need something. The Telegraph and Guardian obituaries have fragments on his general popularity, even if its just figures from general elections. Even a sentence is better than nothing. Sarastro (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: - I've established a short section at the end of the article titled "Reception" which deals with how he was received in both the far right and in wider politics. I have also added a brief mention of this reception in the final paragraph of the lede. I certainly think it's an improvement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: Not all the images have alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication but I will leave it to you which need to be kept. But neither of these issues are enough to hold up promotion any longer. Sarastro (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2017 [4].

The Bat (play)

[edit]
Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comedy, mystery, and shocking twist ending of The Bat made it one of the most successful plays of the 1920s; it ran on Broadway for over two years at a time when only big hits ran more than a few months. It was the bellwether of a genre of "old dark house" thrillers that were popular through the end of the decade. In the years since, imitation and parody have turned its thrills into clichés, but it has another legacy: a movie version of its masked villain provided inspiration for a masked hero, Batman. Thanks in advance for your feedback; I hope the surprise ending of this nomination is promotion to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Claude_Rains_(cropped).jpg is an extract from File:Claude_Rains.jpg, which was printed and distributed to theaters in Australia in 1912.
  • File:Effie_Ellsler_with_hat_(cropped).jpg is extracted from File:Effie_Ellsler_autographed_with_hat.jpg, which is an autographed print from the New York-based Burr McIntosh Studio in 1903.
  • File:Mary_Roberts_Rinehart_1920.jpg is a news service photo, so I assume it would have been distributed, but although dozens of photos of her were published from 1920-22, I have not spotted this one. So I've swapped in File:Author_photo_from_The_Works_of_Mary_Roberts_Rinehart_(1918).jpg, which was published in a 1918 book.
Let me know if you have further concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
Well-written, well-illustrated, and entertaining. I have a few questions and suggestions, and I made a few minor proofing changes. Please revert any you think are misguided.
Lead
  • ¶2 "Rinehart and Hopwood made a number of changes to prepare it for Broadway..." – Delete "a number of" since it is too nonspecific to be useful? Suggestion: "Rinehart and Hopwood altered the story to prepare it for Broadway...".
  • ¶2 Link antagonist?
  • ¶3 "several road companies brought the show to other areas" - Maybe "took" rather than "brought" since the road companies were probably based outside those other areas?
Plot
  • ¶1 "Dale arrives for a visit with Dr. Wells, the local coroner and an old friend of Fleming's." – Confusing since it's easy to think from this sentence alone that Dr. Wells was already at the mansion. Suggestion: "Dale and Dr. Wells, the local coroner and an old friend of Fleming's, arrive for a visit."
  • ¶1 "When she shows Anderson to his room, Dale warns Brooks...". – It seems doubtful that Dale and Brooks would accompany Cornelia and Anderson to look at his room. Suggestion: substitute "while" for "when"; that is, "While Cornelia shows Anderson to his room, Dale warns Brooks (who is actually Jack Bailey, and Dale's fiancé) that Anderson is a detective."
  • ¶3 "the unknown man apprehends him and reveals that he is the real Detective Anderson" – I would add, "the unknown man" after "he" since at first glance it might be seen to refer to "him"; that is, "the unknown man apprehends him and reveals that he, the unknown man, is the real Detective Anderson".
Adaptation
  • ¶1 "the elderly spinster heroine" – Link spinster?
Reviews
  • ¶1 "Alexander Woollcott described the play as entertaining and well-acted in his New York Times review." – Probably better if the end phrase is moved to the front; i.e. "In his New York Times review, Alexander Woollcott...".
Adaptations and legacy
General
  • Alt text looks fine.
  • No problem with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No overlinking.
  • This is the first time I've seen a Kindle citation in a Wikipedia article. Way cool!
@Finetooth: All reasonable suggestions, so all done. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All sources are of appropriate quality and impeccably presented. A couple of tiny nitpicks:

  • Ref 24 is behind a paywall, so it would be helpful to add the (subscription required) template.
  • isbns should ideally be in uniform 13-digit format. There are currently several 10-digit versions, which can be converted by [this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. For Ref 24, the little red padlock is supposed to indicate the subscription requirement; it's what appears when the |url-access=subscription parameter is used. For ISBNs, I use the form that is presented in the book; for editions that pre-date ISBN-13, this will necessarily be ISBN-10 (or for really old editions, no ISBN at all). This matches the advice given at WP:ISBN#Types. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the advice given: "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work" is accompanied by various converters, and has generally been interpreted at FAC as a preference for displaying the 13-digit form. But I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "The play originated as an adaptation of Rinehart's 1908 mystery novel, The Circular Staircase." Perhaps remove the comma? If it's her only 1908 mystery novel, it's not wrong, but I wouldn't include it.
  • Is the film worth a link?
  • "with the publication of her 1908 novel, The Circular Staircase" As above!
  • I think the name "A Thief in the Night" belongs in the lead; and is it worth mentioning the locations of the previews there? (And for the article body, do we know the particular theatres in these towns? That would be worth including.)
  • Do we have links (redlinks if appropriate!) for Majestic Theatre or National Theatre?
  • "whose nickname became the play's title" Is nickname the right word? Handle, perhaps? (Or would that be anachronistic?)
  • I think mentions of both genres (comedy and mystery) belong in the first paragraph of the lead
  • "the detective supposedly investigating the case" The putative detective- he's not actually a detective. How about "a character who is supposedly a detective investigating the case" or something?
  • "Although similar endings had been used in earlier stage mysteries" Some examples would be great, if your source mentions any!
  • "the second-longest-running Broadway production in history at the end of its initial stint" Perhaps you could mention the longer-running play?
  • Is Spanish Love worth a link? The Monster?
  • "a 1925 adaptation of The Monster" Your links are off here; in the sentence, The Monster refers to the play but the wikilink is to the film. Unless you're going to reword, the wikilink needs to be on "a 1925 adaptation"
  • "Rinehart sold the film rights to The Circular Staircase to film producer William Selig's Selig Polyscope Company in 1915, and he released a film version" The he presumably refers to Selig, but, as written, it reads like it refers to Rinehart (whether or not she is a he!)
  • "Wagenhals and Kemper filed suit to block Selig's use of the title" Were they successful?

Conditional support. I really enjoyed reading this; my support is conditional on the light fixes above being made, as well as a successful source- and image review. I leave it to the delegates to work out whether to count this as a support, as there is every chance that I won't have time to check in to this review as often as I might like! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks for your review. I've updated based on your suggestions and only inserted replies above where there is something to say other than "done". --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great; I'm happy with that, and capable editors have OKed the sourcing/images. Full support! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Looking forward to reading! Comments to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I confess that the first time, I was confused. It got a bit better the second round. - In opera, we usually have a list of roles, and the setting and time, before the story begins. It makes it easier to look up who a person was when I forgot. Compare Gianni Schicchi. - I see that you have the list with the performers but it would really help me further up, perhaps without "Anderson" twice, to keep the tension.

History

Why is "where she lived" in brackets?

Cast

I think the table would look clearer (at least on small screens) without the images on its side.

That's all, - thank you for enjoyable reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for reviewing. No reason I know of for the parenthesis around "where she lived", so changed. I also re-distributed the cast images so they are not aligned next to the table. Regarding the placement of the cast list, I think that would be a more complicated change because the text about the cast assumes the identity of the Bat is already known to the reader. Unless this is a critical issue, I would prefer to leave it where it is. --RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, thank you, and support. (I explained on my FAC that I was off today.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

Looks fine...I can't see anything to complain about. so support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm not sure if Gerda Arendt has anything further to add here. But I notice that the link to " "The Bat: A Mystery in Three Acts" is dead, and this should probably be sorted before we promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link was working recently and the overview of the collection still says "Digital reproductions of the collection are available online." My initial suggestion is to wait a few days and see if the problem is temporary. --RL0919 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Actually, nevermind what I said about waiting -- I found an archive link and added that. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 [5].

Lady Gaga

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk), IndianBio and SNUGGUMS 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Lady Gaga, an American singer, who is known for her outlandish style and provocative work. She was arguably the world's biggest pop star around 2010. We have been working on this for a while now; it has been through two peer reviews, one in 2016 (which hardly went anywhere) and the other recently in September. Many thanks for everyone who turned up at PR which include @Mymis, Wehwalt, John, Ceranthor, and ArturSik:. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about taking the plunge! Let's hope for the best. Don't be surprised if I make other edits during this FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have been planning this since 2015; it's time we did this. Let's be prepared. :-) FrB.TG (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with this one guys, I really hope it gets promoted. I watched it evolve and it's a deserving FAC. ArturSik (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]

Support on the prose per 1a. I helped copyedit this article during the peer review, and the nominators addressed a great number of my concerns with aplomb. Great work! ceranthor 21:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333

[edit]

I don't know anything about Lady Gaga whatsoever, except just about everybody else on this planet does, and this is an absolutely worthy article to take to FAC - so now is an ideal opportunity for me to learn something about her. I'm not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll see what I can do

  • I've copyedited the lead a bit, feel free to revert to taste
  • "A popular contemporary recording artist" - Do we need this here? It's kind of stating the obvious; I generally prefer quantifiable facts such as chart positions and sales figures, which can't be quibbled with.
  • The third paragraph in the lead is a bit too "In 2011, Gaga did this. In 2012, she did that. In 2013 she did the other." I know when you're just trying to produce a basic set of major accomplishments, the prose can get a bit "list-y", but see if you can reorganise or trim things down. Something like "Her follow-up albums, Artpop, and the jazz-oriented Cheek to Cheek also topped the charts".

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The very first section of the biography cites 5 sources in quick succession. On the one hand, dropping inline citations in every few words distracts the reader; on the other, putting them all at the end would involve five citations. I'm not sure of a solution other than picking an alternative source that cites all of it (which may not actually exist).
  • I'm not too au fait on the suitability of US newspaper sources on BLPs - about what level is the New York Daily News? It's not highbrow broadsheet, but it's not celebrity trash either. As the facts cited are pretty innocuous, I don't see this as being a major issue.
  • I can't remember the guidelines for WP:LASTNAME, should we not be using "Germanotta" up to the point she started being known as "Lady Gaga"? Also, do we know why she chose the name?
  • Not sure about usage prior to adapting the name. As for choosing that name, I'm pretty sure it came from the Queen song "Radio Gaga", which either way is probably better for the next section when she started using it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She began experimenting and taking drugs soon after" - unless I missed it, I can't see where in either source it says that Gaga was taking drugs.
While Gaga talks about drugs in the source, she does not imply she also took them. Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herbert signed Gaga to his label Streamline Records, an imprint of Interscope Records, established in 2007" - when exactly was Gaga signed?
  • "At Interscope, singer-songwriter Akon recognized her vocal abilities when she sang a reference vocal for one of his tracks in studio." - lose one of the "vocal"s and what does "recognized her vocal abilities" mean here exactly?
Revised. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On YouTube, the video for "Bad Romance" gained the most views ever, and Gaga became the first person with more than one billion combined views." - lose one of the "views"
Revised. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inspiration behind the album came from her longtime friendship with Bennett" - this is in 2014, but the first mention of Tony Bennett is in 2011 - not really a "longtime friendship"
  • "In February 2015, Gaga became engaged to Taylor Kinney" - who is he? If he's not directly involved in her professional career, then perhaps this (plus the break up a year later) would be better off in a "personal life" section?
  • See the 2011–2014 section; they got together after he appeared in one of her music videos. Personal life section is asking for trouble as I'm absolutely certain it would become a magnet for trivia, fancruft, and gossip additions. Besides, there's not much to add for such a section anyway when the only relationships she's had that are him and Rob Fusari. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The singer played a witch named Scathach in American Horror Story: Roanoke, the series' sixth iteration" - shouldn't that simply be "the sixth series"?
  • "Her role in the fifth season of the show ultimately influenced her fifth studio album" - how exactly? And why was it called Joanne?
  • To add to SNUGGUMS, I changed a bit to show that it was inspired by her aunt and influenced the music of this album. After that we move to the sales stats and all. —IB [ Poke ] 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show attracted 117.5 million viewers based on American television ratings, exceeding the game's total of 113.3 million viewers." - I don't understand what this means.
  • "The performance resulted in 150,000 digital album sales for Gaga" - was the performance sold commercially (selling 150,000 copies) or was the increase in album sales a by-product of the Super Bowl performance?
  • "During her first set, the singer released the standalone-single, "The Cure"" - I realise you can do pretty instant things with downloads, but did she really release a single halfway through a gig?
But that's not what the prose says - it says "during her first set". What I understand by "first set" is something like a Grateful Dead concert (of which there are thousands available to listen to online), most of which consist of the band playing about 1-2 hours (first set), then a break, then the same again (second set). What Gaga's doing, however, is two back to back gigs, so it should say something like "between the two shows". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment - this is not a criticism as such but most of the sources I've looked at have been contemporary news reports, that have skirted towards (but not quite reached) tabloid journalism. Normally wouldn't complain but this is FAC, and I've got to consider criteria 1c. In mitigation, I think this is because unlike many articles I have worked on, Lada Gaga's notability entirely lies in the internet era, her career is in popular culture so that's where we're going to find the most information about her, all relevant facts about her are available online (via the Wayback machine if nowhere else), and a critically acclaimed biography of her life has not been written yet.

Well, that is true of most articles of contemporary artists. It is really an uphill task to write about them with the lack of literature and scholarly sources. I guess we just have to write from whatever we find. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later .... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to it. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular we have a Glass Spider era Bowie picture? Is Gaga more a Ziggy / Thin White Duke / Let's Dance / Tin Machine (delete as applicable) fan or does she just like Bowie generally?
The image was randomly chosen. In one source, she does say that she listened to Aladdin Sane when "finding her voice", but I wouldn't interpret it that she likes only that album. She is a fan of him in general.
  • "her debut album The Fame (2008) discusses the lust for stardom; ...." - why can't we just say The Fame at this point, if the user gets this far, they'll know what we're talking about, and if they've forgotten, it should be obvious from context. Same for other mentions of albums in this paragraph.
  • The impression I get from the "Musical Style and Themes" sections is that critical response to Cheek to Cheek was mixed. Is the Guardian source here truly representative of what people thought?
This is not a representative review (since many sources praised Gaga's singing abilities); also I am not sure we need reviews there since there are already two of them for C2C in biography section.
  • The section on "Videos and stage" is lacking a bit after 2011. Given we've just talked about Gaga reinventing herself all the time, we probably want to discuss later tours here as well.
This one is rather tricky. The performances or reinventions worth noting are Cheek to Cheek and her performance at the 2015 Oscars, both of which are already discussed in biography section. I am not sure if it is helpful to repeat them there.
  • "Certain media members have compared her fashion choices to those of Christina Aguilera" - what do you mean by "certain media members"?
  • Is there really a Guinness World Record for Largest Gathering of Lady Gaga Impersonators?
Yes, believe me.
  • "After all, Gaga, born Stefani Germanotta" - although this is part of the quotation, I don't see how it's relevant to the reader's understanding of Gaga's public image - I'd suggest trimming this bit out with a "..."
  • Gaga wore the raw beef outfit - Although there is a link, I have absolutely no idea what a "raw beef outfit" is - can you explain?
  • Partly awarded in recognition of the dress, Vogue named her one of the Best Dressed people of 2010 and Time named the dress the Fashion Statement of 2010 - lose one of the 2010s
  • it was also criticized by the animal rights organization PETA - why?
  • In July 2012, Gaga also co-founded the social networking service LittleMonsters.com, devoted to her fans - there is a easter egg link to Stan (fan), which needs explanation to non-enthusiasts
I have simply de-linked it; fan is a common word.
  • Gaga is an outspoken activist for LGBT rights worldwide - is "outspoken" the right word to use?
  • Halfway through the "LGBT advocacy" section, we announce, completely out of the blue, that Gaga is bisexual. If we had the "Personal life" section (see above), this could go here. Did Gaga come out at some point, or was she never "in" in the first place? Obviously, we don't want to go in to excessive detail here, but I don't think you have to be gay / bi / trans etc to support LGBT rights, so her support for this is a separate entity from her own sexuality. (For example, I'm not transgender, but one of my friends is and switching genders seems to have brought comfort and happiness into her life, so good for her).
  • I don't think she at any point tried to keep her bisexuality a secret, and do believe it prompted her advocacy for the community. Perhaps starting the section with something like "Gaga is bisexual, and *insert description on LGBT advocacy*" would work better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we briefly explain what "don't ask, don't tell" without the reader having to look at another article to get an explanation?
  • While we're talking about LGBT rights, we should mention Gaga's criticism of Trump's military transgender ban. Come to think of it, Gaga has spent quite a bit of time this year Trump-bashing ([6], [7], [8]) (not that I have a hidden agenda against putting as much criticism of Trump in as many articles as possible or anything ;-)
  • On a related note, we should mention (with a suitable source, of course) Gaga's support for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

... and that's about it - I think once all the above issues are resolved, we'll be there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, thank you so much for such a thorough review. I have done most of the things above except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, in which case it's a Support from me. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ritchie333 for everything! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

[edit]
Support I weighed in at the first peer review, here and it's had the benefit of additional reviewers since. Looks like it's to FA standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Ritchie and Wehwalt. Thank you Ceranthor also. —IB [ Poke ] 13:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 4: dead link
It was a wrong link. Corrected. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: The source is a website – yet no link?
The official video is not available online, I don't think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 42: Link not working. I get the message "The address wasn't understood"
The iTunes link works fine, except that it is for the US. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: needs a page reference
I don't have access to the source, but have replaced it with a Forbes source. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 55: Who/what is "AXS" and why is this a reliable source?
  • Ref 67: Retrieval date missing. This is also the case with 117, 139, 148, 159, 197, 206 and 275, possibly others I've missed
Added, not sure how I missed these. Thanks for noticing them. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 115 and 116: "Top 40 lista" is not the publisher, which appears to be "slágerlisták" though as I don't speak Hungarian I can't be sure.
  • Ref 184: There's a red message that needs attending to.
Fixed - the archive URL contains odd characters that generate an error message on the URL, so I've taken it out. I don't know if that's what the nominators want though, so feel free to revert and fix properly if I've just made things worse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally fine; don't worry. The important thing is how the link actually works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 239 and 299: WP has a policy on tweets as reliable sources. See WP:RSSELF, which says: "self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media." Can you say why these tweets should be regarded as reliable sources?
  • That policy says that tweets are fine for non-contentious claims without any reasonable doubt of being true, which I can safely say applies to the former as it is the Guinness World Records announcing an achievement Gaga made in its records, but I've removed the latter as Ariana Grande doesn't quite say or even suggest that Gaga inspired her (contrary to what article text previously implied). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are tidily presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

As a fan of Gaga since her first album (makes me feel super old realizing it has been over nine years since The Fame was released), I would try to help out with this. My comments focus specifically on prose:

  • For this sentence (The same year, she played an unsuspecting diner customer for MTV's Boiling Points, a prank reality television show.), link “MTV”.
  • In this sentence (At Interscope, singer-songwriter Akon was impressed with her singing abilities when she sang a reference vocal for one of his tracks in studio.), there are few instances of the word “sing” in some capacity. I would change “sang” to something else to avoid repetition.
  • In this sentence (Despite her secure record deal, she said that some radio stations found her music too "racy", "dance-oriented", and "underground" for the mainstream market.), I am not sure about the phrase “her secure record deal”. What do you mean by this? Do you mean “Despite securing a record deal”? I think it can be revised to read better.
  • I am confused by the context in which the quote from the following sentence (The singer concluded: "My name is Lady Gaga, I've been on the music scene for years, and I'm telling you, this is what's next.”) was delivered. Where did she say this? Who did she say this to?
  • I would revise (the latter becoming the world's best-selling single in 2009) to avoid the misreading that it make the best-selling single of all time in 2009. I think “of 2009” would be more appropriate than “in 2009”.
  • Do you think that the Hitmixes should be mentioned?
  • I am not certain about this part ("The Edge of Glory", initially a commercial success in digital outlets, was later released as a single). “The Edge of Glory” was released as a promotional single and then upgraded to an official single so this part (was later released as a single) is a little misleading.
  • I also not certain about this part (accompanied by a music video that strayed from the "dramatic style" of her past efforts). The (the "dramatic style" of her past efforts) is rather vague and I am not sure if an unfamiliar reader would understand what it means. Also, it seems to an odd shortening of the history behind the video’s development (a more dramatic video was scheduled and then canceled and replaced with the one that we know). I think that this information could be presented better.
  • I would clarify that Eau de Gaga was released in 2014 as it is separate from the rest of the 2012 stuff.
  • Do you think that it is notable to include a part on the controversy surrounding the “Do What U Want” video, specifically her collaboration with Terry Richardson? It may be more appropriate to keep that information only in the article on the song, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
I also think it should be mentioned, but I'd like the opinions of @SNUGGUMS and IndianBio: on this.
In many cases, I feel such details are better for song article, but will have to give some thought to this one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly fine either way; this comment was more to bring it up to your attention. I understand and agree that some information is better kept in the article on the relevant song. Just thought it may be helpful to explain why the song never received a video and the promotion for the album kind of stalled after that. I am happy with any choice you make on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the paragraphs involving Artpop seem a little odd. I do not understand why the information about “Aura” and its music video is included after information on “G.U.Y.”, ArtRave: The Artpop Ball, and the split from her manager as those all took place after the “Aura” music video.
I have included the music video for "Aura" there because it was released to promote Machete Kills, which released after these events. I added it also because I thought it would flow better this way.
  • I am still not entirely convinced about this though. Machete Kills was released on October 11, 2013 in the United States; "G.U.Y." was released as a single in March 28, 2014, the ArtRave: The Artpop Ball started on May 4, 2014 and ended on November 24, 2014 and she joined Artist Nation in June 2014. All of this happened in 2014, which was after the release of Machete Kills, the SNL performance, and the broadcast of Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular. I would also put the Christina Aguilera remix of Do What U Want closer to the other sentence about the song. I am just not a fan of the chronology/timeline of these two paragraphs (i.e. the 2013 and 2014 activity) as it is unclear in my opinion. Also, Aguilera is now linked twice in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same comment as above applies to the placement of the sentence on her appearance on SNL to promote Artpop. I just think that the timeline gets a little too murky here.
  • For the part on Cheek to Cheek, I think that you should mention that two singles were released as part of the project.
  • Do you think it would be relevant to include a sentence on the reception of Gaga’s Sound of Music performance (i.e. from the media or from Julie Andrews herself) or information on her preparation for it?
  • For this sentence (Hotel is the fifth season of the horror show), I would change “horror show” to “anthology horror series” as the inclusion of the word “anthology” makes it clearer that each season is distinct from one another.
  • Do you think that it would be more appropriate to move this sentence (Her role in the fifth season of the show ultimately influenced her future music, prompting her to feature "the art of darkness”.) closer to the rest of the sentences on that particular season? Having the sentence right after one on a separate season and character is a little confusing.
  • Do you think that the music video for “John Wayne” should be mentioned?
  • Do you think that the commercial performance or critical reception of “The Cure” should be mentioned?
  • Do you think that it is worth mentioning the comparisons made between Aguilera and Gaga in terms of their music? I remember a lot of media attention around Aguilera’s album Bionic and if it was chasing Gaga’s sound, and that Gaga had even addressed it during an interview.
There was a sentence on "Not Myself Tonight" and its comparison to the video of "Bad Romance" in public image section, but I removed it as it belongs more in Aguilera's article more than here.
  • Do you think that Gaga’s duet with Aguilera on The Voice for Do What U Want should be included?
  • Do you think that information about Gaga’s performance during the hurricane relief concert and the image of her with the five former presidents should be mentioned?
  • ”Techno” is linked twice.
  • Do you think that a link for “feminism” would be beneficial?
  • For this part (After declining an invitation to appear on the single "We Are the World 25" to benefit victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake,), did she offer a reason for declining the invitation?
  • For this sentence (Stylistically, Gaga has been compared to Leigh Bowery, Isabella Blow, and Cher), the references need to be put in the right order. The same comment applies to this sentence: (Gaga was inspired by her mother to be interested in fashion, which she now says is a major influence and integrated with her music.) and (She considers Donatella Versace her muse and the English fashion designer Alexander McQueen as an inspiration.).
  • The “disco” link could be moved up to this part (perky ABBA disco).

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. I enjoyed reading this and learning more about Gaga. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we're doing the "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", I've got Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Carpenters/archive4 on the go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can definitely review that FAC as well. I will wait until my comments here are addressed first as I want to make sure that this is complete. I will try to get to your FAC by the end of this week or the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing these suggestions, most of which I have used except where I have noted otherwise. I will take a look at both of your nominations after finishing my review here. (I intended to post comments at the Carpenters FAC in a few days before this message). FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my points. Once my concerns about the Artpop section is addressed, then I will support this. Great work with this again! I would imagine doing work on an article about such a well-known figure would be difficult so hats off to all of you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 and FrB.TG, let me take up the issue with the Artpop section. Aoba has a valid point regarding the chronology of the section and there's a bit of proseline effect I wanna eliminate. —IB [ Poke ] 19:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to add one more comment. I am not sure about this part, "As a bisexual", as it feels incomplete. I have never "bisexual" used as a noun so do you mean something along the lines of "As a bisexual woman"? Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba and IB, I have rearranged the Artpop section a bit. Let me know what you think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some further small corrections, but I have to say FrB.TG, you did a much better job than I had imagined. Thank you Aoba47 for your comments and support. —IB [ Poke ] 05:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ArturSik

[edit]
Agreed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm conscious that this could probably be promoted now. However, it is certain to attract a lot of attention, particularly if it is ever TFA. With that in mind, and to allow other interested parties to comment if they wish, I will leave it open for a day or two more. I wonder if John or Mike Christie would care to have a look too? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps let John finish his review at Johansson FAC before pinging for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs) 04:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to take a look here as I am almost finished over there. My router blew up on Friday though, so bear with me as I'm on a slow connection most of the time until the new one arrives. --John (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Reading through now; please revert my copyedits if necessary.

  • What does it mean to say that a performance "was a lo-fi tribute to 1970s variety acts"? The lo-fi article only talks about audio quality.
  • I wasn't sure what was meant by "reference vocal"; could this be linked to scratch vocal, assuming that's the intention?
  • The singer responded: "My name is Lady Gaga: There doesn't appear to be any comment she's responding to, except her own in the previous sentence. Who is she talking to in this quote?
  • Suggest adding the date the lawsuits were dismissed to footnote b.
    The lawsuit was filed and dismissed in 2010, so I have cut "March" from the sentence.
  • She yearned to make audiences have "a really good time" with Artpop, crafting the album to mirror "a night at the club". Saying she wanted audiences to have a good time seems like fluff; can we cut that phrase and combine the rest of the sentence with the previous one?
  • After spending much of her early life desiring to be an actress, Gaga starred in American Horror Story: Hotel. I think a sentence that makes a more direct connection between its two halves might be better. How about "Gaga had spent much of her early life wanting to be an actress, and achieved her goal when she starred in American Horror Story: Hotel?
  • Gaga performed live at several events in 2016: Doesn't really give us any information; I'd suggest cutting this completely and tweaking the following sentence as needed -- probably just "She sang the...", and changing to past tense throughout that sentence.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits were fine, except a minor grammatical error you introduced, which I fixed here. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck all but one above, and thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • She has changed her vocal style regularly, similar to Madonna and Gwen Stefani: I don't see references to Madonna or Stefani in the sources cited, and in any case I think you could just cut the comparison -- without some more detail it doesn't tell the reader much.
  • Suggest "then-president" rather than "politician" for Obama.
  • a pledge of solidarity and activation: surely this should be "activism" or something similar?
  • ...making her one of the best-selling music artists. Some of her singles are among the best-selling worldwide. It's not clear what distinction is being drawn here.
  • ...Gaga is acknowledged as one of the few artists for propelling the rise in the popularity of synthpop: something's not right here. Probably should be either "one of the few artists responsible for" or "one of the few artist who propelled"; I think the former is a bit more natural.

Overall this seems in pretty good shape. The prose is clean; I wouldn't say it's remarkably engaging, but for an article like this is very difficult to get away from a sense of one achievement or event being listed after another, and I don't see any obvious improvements to be made. I expect to support once these minor points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have used all of your suggestions here. FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just the "reference vocal" question left; I won't withhold support over that. Good work on a high-profile article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Mike Christie for that! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mike. —IB [ Poke ] 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

[edit]

I peer-reviewed this recently and I think it is pretty much good to go. Let me give it a proper reading. --John (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John I'm not sure how you are for time. I'm pretty happy with the level and depth of review here, and if there is nothing jumping out at you, I'm inclined to promote; any further polishing could take place on the talk page when you have a little more time. Let me know if you want a little longer to look, or if you feel it could wait until after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems reasonable. Let's go with that. Nothing major wrong here, let's promote. --John (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, John, and I'm glad people feel this is FA-worthy! Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments: Some, but not all images have alt text. For consistency, it should be one or the other. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. Also, duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication and the main editors can decide which are necessary. But none of these things are worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2017 [9].

Black honeyeater

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another day another bird..this was well-buffed many moons ago by a long-departed user. Have gone over it and have the sources handy, and am confident this is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: @Casliber:: I was BOLD and added an illustration by John and Elizabeth Gould. Feel free to remove if it's excessive, but I think it'd be nice to have when discussing its taxonomic history. Umimmak (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the illustration is a good addition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still learning the specific of what makes a good FA so I don't want to commit one way or the other, but after reading I have the following questions:

  • "It was subsequently reclassified in its own genus Sugomel." Article text doesn't talk it ever being in Sugomel in the first place. ***Re***classsifying is confusing if you never mention it being classified in Sugomel
I have added a bit - but a little more is coming (to explain why it wasn't used for 80 years) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if Salomonsen transferred it from Myzomela to Certhionyx in 1967, when did it go back to Myzomela from being in Sugomel as per Mathews 1922?
Aha, this needs explaining. Mathews was an amateur ornithologist who was an extreme splitter - making numerous new genera, species and subspecies, that were not upheld by later authors. However, as they still had valid descriptions, they have priority to be resurrected should future research prove any to be valid...such as Sugomel. I can see this needs a bit of elaboration in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the actual citations to Gould 1828, Mathews 1922, Salomonsen 1967?
I haven't added the ones I can't access and see myself Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you discuss the etymology of the generic name Myzomela, which has its own article (this genus was named well before this species was named, so it's weird to say it's named because this bird eats nectar...), but not of Sugomel, which this also is the article for as it's monospecific?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also since this is the article for Sugomel as well (should be bolded in lede), are there any synonyms for the genus? Have any other species been classified in this genus?
yes, not really, no Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to Myzomela nigra ashbyi Mathews 1912? Were there other subspecies? Have they all been synonymized to specific level? Made to be their own species? When were they no longer accepted?
see above. outcome added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immature birds are not separable from adults at a distance" What does this mean? That humans can't tell one from the other at a distance? Umimmak (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Added 08:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
correct. changed to "distinguishable" to avoid confusion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Umimmak: regarding supporting or opposing, in general when I review I keep going until I can't find anything else specific to complain about...as well as looking at criteria Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]

As always, some quick ones first:

  • The first sentence in the lead is kind of odd... Maybe say "in the honeyeater family" instead of "in the family of honeyeaters"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second sentence, "The black honeyeater exhibits sexual dimorphism with the male being black and white while the female is a speckled grey-brown; immature birds look like the female", there should be comma after "dimorphism".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of saying "on the wing", it'd be better to say "in flight", so that there isn't any ambiguity.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "While the population appears to be decreasing, they are sufficiently numerous and widespread to be considered of Least Concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Endangered species", there are a few problems. First off, you shouldn't use "they" so you can be consistent with using singular pronouns like "it". Also, it sounds a bit odd to be considered "of Least Concern". Maybe just say "least concern"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the taxonomy section, you say "IOC Birdlist", but then you later say the organization's name in full. Maybe you could switch this?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to specify what hemisphere you are referring to whenever you say a season (see "Some movements are southwards in spring and summer, moving northwards again in autumn and winter.")
I added before the first ones in that sentence only as I figured it implies it covers the second set as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC) More:[reply]

changed to double Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Australian amateur ornithologist Gregory Mathews placed the black honeyeater in its own genus Sugomel in 1922, the name derived from the Latin sugo 'I suck', and mel 'honey'" [double quotes in the sentence changed to single quotes], it looks weird to just say "the name derived from". Maybe say "the name being derived from"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say that it was transferred from Myzomela to Certhionyx right after you said that Matthews placed it in Sugomel? I'm assuming that it was not generally accepted at the time, or almost certainly not accepted by all at the time, so maybe say that? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no-one followed Mathews - he made new genera and species everywhere, most of which were not adopted. I need a source which shows this though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: maybe these might be useful, not specifically about Sugomel, tho, so it might be considered improper synthesis: [10]; [11]. If you do find a good ref on him, it might be useful also adding to the article on Mathews himself; I don't know much about the history of ornithological taxonomy to be able to tell which sources are representative. Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
those led me elsewhere - agree they are a bit tangential to this species, but would be good for Mathews article. I am musing on whether a footnote on Mathews would be useful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a bit repetitive to end both of these sentences with "all": "However, in 2004 genetic study of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of honeyeaters found that the three species classified in the genus Certhionyx were not closely related to one another at all. Instead, the black honeyeater was closely related to species within Myzomela after all." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
first one removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's odd how you have this sentence at the end of the first taxonomy paragraph: "A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA indicates that the ancestor of the black honeyeater diverged from that of the scaly-crowned honeyeater (Lichmera lombokia) just under million years ago, and the two have some affinities the genus Myzomela." Before, you talk about how it the black honeyeater was basal to Myzomela. But, just after that, and just before the aforementioned sentence, you talk about what its accepted scientific name today is. So, it would make more sense if that were at the end, and if the sentence about the 2017 study was before it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: do you have any other issues that you think I need to address? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The black honeyeater is a small honeyeater with a long slender down-curved bill, a small rounded head and slender neck set on a plump body, and a short, slightly cleft tail", the second honeyeater should be eliminated, and maybe replaced with "relatively small". Also, having all of those adjectives before bill sounds a bit odd; maybe put commas between them? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"small honeyeater" removed, and commas added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the source just says before and during the nesting part of the breeding season. I can't infer anything else Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds a bit odd when you say "The calls include a soft metallic "chwit, chwit"; a louder note, a "tieee", with a monotonously even pitch and spacing at intervals of several seconds; and a weak "peeee", usually uttered by breeding males." Specifically, I think that it would make more sense if you said "and spacing, having intervals of several seconds between notes". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure as it was added by the person who brought it to GA. It is not in the source. I suspect it is the same call as "chwit, chwit" in the previous sentence. I have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "which may be a food call for the young" in the sentence "A soft scolding call is given by both sexes after the young hatch, which may be a food call for the young", do you mean that the young adopt it as a begging call, or do you mean that it is used by the parents to show to the young that they have food? Either way, it needs to be specified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It means the latter. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
second one removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After "widespread" and "scattered" there should be a comma in the sentence "The black honeyeater is a bird of the dry inland of Australia, being generally widespread though scattered in western Queenslandand New South Wales to the South Australian border and occasionally recorded in the Victorian Mallee and Wimmera regions." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comma afrer "border" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"in flower" carrries a specific connotation that the plant is in its flowering season, not just spotting a few flowers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "The black honeyeater hovers briefly around flowers when feeding", do you mean that it flits around from flower to flower, feeding briefly at each one? If so, it would probably be best to instead say "The black honeyeater flies from flower to flower when feeding, briefly hovering to feed at each one." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your version seems a bit wordy but tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed a couple. The conservation ones refer to multiple species, hence am leaving it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've read this through several times and removed it in my head. I don't think I agree. Linking it to other members of the genus anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should use the present tense instead of the past tense here: "The male, in particular, will rise to a height of 15 metres (50 ft) to seize an insect in mid-air, and then drop to a regularly used perch." Also, saying "15 meters" is oddly specific; do you mean that it rises to a height of up to 15 meters? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence "A study of black honeyeaters at seven sites in Western Australia regularly recorded breeding females eating ash from the campsite fires and often making repeated visits over a brief period of time", you shouldn't use the definite article "the" before "campsite fires", as you have not introduced such fires yet. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
good point. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be an indefinite article before "Wheatbelt". Either that or "wandoo" should be plural: "After pecking at the ash, some of the females foraged for insects, sallying from the foliage of nearby Wheatbelt wandoo (Eucalyptus capillosa) before returning for more ash." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
went with plural Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that is pretty wordy - there are a lot of "breed"s as is and I don't think there is any ambiguity to clear up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of this sentence "Black honeyeater populations concentrate for breeding wherever the right plants are in flower and there is an abundance of insects, essential for feeding the young", do you mean that both the plants and flower and the insects help feed the young? If so, say "both" before essential, or otherwise specific with "the latter". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"both" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either put a comma after "'song flights'" or replace "which" with "that": "At the beginning of the mating season, males can be seen soaring in 'song flights' which consist of a series of zigzagging movements, high into the air, accompanied by constant calling." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to clarify. does that make it clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I also just added only before "several pairs", because it looks a bit odd otherwise. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the source says this - ultimately I have removed the segment on Callitris as I think fallen logs are fallen logs and can imagine the default is to be nonspecific. I think the source just had it as an example Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that this a rough number, or does the source specifically say that they are pretty much always that size? This is in relation to this sentence: "The female lays two to three eggs that are 15 millimetres (0.59 in) long, 12 millimetres (0.47 in) wide and have an unusual swollen oval shape." If the source doesn't specify, then you should probably say "about". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed to 1 significant figure in the convert template, which was overlooked. The source is in mm only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is certainly a good fix, but I was originally referring to the mm measurements anyways. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow - the sentence says "nests" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say "giving weak calls in an effort to lure the intruder away from the nest", do you mean that it goes away from the nests in an attempt to lure the intruders away, or do you mean that it tries to "scare" predators away? Either way, it needs to be specified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the word "lure" means attract something towards you - hence it means the former and not the latter meaning above unambiguously Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I amalgamated the paras as there is no clear point of division Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence, "The black honeyeater may be adversely affected by the loss of the emu bush to grazing and weed control by farmers", it might be better to say "due to" instead of just "to". Also, that sentence might be able to be incorporated somehow before the last sentence and after the sentence on specialization. Really, I think that the IUCN status, which is one of the most important pieces of information, should be put first. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. swapped around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added this as the main point is that there are regular seasonal patterns as well as a degree of nomadism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
language added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

  • Highly readable and enjoyable. I made a small number of minor edits as I went; please revert any that seem misguided. Here are a few more, nothing big.
changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • ¶1 "In 2004 genetic study...". – This bumps a little. I think either a comma after 2004 or the word "a" before 2004 would help.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "and the two have some affinities the genus Myzomela – Missing word, "with" after "affinities"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 DNA is linked earlier in this section. Unlink this second one?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 "has shown honeyeater family" – Missing word "the" before "honeyeater"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • ¶1 "The black honeyeater is a small honeyeater with a long slender down-curved bill,..." – Tighten to avoid repeating "honeyeater"? Suggestion: "The black honeyeater is small, with a long slender down-curved bill,...".
done (see above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶3 Move hawking link up one sentence to the first instance in the main text?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • ¶1 "being generally widespread if scattered in western..." – "Though" might work better than "if" in this context.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "with some rare records" — Maybe "rare sightings"? Or does "records" have a special meaning?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Breeding
  • ¶4 "The incubation period is around sixteen days, and the fledging period approximately eighteen days..." – Move the link up from here to ¶2, where the word "fledge" first appears in " by the time the chicks fledge..."?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation status
  • ¶1 Add a brief descriptor such as "biologist" to Claire A. Runge?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • No problem with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • I see a bit of overlinking in the main text. I noted DNA already. Others include incubation, Western Australia, hawking, John Gould, and pied honeyeater.
removed some duplicate links Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of the four images have alt text. I don't know if it's possible to add alt text to a taxobox.
thx! 02:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]
  • The lead is fairly short - consider adding placement of nest and number of eggs
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • "The black honeyeater was first described by English naturalist John Gould in 1838 as Myzomela nigra,". There is no cite for this statement. The original description is Gould, John (1838). Birds of Australia and the adjacent islands. Vol. Part II. Plate 8. OCLC 492428597. but this is very rare and I can't find a scan online. (Gould "suppressed" the series of plates.) You could instead cite: Paynter, Raymond A. Jr, ed. (1986). Check-list of Birds of the World. Vol. Volume 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. p. 364. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
The Australian Faunal Directory page is a secondary source that can ref that. But not the meaning of the name. I have an idea where I can get that have added from another source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is repetitive - "ornithologist xxx did this". Consider removing the sentence on Tommaso Salvadori as his contribution doesn't seem significant.
am in two minds about this - I find his amusing as he got the location wrong. And I think fallibility is a Good Thing to show from time to time... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1967 ornithologist Finn Salomonsen transferred the species from Myzomela to the genus Certhionyx" - This was in Paynter cited above (Salomonsen in Paynter ed. p.338). Perhaps worth adding a cite to this.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is identified as Sugomel niger by most taxonomic authorities," This is not correct. All four world lists now have Sugomel nigrum - not just the IOC.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • "Immature birds are not distinguishable from adults at a distance." Make it clear that you are referring to adult *female* birds.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould described its flight as "remarkably quick, and performed with zigzag starts".[21]" Better to cite Gould rather than some article behind a pay-wall. The reference is: Gould, John (1848). The Birds of Australia. Vol. Volume 4. London: Self-published. Plate 66. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

  • "Normally found alone, in pairs or in small flocks," this seems to repeat the sentence at the beginning of the section. Why "Normally"?
Dunno - that was written by the person who took it to GA. Removed repetition (and "normally"). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like many other honeyeaters, the black honeyeater catches insects" - Perhaps include a mention of insects in the introduction to the paragraph - hawking is presumably important as young fed insects.
not sure where you mean - the lead? Is already mentioned there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the same paragraph beginning "The black honeyeater feeds on nectar " - which I mistakenly interpreted as feeding exclusively on nectar so it came as a slight surprise to discover at the end of the para that they also feed on insects. Perhaps mention nectar and insects at the beginning of the para and then give details but this isn't a deal breaker. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there. A couple of questions:

  • Are the young fed exclusively on insects or do the parents also regurgitate food?
Higgins just says fed on insects that the parents catch. No mention of regurgitation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the young independent of their parents as soon as they leave the nest?
Have added what I can from Higgins. I suspect the young are independent within a few days but the source does not explicitly say that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I accept that "Birds in Backyards" passes muster as a RS - I would still prefer to see cites to HANZAB or similar. - no action required

- Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above. Another excellent article. Good work. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Comments, leaning support. Just a few things.

  • "by Australian amateur ornithologist Gregory Mathews.[7] Mathews" I would avoid the double-barreled Mathews.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might split that paragraph before beginning discussion of the 2004 study.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Amy Driskell and Les Christidis to recommend it be placed in its own genus rather than returned to Myzomela.[12] It was subsequently placed again in the resurrected genus Sugomel.[13] " I might change "placed again in" to "moved to", both to avoid repetition and because it feels a bit awkward.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA indicates that the ancestor of the black honeyeater diverged from that of the scaly-crowned honeyeater (Lichmera lombokia) just under million years ago, and the two have some affinities with the genus Myzomela." An "a" in front of "million", I think.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would see if I could reduce the last three paragraphs of "Taxonomy" to two, possibly by adding the text of the third-to-last ("Mathews described ...") to that of the last paragraph. This has the advantage of not interrupting the discussion of DNA issues.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Description", second paragraph, you have consecutive sentences beginning with "Immature birds".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is apparently some variation based upon location, with birds in West Australia breeding earlier and breeding in March in Queensland." The word "breeding" occurs twice in four words.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The male, in particular, flies up to a height of 15 metres (50 ft) to seize an insect in mid-air, and then drop to a regularly used perch." "drop" likely should be "drops".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede refers to the birds liking charcoal, but the body discusses ash. No doubt it's an ENGVAR thing but since they are not identical in AmEng, some readers may be confused.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hmm. hadn't realised that - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Happy to support, but just a few nitpicks

  • from its collecting of ashes from campfires.—why do they do this?
the article hypothesizes it is for the calcium, it is a bit far down the Food and feeding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, i missed that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immature birds are similar to the adult female, however the upper breast and throat tend to be more uniform grey-brown and the base of the bill is paler;[23] they are not distinguishable from adult females at a distance.[20]—I wonder if "they" hasn't become a bit detached from its subject?
here is my problem - I had "Immature birds.." repeated there but Wehwalt (above) pointed out its repetitiveness...can't win either way... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "young birds"? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and very long wings for such a small bird—I can't see your source for this, but generally migratory species have longer wings than their less migratory relatives for more obvious reasons than the one you give, eg whinchat/stonechat or willow warbler/common chiffchaff. Why is this possibility dismissed for your honeyeater?
no idea - many Australian species (like this one) move around seasonally. The source is purely descriptive anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is problematic. the development of which has been attributed to its feeding behaviour of flying between shrubs and hovering over flowers isn't just descriptive, it's a theory. If it is just the author's speculation, that should be made clear or the suggested reason removed from the text. Unless other possibilities have been considered, such as the one I've mentioned above, or it can be supported from other authorities, what you have put is unsubstantiated and misleading. Sorry to go on about this, but I recently read an article where they had actually tested the widely accepted theory that common guillemot eggs are oval so the roll in circles and don't fall off the ledge. Turns out to be wrong! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Most of the images have alt text but the lead image and the map do not. For consistency, they all probably should. But that is not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2017 [12].

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic Revival cathedral in Cork city, Ireland. The site dates back to the 7th century and can be linked to one of the county's other major place of historical interest, Gougane Barra. Significant input and guidance from KJP1, Guliolopez, Kafka Liz, and Lingzhi who all made this a most rewarding project. Special thanks to Liz who took many photographs, and walked with me several times around and through the building, explaining architectural concepts and how to describe various features. A most helpful PR can be found here. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

I shall certainly be supporting the promotion of this article to FA, but first I have a few small drafting points to raise.

  • Lead
    • "Its demolition and re-building was commissioned" – two nouns but a singular verb. In passing, there should be no hyphen in "rebuilding" according to the OED, Chambers and Collins.
    • "renowned Victorian architect" – a touch of the peacock about the adjective. (I personally think "infamous" would be more to the point, but that's neither here nor there, and I only say it to annoy KJP1 when he looks in.)
    • "Caped" – I'm not well up in architectural terms, and perhaps "caped" is right, but it occurred to me on reading it that perhaps "capped" was meant.
    • "Modeled" – I ran the text through Microsoft's spell-checker with "English (Ireland)" selected, and as in BrE (unlike AmE) this should be "modelled" (and indeed we have "modelling" later on).
  • Medieval and 18th century churches
    • "an old tower ten or twelve in circumference" – is there a word missing here?
    • "re-discovered" – as with "rebuilding", the three dictionaries I use don't hyphenate this word.
  • 19th-century build
    • "Burges partially alleviated ... Burges realised" – I might make the second "Burges" just "He" to help the flow of the prose.
    • "decoration of the West front" – not capitalised in mid-sentence elsewhere in the main text.
    • caption: "the Last Judgement is above him" – in view of the capitalisation here, I wonder if "resurrection" at the very end of the lead should also be capitalised?
    • "Burges took 10%" – I think the Manual of Style asks us to write "per cent" (BrE) or "percent" (AmE) rather than "%" in the body of the text.
  • Architecture
    • "re-used" – another hyphen the OED et al don't use.
    • "thus exhaustive to fund" – rather an unexpected adjective. Perhaps "expensive"?
    • "Cork Builder John Delaney" – should "Builder" be "builder"? And he was spelt "Delany" earlier in the article.
    • "around 844 sculpture" – "sculptures", I imagine.
    • "lead to the cathedral's unity of style" – "led"?
    • "and, at St Fin Barre's..." – you ought, I think, to be consistent within the article about whether you put a full stop after "St" or not. These days BrE usually doesn't and AmE does.
  • Sculpture
    • "the most ascetically dramatic" – I wonder if "ascetic" (rigorously self-disciplined; severely abstinent, austere) has got itself mixed with "aesthetic" (relating to the perception, appreciation, or criticism of that which is beautiful)?
  • Graveyard
    • "archbishop bishop" looks strange.
  • Interior
    • "...Bishop's throne" – but "...bishop's throne" in the next para.
  • Stained glass
    • "oversaw every stages" – singular "stage" wanted here, I think.
    • "As elsewhere in the cathedral..." – the sentence goes haywire and needs attention. Indeed, it seems pretty much to duplicate the previous sentence, and perhaps shouldn't be there at all.
    • "illustrations can be divided between the divine, wise and foolish" – this too is given twice.
  • Pipe organ
    • Saint Andrews's day" – "St Andrew's".
    • "avoid its interfere" – "interference"?
    • "expand the kit" – unless it is a technical expression in the vocabulary of organ builders "kit" seems a little too informal for encyclopaedic use, I think.

Those are my few quibbles, except for one concluding one: there may have been a techical glitch, but it looks from the article page as though the peer review has not been closed. Be that as it may, I look forward to revisiting and to supporting FA for this excellent article. – Tim riley talk 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, will be addressing these shortly. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got them all I think Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are still the "Bishop's throne" -v- the "bishop's throne", and I think "aesthetic" would read more smoothly as "aesthetically", but these are minor matters, and I am happy to add my support for promotion to FA. Comprehensive, a pleasure to read, well referenced and beautifully illustrated. The Dean and Chapter, and Wikipedia readers in general, have reason to appreciate this excellent article. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grand altogether Tim. The last two issues now dealt with. Thank you for your typically charmingly stated review. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I watched the article grow and look forward to reading it now again. I should probably comment the lead last, but know already that I'd like more consistency and chronology, for example, after having talked about the ancient site, what does "the previous building" mean. - Detail: when I read "It was once" I thought "twice" ;) - How about "It belonged formerly" or even give a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finbarr of Cork

  • How about talking about his death and shrine after he was born?

19th-century build

  • building?
  • The image of the entrance looks strange next to the quote, and the long caption about specific saints is not really what I want to read at that point, rather later. Links to the saints might help, but I suggest to move the image.

Exterior

  • I find it a bit unusual to have the image of the angel under exterior, but have no solution. Perhaps a change to section layout? I'd like to read layout before individual sculpture. Seperate exterior and interior sculpture?

Plan ...

The end comes soon, I was curious to know more about the grand opening ;) - I love the many quotes that give a good feeling for the period. I'd wish some images could be larger! Thank you, all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, yes have been struggling with cramming in images!! Will look at your suggestions in next day or too....Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a great way for galleries here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm thinking through your comments about re image placement, and tinkering around. A gallery at the foot does seem like a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You secretly solved all the of the above, thank you, support. I'd think one exterior view from the south would be enough ;)
Ha, thanks! Have now also removed one of the south facing exteriors. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I have a few nitpicks on formatting:

  • Ref 28: For consistency with other online sources, the publisher should be rendered as "Irish Times" rather than as the website name.
  • You use two different formats for retrieval dates, one in the "Notes" section and another in the "Sources" section
  • With the book sources there is inconsistency in including publisher locations – generally you do, but sometimes (e.g. Bracken, Caulfield and maybe others) you don't.
  • Bracken shows publisher as "Four Courts", Lawrence shows "Four Courts Press"
  • Where the source originates in print media, e.g. Irish Times, Irish Independent etc, these names should be italicized

While in general the sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability, I'm a little dubious about Dier. The material is well presented, but the blog is not obviously subject to editorial or other supervision by an institution. Does it meet our criteria for reliability? No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, will see about replacing Dier. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update....have met most of the points..almost there, looking to replace Dier; its not a grand claim. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have replaced Dier. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

A fine read with a few quibbles...

  • Burges designed the majority of the interior - why not just, "Burges designed most of the interior"
  • By 2010 the organ's electrics were failing and became unreliable. - needs pluperfect tense...how about, "By 2010 the organ's failing electrics had become unreliable." (or maybe leave "failing" out altogether?)
  • Anything on its surrounds...?
There should be...digging around. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring this Cas; should be able to add something today. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there ain't anything reliably published then so be it. It's as comprehensive as can be so support on that and prose grounds...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

[edit]

Absolutely delighted to see what was a weak, but important, article so vastly improved. All credit to you. Sorry for the delay in getting to it, but I've been away. I made most of my comments at PR, so it shall certainly be a support, but I'm sure I'll find a few things to quibble over! Will have my comments done and my support registered by the end of the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC) OK, here, we go:[reply]

Lead

  • "and resulted in the first major commission of the Victorian architect William Burges," - perhaps, "and resulted in the first major commission for the Victorian architect William Burges,.."

History - Finbarr of Cork

  • "The church grounds are located south of the River Lee on Holy Island" - you've already linked River Lee in the lead.
  • "each dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of Cork city," - and Finbarr.

History - 19th century building

  • The quotebox has Burges as Bruges - how many times have I made that typo!
  • "and McLeod £5,153 for the carving." - as it's the first time we've met McLeod, should we have his full name?
  • "Saint Fin Barre's is described by Lawrence and Wilson" - again I wonder if we should give them their full names at first meeting, and perhaps an introduction, "the architectural historians David Lawrence..."?
  • "which posterity may regard as a monument to the Almighty's praise" - link Almighty, for non-English speakers, or is it sufficiently obvious?

History - 20th and 21st centuries

  • "In 2006, David Lawrence and Ann Wilson published..." - if you've already introduced them see above, they could now be Lawrence and Wilson.
  • The photo entitled "View of the south face" creates a huge white space to the left for me. Is it so helpful, it's essential?

Architecture

  • The style is described here as Early French Gothic, which it is. In the infobox, the style is given as Gothic Revival, which it also is. Does it matter? Will it confuse?
  • "Each of the three spires support a Celtic cross,.." - should this be "Each of the three spires supports a Celtic cross,", matching the "Each"? Tim's your man although, after his "infamous architect" crack, we're no longer on speaking terms so you'll have to ask him yourself.

Sculpture

  • "the twelve Apostles bearing instruments from their martyrdom" - perhaps, "the twelve Apostles bearing instruments of their martyrdom."
  • "It was designed by Burges and erected in 1870 free of charge as his gift to the city, in recognition of Cork's willingness to fund his original design, and positioned the sculpture in place of an intended wrought-iron cross." - I don't think this sentence quite works. Perhaps if you removed "the sculpture" to read "It was designed by Burges and erected in 1870 free of charge as his gift to the city, in recognition of Cork's willingness to fund his original design, and positioned in place of an intended wrought-iron cross."
  • "George Webster, rejected the use images of the naked human body" - "George Webster, rejected the use of images of the naked human body..."

Interior - Main features

  • "The font's bowl is of Cork red marble,[45] is 6 inches wide, and supported by a stem, also red marble, and by green marble shafts, resting on a white marble shaft of sculpted capitals and an octagonal base." - Two queries. "6 inches wide" sounds rather small. You could fit a baby's head in, at a pinch, but are we sure the figure's right. The "green marble shafts, resting on a white marble shaft". Shafts on a shaft? How does that work? I can't find any pictures.

Pipe organ

  • While lamenting the loss of the immortal phrase, "It...can safely be described as one of the truly great organs of Europe", I think you were right to let it go.

Ahem, yes :) Have incorporated all these very good suggestions; many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have. It's a fine piece of work, a great read and I'm very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help and additions throughout. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This is looking like it is almost ready for promotion. I'd just like to check if Ceoil had had a chance to address the comments of Gerda Arendt and Casliber? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I removed a few duplinks; possibly some may merit inclusion and anyone can revert if they think it is necessary. I also note that one image has alt text but the others don't. I think it is better one or the other rather than a mix; while alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But it is not worth delaying promotion over this issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2017 [13].

SMS Wittelsbach

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series of German battleships, this one was the first ship authorized under Alfred von Tirpitz's direction. Obsolete by World War I, the ship nevertheless saw use in the Baltic during the war, patrolling for Russian warships and supporting the German Army. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review about a month ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why the citation at the end of the footnote is not formatted in the same way as the other citations?
    • As I recall, when I started using that note in articles, the template couldn't handle a nested {{sfn}}, so I used the harvnb template as a workaround - apparently it was fixed at some point and I didn't realize it. I'll have to go and paste that through the other articles that use that note.
  • In the list of references, Vol. 5 of Die Deutsche Kriegschiffe has an isbn but Vol. 8 does not. Not speaking German, I don't know what value there is in the link you've attached to Vol. 8.
    • Yeah, Worldcat is hit or miss on the several editions of Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe - and the books themselves aren't any help either - oddly enough, they don't include the ISBN.
  • The 10-digit isbn converts to 978-3-7822-0456-9
    • Fixed.

Otherwise, all sources seem sound, reliable and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

[edit]
  • Link decommissioned in the lede and scrap in the infobox.
    • Done
  • with provisions for a squadron commander's staff accommodations?
    • Yes, but also an enlarged bridge for the command staff
  • struggled throughout the early- and mid-1890s to secure parliamentary approval for the first three Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleships, but in June 1897, Hollmann was replaced by Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Alfred von Tirpitz, who quickly proposed and secured approval for the first Naval Law in early 1898. The law authorized the last two ships of the class, This isn't really clear. Probably need to say that Hollman was ultimately successful in getting the 3 ships approved.
  • Link screw, cylindrical boiler
  • Infobox states 12 water-tube boilers, text says 6 cylindrical and 6 water-tube. Which is correct?
    • Fixed
  • The ship _carried_ the minesweepers, or was their tender?
  • That's all for this pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Were you planning to return to this one Sturm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
  • Wittelsbach was 126.8 m (416 ft 0 in) long overall and had a beam of 22.8 m (74 ft 10 in) and a draft of 7.95 m (26 ft 1 in) forward." Is length between perpendiculars or length at waterline known?
    • Overall - it's in the text, but I've added a link to the infobox.
  • "Unlike her sister ships, Wittelsbach was completed with provisions for a squadron commander's staff." Does this mean she had room for staff for the ship's squadron commander? Could be clarified.
    • Added a bit.

That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a few minor suggestions about prose and style.
Lead
  • ¶2 "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training, as well as making good-will visits to foreign countries." – Trim by four words? Suggestion: "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training and good-will visits to foreign countries."
  • Works for me.
  • ¶2 "The training exercises conducted during this period..." – Trim by one word by deleting "conducted"?
  • Sure.
Construction to 1905
  • ¶2 "Completion of the ship was delayed due to a collision with the ironclad Baden in July 1902, which accidentally rammed Wittelsbach while she was fitting out." – I think it would be slightly smoother if you moved "in July 1902" to just after "rammed Wittelsbach.
  • Sounds good to me
  • ¶2 "...on 23 November and a cruise into the Skagerrak..." – Link Skagerrak?
  • Good catch
1905–1914
  • ¶1 "The fleet then cruised through the Kattegat..." – Link Kattegat?
  • Done
  • ¶1 "The British fleet stopped in Danzig, Swinemünde, and Flensburg, where it was greeted..." – Link Danzig here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?
  • Fixed
  • ¶1 "...a hostile fleet attempting to force the defenses of the Elbe." – Link Elbe here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?
  • Fixed
Battle of the Gulf of Riga
  • ¶1 "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." – This is not a complete sentence.
  • Good catch - removed "After"
  • ¶2 "Nevertheless, Prince Heinrich decided to try to force the channel a second time, but now two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron would cover the minesweepers. Wittelsbach was instead left behind in Libau. – It might be smoother to tighten this a bit and recast slightly. Suggestion: "Prince Heinrich attempted to force the channel a second time using two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron to cover the minesweepers and leaving Wittelsbach behind in Libau."
  • That works for me
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
  • Have added alt text.
  • No problems with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No problems with duplicate links.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2017 [14].

Patrick Henry

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... A man who may not have quite the repute he did when I took U.S. history forty years ago. But still, his name lives on, even if, regrettably, people have forgotten what it was he did. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Washington and Currier images, and amending caption grammar on the former
I've cropped the first. I think the second is OK. Not sure what you mean with the grammar.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Henry_Signature.svg: source link is broken. Same with File:Parson's_Cause_by_Cooke.jpg, File:Patrick_Henry_Rothermel.jpg
On the signature, I've emailed Connormah, who traced it. If necessary, I'll substitute another, but he put work into the tracing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I've consulted with Connormah and worked around the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Washington_Henry_and_Pendleton_going_to_the_First_Congress.jpeg: when/where was this first published?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Patrick_Henry_broadside.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Done.
  • File:Patrick_Henry_estate_marker_Henry_County_Virginia_1922.JPG should include an explicit copyright tag for the marker
Done.
Red Hill done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is now done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moise

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stamp act: "and both recalled that Henry did not waver, "If this be treason, make the most of it!". " I think this means Henry said, "If this be treason..." but the transition into the quotation seems unclear. Also, I don't believe the final period is needed since there is already an exclamation mark. Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comma changed to colon, I'd rather not add any text here. I've deleted the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(butting in): I think you mean, above, that you've deleted the period, but in my view you should retain it. The exclamation mark is part of a quotation within the sentence. The sentence needs to be independently ended by its own period. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've adjusted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawyer and landowner: "Jefferson later complained that Henry was lazy and ignorant in the practice of the law, with his sole talent practice before juries": Is there a missing or extra or mistaken word in the second part of this sentence ("with his sole talent practice before juries")? I'm not sure how to parse it.
Legalese. I've tweaked it.
  • "Henry invested some of his earnings in western lands, in what is now the western part of Virginia, as well as in West Virginia and Kentucky." To avoid too much repetition, would you consider removing the first "western", unless you feel this is an important point? From one point of view, maybe it's enough that the reader know the locations of the lands, without having it specified that these were "west" of where Henry currently was.
Changed the first western to "frontier".
  • "Henry was a slaveholder from the time of his marriage at age 18, when he was given land and slaves." This has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Even if you want a reminder here, maybe at least remove "when he was given land and slaves"? Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, all very good points. See my notes to the first three, and the fourth I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress: Many of these comments are quite minor, and here are a couple more: "This was a sensitive matter especially because of the recent Gaspee affair in Rhode Island, in which the British sought to capture and transport overseas for trial those who had burned a British ship. The Burgesses sought to rebuke Dunmore for his actions..." Two sentences in a row with "sought". Could be good to replace one of them.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Undeterred, the former legislators met at the Raleigh Tavern": The Raleigh was mentioned a few sentences earlier. Maybe change this later instance to "the same tavern" or just "the tavern". Moisejp (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it may be too far apart for that. My thought is as well is that it should be spelled out. The significance of the Raleigh Tavern was not that they served alcohol (though no doubt they refreshed themselves) it was the largest meeting place in Williamsburg that was not controlled by the government. So it seems to me the full name should be used here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough.
  • Liberty or Death: "There was debate on whether to adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica, complaining of British actions, but admitting the King could veto colonial legislation, and urging reconciliation." I'm afraid I got lost in the second half of this sentence. If you see any possibility that other readers may not follow the sentence, is there any way to rewrite it to be clearer?
I've rewritten the passage, hopefully with enough clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunpowder incident: "He returned to take command of the county's militia and, on May 2, march on Williamsburg, with, Dunmore wrote, "all the Appearances of actual War"." There are an awful lot of commas in this sentence. Would you consider trying to rework it to reduce the number of these? Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second period as governor: "During this time, Henry and his family lived at "Salisbury", in Chesterfield County, about 13 miles (21 km) from Richmond". Are the quotation marks around "Salisbury" necessary? I'm not sure what their purpose is here. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have finished reviewing and am very happy with the state of the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful comments, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Ref 136: should be p. not pp
  • Ref 160: can you clarify the page range rendered as "1–6—1–8"?
  • Ref 170: should be pp. not p.
  • There should be consistency in presentation of state names in publisher locations, e.g. "CT" but "Philadelphia".

Otherwise, all sources appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those things. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

I'm about halfway through my picky prose review (I've also done a few very minor edits myself). Here are my comments thus far:

Infobox
  • Refreshingly concise, but one nitpick. The box describes Henry as the "1st & 6th Governor of Virginia", but then records his two stints in reverse chronological order. Can this be changed, or is there some inviolable Law of the Boxes?
Lead
  • "his famous speech to the convention" – clarify what convention.
  • Personally, I'd be inclined to drop the "not only ... but" formulation and reword: "...of Virginia, through his famous speech to the convention in 1775, and by marching troops..."
  • "the capital of Williamsburg" is ambiguous. Suggest "the state capital, Williamsburg"
  • "The failures of the national government..." seems a bit prescriptive, without any indication as to what these failures were. Would "weakness" be more apt? In any event, you need a comma after "strong federal government".
Early life and struggles
  • "At the age of 15, Henry..." Pronoun better
  • To save forcing readers to use the link, I'd say "The religious revival known as The Great Awakening... And you don't need "young" Henry as you say he was a child.
Revolutionary lawyer and politician
  • "Henry was engaged by Maury's parish vestry to defend..." I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure "defend" is right, here. As I understand it, this was not a prosecution but a hearing to assess damages, so "to represent them" might be better.
It's possible a different term was used in colonial days, so I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to" and "thanks to" in the same sentence reads a little clumsily and could perhaps be tweaked. Incidentally, "due to", one of my least favourite prose clichés, occurs six times in the article and could be replaced in a few of these.
  • "influential committee members" – you don't say what committee.
  • "In 1765, William Johnson, the brother of Thomas Johnson, who had been one of Henry's clients in the Parson's Cause..." As punctuated, it's unclear whether William or Thomas had beeen Henry's client. Drop the third comma?
  • I think you should add something to explain what the House of Burgesses was. I thought it was the state legislature, but later you refer to the General Assembly. Our WP articles state respectively "that "From 1619 to 1776, the representative branch of the legislature of Virginia was the House of Burgesses..." but also "The Virginia General Assembly is the legislative body of the Commonwealth of Virginia..." so I'm slightly confused.
It is mentioned in the first paragraph of Parson's Cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." Not grammatically sound as it stands – who "seemingly called" etc? I asssume it was Henry, thus: "Henry in his speeech having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." or some such
  • The passing of the five resolutions is stated twice, in the 3rd and 5th paras of the section.
Lawyer and landowner
  • There's a reference to "his Louisa County property", with no indication as to how he had acquired this, so early in his career.
  • "and citing earlier historians" → "and cited earlier historians", to be consistent with the sentence's grammar.
  • Probably best to be consistent as between "the age of 10" (Early life) and "age 18" here.
  • "for he did not believe colonization schemes were realistic" – I'm not clear what is meant by "colonization schemes".
  • "They assumed that in so doing, they fought slavery..." → revise to "...they were fighting slavery"?
Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress
  • "was inevitable" → "were inevitable" (two things)
  • "after there was time" → "after giving time"
  • Link Virginia Conventions (para 3). Perhaps begin: "In all, five Virginia Conventions..."
  • "There was intense interest in the Virginians" - intense interest among whom?
  • "Kukla" needs an introduction on first mention
"Liberty or Death"
  • "The convention debated whether Virginia should adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica" - I take this to mean adopt the wording of the Jamaican petition, in preparing one of their own?
  • "only one tried" → "only one person tried"
Gunpowder incident
  • "leave off" sounds a bit informal. "halt"?
Halt is ambiguous, I'm inclined to let it stand. It doesn't read as informal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would never again hold office outside its borders". I'm not clear what offices he had held outside Virginia.
Well, he was a delegate in Congress, requiring him to serve in Philadelphia. I gather you are quibbling that it was not an office. I'm open to some simple change in language.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • He seems to have had two colonel appointments: of the 1st Virginia Regiment, and "in charge of all of Virginia's forces". To avoid possible confusion, maybe the last line of para 3 could be simplified to "commissioned Henry as commander of all of Virginia's forces".
  • "would no longer be" → "was no longer the" (avoiding two "woulds")

The rest will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get to these as soon as I can, but it may be a day or two due to travel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up to date. I've varied from your suggestions in several cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My remaining points:

Independence and first time as governor
  • "used by Jefferson in writing the Declaration". Non-US redaers won't instinctively realise that this refers to the US Declaration of Independence, especially as the last Declaration mentioned is Mason's Declaration of Rights. So I'd clarify here.
  • In "great offender", does "great" refer to the offence or the perpetrator?
  • "The plan of government..." → "The form of government"?
  • "June 29" – we could do with the year being mentioned
  • What was the cause of the rapid depreciation of Virginia's currency?
The strains placed on the economy by the war, basically. Remember, tobacco to Britain was the big revenue source and there was an embargo. I'm not sure it's fruitful to interrupt the narrative for a digression into economics.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leatherwood and the House of Delegates
  • "once he left Richmond" closely followed by "Once he returned home..."
  • I'd be inclined to preface Benedict Arnold with "the renegade" or some such description. He's not that well known over here.
  • Para 2 line 3 "as the war" should be "so that the war". Cornwallis's entry caused the war to be played out in Virginia, not the other way round.
  • "There is a story..." etc. If it's just a story, with no historical evidence, should it be mentioned here?
It's mentioned by most biographers. If nothing else, it is illustrative of the high regard in which Henry was held by the common folk of Virginia. Some versions have the woman unimpressed by Randolph being there, but then she learns Henry is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second period as governor
  • The legal term "nonfeasance" is too arcane for the general reader. There could be a pipelink to the somewhat mistitled article Misfeasance. Or you could reword as "apparent negligence"?
Opponent of the Constitution
  • Needs "Henry", not "he", in first line.
  • "One legend..." – see my comment above re "There is a story"
We don't know if he said it or not, but again, it is mentioned by most biographers. Historical record only goes so far, as the final section shows.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was set for June 1788" –clarify "it".
Rather than change the "it", I've strengthened the reference in the earlier part of the sentence.
  • "proposed a fiery diatribe" – can a diatribe be "proposed"? Perhaps "intended"?
Later years
  • "...while Henry argued much of the case in court. Henry argued the case for three days..." – there seems to be some excess verbiage here.
  • Who is the "future chief justice" referred to at end of para 2?
Monuments and memorials
  • No issues
Legacy and historical view
  • None here either.

Support: The outstanding issues are relatively trivial and are not grounds for withholding support. The article bears many of the hallmarks of Wehwalt's American history articles – thorough research, readability, neutrality of tone – and will be a fine addition to the FA ouevre. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much obliged for the review, support and kind words. I've taken care of the remaining points except as noted, though sometimes in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "He was elected to the House of Burgesses" For information I suggest "He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses"
Given the number of times the word "Virginia" appears in the first two paragraphs, I doubt it is needed, but I've added it.
  • "Henry gained further popularity" You do not need to repeat "Henry". "He" would be better.
  • "A slaveholder through his adult life" I think "throughout" would be more correct, but is this AmerEng?
  • "The Burgesses instructed the body's agent in London" Why not "their agent"?
  • Oppose. The bibliography is very short for an article on such a major figure. The one in Tate's ANB article describes several sources as important which are not used, such as the second volume of Meade's biography and the Morgans' account of the Stamp Act crisis. I do not think it meets criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." In view of this, I have stopped my review for the present, although I am willing to reconsider if other editors disagree. Perhaps Ian Rose or Sarastro1 could comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meade's bio is a half century old. Henry has had several recent biographers; those are more important (and are too late to be covered by the ANB, which is pre-2000). Of course they use the books you mention as sources. I've used Meade's bios of other figures, such as Judah Benjamin, they are wordy and a bit old-fashioned. I've downloaded the Morgans book, they really don't say that much more than anyone else, just a seven-page discussion of the "Treason" speech and the resolves (part of which is quoted text, i.e., the resolves) and a bit in the "Conclusion" but I'll add a few items.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Again, note that the bios used postdate the ANB. I've also addressed your prose points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley's comment with regard to criterion 1c raises an interesting point: How can a survey of relevant literature be both "thorough" and "representative", since they are mutually exclusive alternatives? 1c as worded is clearly impossible to meet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brian makes a good point, and Wehwalt also makes a good point that the ANB bibliog is dated. But the bibliog in this article does seem thin compared, for example, with another article I am reviewing, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By number of books cited, arguably, but by material on Henry, not. Buckingham doesn't have five 21st century biographers, one in 2017. The nominators had to pull a little bit on him from here and another little bit on him from there. I won't say that every word in Henry's biographies is about Henry--the material on him is thin enough that there's quite a bit of text about "his times"--but the total amount on Henry in the books cited probably exceeds the total amount on Buckingham. And we are a tertiary source, the biographies, especially the modern ones, are the state of play on what the significant things in Henry's life are.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria for a general discussion about the meaning and wording of criterion 1c. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian. That is helpful. Wehwalt, I am now inclined to strike my oppose in view of your explanation, but would ask whether general histories might give a view of Henry which may be more impartial and puts him in a wider context than provided by a biographer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair point, although of course there may be individual variations. To that end, I've gotten a copy of Michael A. McDonnell's The Politics of War: Race, Class and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia (2012) which seems focused and by a highly reputable historian. I'll add from it to the article within the next day or so. (Wehwalt)--20:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Ping me when you have finished and I will complete my review. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, want to take another look?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • "and by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg after the Gunpowder Incident until the munitions taken by the royal government were paid for." This is a bit vague. How about "and because he forced the royal government to pay for munitions which they had seized by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg." Also in the main text, who owned the gunpowder? And you have not spelled out Henry's original purpose. According to the Gunpowder Incident article (in the lead but not in the main text) it was to force the governmor to return the munitions, and if so this should be spelled out here.
The gunpowder was technically paid for privately, by a note signed by a member of the governor's council so I'm hesitant to put it the way you propose. I've changed "taken" to "seized". I think the reader has what they need for lede purposes, and there's a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a characterization that Henry's biographers have found to be unfair." What do they say his position was?
  • You have a heading 'Revolutionary lawyer', but you have not stated that he became one in the text, and jump straight from working in a bar to counsel in Maury's case and adding 164 new clients. When and how did he become a lawyer? Was he trained?
  • "The fifth was the most provocative, as it named the Virginia legislature, the General Assembly, as the representatives of Virginia empowered to tax." This is unclear. Did the resolution state that the power to tax lay solely with the General Assembly, and deny the right of the British parliament? (I see below that a resolution stating this was not passed, so why was the fifth resolution controversial? It seems to follow from the first four.)
The resolves really weren't that different from the petition the Burgesses had sent the prior year, but why they were controversial doesn't have a simple or a single answer, depending on who you ask. Some combination of being too explicit and Henry being a new boy.
  • "In 1773, Henry came into conflict with the royal governor, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore". As a previous governor has been mentioned, perhaps "had been appointed royal governor in 1771".
  • "The first met in Williamsburg" "They first met in Williamsburg"?
No, the first convention. I've added the word.
Thanks, I'm up to date
  • "The gunpowder belonged to the government" I am confused. The gunpowder belonged to the government, but the colonists demanded compensation for it? If that is because a colonist had paid for it, that needs to be explained.
Dunmore took the position that it belonged to the Crown, Henry that it belonged to the colonists, i.e. the General Assembly I will add something brief on it.
  • "As popular support for independence grew, opponents either joined in, or remained silent." Opponents changed sides? Also presumably became rather than remained silent.
  • "and he took it up later that month" I would say "and he took the appointment up later that month"
  • " publick [sic]" I do not think the sic is needed. "publick" is given by OED as an archaic spelling.
  • "the resolution instructed the state's delegates in Congress to press for American independence, which they would, with Lee introducing the motion". Inserting "which they would" in the middle seems the wrong place to say that they supported independence.
I think it's a good place, the article is switching from the general to the specific, where the actions would naturally be recounted.
  • "the convention, by 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr., elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor" This confused me at first. Maybe "the convention elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor, with 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr.,"
  • "Jefferson and others wanted to reopen contracts that had been already settled, but in depreciated currency;" Presumably Jefferson thought that the contractors had been unfairly underpaid, but this should be clarified. It is also not clear why Henry thought fair payment unjust.
Who says what is fair? The debtors had paid according to the laws at the time. The money could not go to Britain due to the embargo, accordingly the Virginians paid according to the law. Henry took the side of his constituents both here and later on when he was involved in the 1790s litigation. I think that the article makes clear the key point: the creditors had been "paid" in a way that benefitted the debtors. That's sufficient for the reader of an article on Henry.
  • "He is especially attractive to Christian conservatives, who cite his deep religious beliefs, as well as his writings and speeches in favor of Christian virtue" You have not covered this aspect, so far as I remember.
No, but neither does the ANB :) ... I've added a paragraph.
  • "You say that Christian conservatives admire his writings "in defense of religious liberty" But the only example you quote on his views on religion I can remember (I may have missed others) is that "Henry believed that taxpayers who were Christians should be assessed for the maintenance of the Protestant church of their choice". The compulsion and exclusion of non-Protestants seems to favour Christian conservatism but not religious liberty.
I've added a couple of key quotes, see prior comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, Jefferson's negative assessments of Henry have sullied the latter's historical reputation." "sullied" is POV and "his" would be better than "the latter's"
  • This is a good acount of Henry's career, but it gives the impression of being biassed in his favour, reflecting the main reliance on biographers, most of whom are open partisans, as shown in the titles of their books. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I don't entirely agree that a biographer is a partisan. Obviously the biographer is trying to present his subject as worth writing about, but I'm not convinced his 21st century biographers, to mention some, are partisan or even overtly favorable to him. We don't live in an era where a Parson Weems view of someone like Henry gets you far. I am comfortable that the article reflects the state of play on Henry, and includes the histories mentioned above, which cover the key moments in Henry's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for engaging with my comments. I certainly do not now oppose, but I will try to have another look in a few days, and maybe see what other reviewers think on the last point. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: It has been a week since the last comments now. Dudley Miles, did you want to have another look? Otherwise, I think this article is just about ready for promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is biassed in Henry's favour, but it is nevertheless a very good article, and I am therefore ready to support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2017 [15].

Saguaro National Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a two-district national park near Tucson, Arizona, that preserves large stands of giant saguaro cacti and other desert vegetation, much of it barbed, and a wide variety of animals that run like javelinas, crawl like zebra-tailed lizards, fly like whiskered screech owls, or hang out near water like lowland leopard frogs. The taller of the park's two mountain ranges used to be under the shorter one, but it has since moved 20 or so miles east and become a sky island that says, "so there" to the short one. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look....

  • Not thrilled about the first sentence. I'd say something like "Saguaro National Park is a National Park in southern Arizona in the southwestern United States." or something similar
Recast. Added Pima County and a different national park link. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add the surface area somewhere in the lead.
Done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Tucson is the nearest big city, I'd put its distance and direction from it, both in body and possibly in lead.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • within easy reach by car from Tucson - err....sounds like a real estate advert..distance should suffice. Could also add travel time if keen...
Recast. Not keen on adding travel time. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's alotta precipitation in para 3 of Geography and climate - can we just use "rain/rainfall" a bit...?
Yes. Added variety. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing (at minimum) some of the woody plant species (shrubs, trees) that make up the dominant plants in the scrub and woodland would be good.
I moved the brief reference to shrubs from the Climate section into the Plants and fungi subsection and added two examples of low-elevation shrubs. I'll add examples of vegetation from the other zones, but this will take me a while. There are thousands to choose from, and quite a few are found in multiple zones. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added four examples of trees commonly found at the highest elevations. I'm not sure how far to go with this; I don't want to make the article too listy. What else, if anything, do you think we need here? Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - just a few noteworthy plants is good - i.e anything really rare or unusual or otherwise a common/dominant plant. Anyway, am satisfied with comprehensiveness and prose now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful advice and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "crustal stretching associated with the Basin and Range displaced rocks". "associated with the Basin and Range" sounds vague. I would delete as not needed in the lead.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "established the original park". You have not said where the original park was - presumably RMD but the explanation could be clearer.
Clarified. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology. I think it would be clearer if you kept to chronological order and moved the first two sentences to the last paragraph.
Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic rocks exposed in and near the TMD in the 21st century are remnants of these events." I think "in the 21st century" is superfluous.
Deleted. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not all of the molten granite reached the surface of the Tucson Mountains; instead, it cooled and crystallized far below." I think "some cooled" would be better.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did volcanism cease?
About 30 to 15 million years ago, according to Bezy. I've added this information to the Geology section. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'After 1920' As in my comment above, you do not explain what area the original park covered.
Added. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were homesteaders and mines expelled from the park? If so, were they compensated in money or offered alterntive land?
Not kicked out. The homesteaders lost interest, and so did the miners, both groups for the same reason. It was too hard to make a buck doing either of these things. I added some specifics about the hard-rock mines, and I added some specifics about the ranchers, some of whom did not want to stop running cattle in the park. They were compensated by buy-outs. To add more specifics, which unfolded over several decades, would add unnecessary detail, imho. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do saguaros live?
Up to 200 years. Added. Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entire biological communities may gradually re-locate in response to long-term changes in climate, such as those that occurred during the most recent Ice Age." I cannot see this in the source cited, although I may have missed it.
I can't find it either, and its inclusion might have been an unwitting violation of WP:SYNTH on my part. I removed the claim and moved the Ice Age link down to what is now its first mention in the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This seemed to be the opinion of the GA reviewer as well. Aiming for the sweet spot between too much and not enough, I trimmed this section by about 3,600 words. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles I think I've responded to all of your suggestion and questions. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I can see now is that your edits have forced all the references into the first column. I suggest moving the maps up and shrinking the second one, which is far too large. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "up", but I reduced the sizes so that the text is no longer squashed. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful suggestions and support. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There are a couple of duplinks, but it is up to the nominator whether they are necessary or not, and they are certainly not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 [16].

Lilias Armstrong

[edit]
Nominator(s): Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a phonetician at University College London: Lilias Armstrong. She worked in the 1920s and 1930s and was a colleague of Daniel Jones. Her research focused on intonation and tone, and her work on Somali and Kikuyu is still held in high esteem. I was actually first made aware of Armstrong when I was referred to her work on Somali. I created this article as a stub in December 2014, and then decided in April I wanted to expand this article. I got this article to Good Article Status in June, and a peer evaluation believed it is ready for Featured Article Status. This is my first FA nomination, but I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good but there are some monster paras, which should be split. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split. There were a few places I had forgotten to double line break, thanks.Umimmak (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - welcome to FAC!

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. You may wish to do a general Manual of Style review before other editors comment
  • File:British_phonetician_Lilias_E._Armstrong.jpg: the given source appears to include a list of illustrations with author/copyright holder for each - who does it credit for this one?
  • The level of originality required for copyright protection in the UK is quite low, and I'm not sure all of the transcriptions fall below it. Do you have further details about their copyright status? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the captions. The list of illustrations provides a general note "The remaining photographs were supplied by Michelle Stanbury [i.e., Daniel Jones' daughter —Umimmak] or taken by ourselves", but it doesn't indicate who actually took the photograph.
As for copyright, I didn't think one could copyright images of individual words or simple geometric shapes.
But the text of Mill on the Floss was written in 1860 and Armstrong's transcription was published in 1921, so by any metric that should be good. Armstrong died more than 70 years ago so copyright has lapsed in the UK for the works which she solely authored. [Edit: And Kikuyu was published posthumously but before 1988 and more than 50 years ago. 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)] That leaves the Tunes and the Burmese, which come from works still in copyright due to the second author, but the images themselves don't have enough creative aspect involved for copyright.Umimmak (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: if I use File:The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun_as_per_Armstrong_Pe_Maung_Tin.png, is that better since I'm the one who typeset it?Umimmak (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. If transcriptions do meet the threshold of originality - and I'm unsure whether they do, haven't found any cases - the originality would be in the transcription itself, not the typesetting thereof. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just confused because it would be completely fine if I quoted it as text with attribution in the body of the article, as I do in the caption for Firth or Watkin's transcriptions. I'm just quoting three words, but because of typesetting limitations on Wikipedia, the words have to be in an image file because I can't accurately type it using Wikipedia.
Are the portrait of Armstrong, and the Mill on the Floss, Somali, and Kikuyu transcriptions okay given the explanation above? Thanks Umimmak (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, unless you're throwing in an attribution template, it's assumed that short textual quotes are fair use, whereas for image files we need to provide an explicit licensing tag. The confusing part is, are these fair use too, or are they PD - and on that point I'm honestly not sure, IANAL and all that, but I do know UK law has a fairly low threshold for what's copyrightable. The non-transcription images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And are the transcriptions from works that Armstrong alone authored okay since she died more than 70 years ago and posthumous works were published more than 50 years ago so the UK standards no longer apply? Umimmak (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about US standards? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about them? You said the issue was U.K. Copyright since they might have a lower threshold for what constitutes creative work? U.S. Copyright only applies to literary or creative works, not facts or data. The part that actually has a creative aspect, i.e., George Eliot's words, is in the public domain (but it's moot since Armstrong's transcription of Eliot was published before 1923). Umimmak (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we're asserting that all of the article's transcriptions don't meet threshold of originality for US. Then you'll just want to add the appropriate copyright tags for the UK status, since they are all on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I went and added more tags for images which come from works now in the British public domain in addition to Template:PD-text. But I'm still not sure what the next steps are. Do I just need to sacrifice those three images (The Burmese and the Two Tunes) whose coauthor didn't die long enough ago? Or is there any way I can somehow make the image myself or claim fair use? I'm just confused how three words can be copyrighted -- if it were the image of the entire text, I could understand how that might meet the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, but I specifically limited it to the title because I figured you can't copyright a title. Umimmak (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'd say the tunes are fine. I am not sure either way about the Burmese, but in the absence of clear case law on the matter (or opinions from other reviewers), I think the best course of action is to assume that you are correct that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Sorry for the confusion - this is a very odd case! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify the images are fine now, and I need to do anything else? Thank you. PS I've made a post at WP:IMAGEHELP about this nomination to see if anyone there had comments on this matter. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]

I don't know that I will be able to review this in detail, so for now please consider these "drive by" comments:

  • There are a lot of quotations in the citations. It is unusual to add quotes to citations unless there is a dispute about what the source said or some other compelling motive for including them. If there is not such a justification, you should probably trim these out of the citations.
  • I fixed a couple of MOS:LQ issues that I spotted; you might want to check for others.
  • I see a lot of people mentioned as co-workers, commenters, etc., without any explanation of who they are. Even when there are links, some brief context is usually preferred. For example, "British phonetician Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..." rather than just "Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..."

That's it for now. If I get a chance to review the article more thoroughly, I may come back with more. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the quotations in the citations, my reasoning was it would be good to preemptively include quotations for increased verifiability, particularly when the original source was not in standard English orthography or was from a source other editors might not have easy access to. I figured it would be easier to add the quotations while I still had access to the sources than risk someone requesting a quotation when I no longer had access. If this is something I need to do, I'll go and remove them, but I'll hold off on this for now because it would be a lot of effort and I can imagining other editors preferring them to be there, for the reasons mentioned above and also to ensure I'm not too closely paraphrasing. Other points noted and I'll edit accordingly, thanks. Edit: I did remove some of the quotations -- but only those which are in standard English orthography, online, non-paywalled, and not via Google Books as one can't trust a Google Books URL to be available for all editors. Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Update: Additional paywalled quotations removed if they were in major online resources like JSTOR and in standard English orthography. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to be well-written, well-cited, and an example of Wikipedia's best work. All my concerns were addressed already, so I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I appreciate that a great deal of trouble has been taken over the referencing of this article. There's a lot to check here, and as it's the nominator's first FAC, spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing will need to be done. For the moment, however, I'm making a few general points based on my examination of the first 70 or so of the references.

  • In a large number of occasions the citation is followed by an extract of the source's text. This, I note, has been raised by an earlier reviewer. I'd like to reiterate the view that such overdetailing is entirely unnecessary; ref 5 should read, simply, "Armstrong 1923, p. vii", ref 6 "Collins & Mees 2006, p. 478", and so on. Using the standard short citation format will remove much clutter from the referencing section.
  • Another feature I noticed was a tendency to include what are apparently supplementary citations, preceded by formulations such as "See also...", "see e.g...." etc. If these "supplementaries" are inessential, I'd advise dropping them and simplifying the citations list. if they are thought essential, then they should be cited as references in the standard format.
  • When a source is in a language other than English, this should be stated by adding, e.g. "(in French)"
  • Ref 10: You preface this with "Sources disagree as to the name of the school or schools she taught at, how long she taught, and what her positions were". So they might, but the issue is relatively trivial, quite unworthy of the massive multi-referencing introduced around this topic. I'd ignore the slight differences of name & chronology in the sources ("East Cheam" is obviously a misprint for "East Ham") and use a couple of references that support the statements in the text – which can if necessary be made a little flexible to allow for any doubt.
  • I noticed that ref 4 appears to be based on original research, using the findmypast website. This site is not considered as reliable by FA criteria standards; it may be possible to find a reliable secondary source that will confirm this information.

That's what I've found so far. I'd like some response before going on with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Quotations removed or commented out in cases where there might be a chance of someone using Template:Request quotation.
I can reword the "see alsos".
I can add these
I can rewrite that bit.
Reference 4 and its corresponding sentence in the body can be stricken.
Changes have been made.
Umimmak (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Updated 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm encouraged, will look in later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my review (down to about ref 150):

  • A general point: is there a reason why some sources for which there are multiple citatioins (e.g. Jones, Asher, Collins & Mees, etc) are shown in the "References" list, while others (e.g. the Armstrongs 1921, 1923, 1927, 1932, 1934, Armstrong & Ward, Pike, Leach and others) only appear in the citations list? Unless there's a good reason for doing it this way, it would be preferable to place all multiple-cited sources in the references section.
  • Ref 97: This looks like a remaining case of overkill – too many citations for a minor point
  • Ref 128: What is the language here?
  • Ref 130: You give the language as French, but the title is in German
  • Ref 132 incorporates a Harvard error
  • Ref 142: What is the language here?

I'll deal with the remaining refs during my next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:
A general point -- My thought process was to have "References" consist of the important works about Armstrong. Pike isn't about Armstrong, so I didn't want to group it with the other sources which are actually about her. As for the works originally by Armstrong, in a version long ago I used shortened footnotes that were anchored to the full citation information in the "Works" section, but another editor found that confusing that some anchors went up to works and others went down to references. It seems redundant to repeat the same information in both her works section and the references section, (as per MOS, the works section should be before the references).
Could you take a look at User:Umimmak/sandbox/combined#References? I've followed other featured articles, e.g., Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley which group the references in similar ways. I'm still not super happy about the redundancy of works she authored being listed twice, but it seems like this is standard practice. Hopefully you understand my reasoning -- I just want a way to tell the reader "these are the main references about Armstrong", and not include a book that's, say, mostly about the intonation of American English when only a couple pages of that whole work are relevant. [rewritten slightly 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)]
OK, I accept what you've done with regard to the works authored by Armstrong. But separating works about Armstrong from works about her field of expertise or related topics is confusing; I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, so that anyone looking at that list gets a proper idea of the range of principal sources used. The works co-authored by Armstrong, e.g. Armstrong & Ward, Armstrong & Pe Maung Tin, etc, could be listed either among the works or in the references. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 97 -- I removed one of them, but I'm making a claim it was cited in speech training bibliographies (e.g., Thonssen et al), theatre training bibliographies (e.g., Voorhees et al.) and for decades (e.g., Cohen 1964). I don't think it's excessive, but would it be better to write say ...appeared in bibliographies for speech[1] and theatre[2] up through the 1960s.[3]?
No, how you have it now is better - suggest leave it.
Ref 128 it's in English
Fine, OK
Ref 130 fixed, I got primed seeing the "französischen" I guess
Ref 132 I'm not sure I see the issue? it works fine on my end.
Works for me too, now.
Ref 142 Article is in English, but like all articles in MPh, it's in phonetic transcription instead of standard orthography.
Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking now to see if there are any further issues in the final third of the citations. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) – just a few queries:

  • 156: the source language appears to be Somali
  • 215: is the source language German?
  • 219: link not working. This may be temporary, but please check.

That only leaves me to carry out a few spotchecks, which I will do over the next couple of days or so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:
156 No, Andrzejewski's "Grammatical Introduction" is in English.
215 No, the article is in English; the journal just has a German title.
219 Should I remove the link then? It seems like Archive.org had it up but has since realized the work is still copyrighted and removed the work.
Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, I acquiesce; changes have been made. Umimmak (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: As a head's up, I've decided to swap in a new source for reference [55] based on your earlier comment about avoiding "see also"s. Umimmak (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • errr...what's a king's scholar? (should it be capitalized?) oh well, it'll remain a mystery...
  • she had success in this line of work - odd phrasing for a teacher, maybe better as "highly regarded"? its more of a style thing...so not a dealbreaker really.
  • At first mention of Pe Maung Tin, a descriptor would be good "Burmese linguist" or something

Otherwise looking good - am thinking about structure of lead though have nothing to offer as yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

king's scholar wasn't capitalized in the source. I'm not really sure what it means to be honest... the wikipedia article King's Scholar only seems to discuss it in terms of public schools, not universities. As far as I can tell it means she was the recipient of a "king's scholarship", but I'm not entirely sure what that means.
maybe better as "highly regarded" I guess, but one can be highly regarded but, due to things like budgetary constraints or other issues, might be prevented from being successful. I'll think about how to reword that if it's awkward.
a descriptor would be good noted.
~Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I am happy with prose and completeness...though concede it's not my topic area at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
This is an interesting account about an expert in a field that will be unfamiliar to many readers. I'm reading it as a non-expert, and I'm unable to closely follow or critique the more technical content. I made a small number of low-level prose changes as I went. Please revert any that seem misguided. Here are further suggestions about prose and style:

Lead

  • ¶1 "She worked at University College London and had attained the rank of reader." – Tighten a bit and stick with straight past tense? Suggestion: "She worked at University College London, where she attained the rank of reader."
  • ¶1 "...was a popular analysis for some time." – The phrase "for some time" is too vague to be meaningful. I'd either replace it with something more specific or delete it if there's no way to make it specific.
  • ¶1 Ida Ward should be linked only once in the lead, and it would be better to choose either Ida C. Ward and Ida Ward but not both. Suggestion: Change the first instance to Ida C. Ward, and use last name only, Ward, in the second instance.

Employment history

  • ¶1 "Armstrong's first experience teaching phonetics was in summer 1917, in Daniel Jones's summer course..." – Tighten? No need to repeat "summer". Suggestion: "Armstrong's first taught phonetics in 1917 in Daniel Jones's summer course...".
  • ¶1 "for missionaries to learn phonetics" – Delete "to learn phonetics" since that's already clear from context?

Courses and lectures

  • ¶1 "In addition to teaching courses on French and English phonetics,[26] Armstrong taught courses on the phonetics of Swedish[27] and of Russian. She also taught a class on speech pathology alongside Daniel Jones titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".– Tighten to avoid repetition? Suggestion: "Armstrong taught courses on French, English, Swedish, and Russian phonetics, and, alongside Daniel Jones, a class on speech pathology titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".
  • ¶2 "...for a course geared for those studying and teaching French" – I'd replace the slangy "geared" with "meant".
  • ¶2 and ¶3 The word "also" appears a combined seven times in these paragraphs. It's an OK word when used sparingly. I think you could safely remove some of these without changing the meaning of the sentences in which they appear.

Students

  • ¶1 "...while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward..." – I would just use "Armstrong" here rather than the full name, and I would link Ida C. Ward here on first use in the main text rather than in the "English intonation" subsection further down.

Le Maître Phonétique

  • ¶1 "...which consisted of texts transcribed in IPA from various languages," – I would spell out, link, and abbreviate IPA here on first use in the main text; i.e., the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

London Phonetic Readers Series

  • ¶1 "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription of in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association." – Word missing? Transcription of what?
  • ¶3 "The number of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics was a complaint of one contemporary review of this book." – A number is not a complaint. Maybe "...led to a complaint by a contemporary reviewer.
  • ¶3 "...necessary to convey the interaction of tone and prosody..." – Link prosody to prosody (linguistics)?

English intonation

  • ¶1 "It was accompanied by three double-sided gramophones which consisted of Armstrong and Ward reading English passages." – I don't understand what "gramophone" refers to in this context. I understand "gramophone" to mean "phonograph", a recording and playing machine, but that doesn't fit here. The illustrations make somewhat more clear that "gramophone" is being used here to refer to a notation. Is there a more clear way to explain this or a better word than "gramophone"?
  • ¶3 "...to symbolize adequately (i.e. structural)..." – That should be "structurally" to match "adequately". Is the parenthetical remark in the original quotation? Does it really say "structural"?
  • ¶3 "...there is "a greater wealth of detail than are here recorded"..." The word "wealth" is singular, and the verb should be singular, "is", rather than plural, "are". Is the mistake in the original? Or is this an OK variant in the English language?

Kikuyu

  • ¶4 "...each tone class was defined in terms of its tonal allomorphy depending on surrounding context." – Link allomorphy here on first use in the article rather than on second use in ¶4?

General

  • All images have alt text.
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLs detected.
  • I removed a few duplicate links from the main text. There may be a few more but not many.
Response: @Finetooth: Just for organization I gave this this own section heading. Quickly looking through your suggestions they make sense. Some particulars:
  • My thought process for "while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward" was that it would be unbalanced to say "while he was there, Armstrong and Ida C. Ward", i.e., with one last and one full name. But if you don't think this is an issue I can fix that.
I don't think it's an issue, but if you want to re-insert "Lilias" for balance, that's fine too. I linked Ward here on first use in the main text and unlinked her later in the article. Finetooth (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word was missing thanks for catching that. Will change to "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription system for Burmese in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association."
  • "A number is not a complaint", I see your point. Maybe "One contemporary review of this book referred to the amount of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics as a 'profusion of diacritical marks that is rather confusing'." ? Just saying it "led to a complaint" feels vague to me, like you're still waiting to find out what the complaint actually was.
  • a word was missing, they were accompanied by gramophone records, thank you.
Ah, yes, of course. My mind wandered into complications that weren't there. Finetooth (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pike does in fact say "structurally", thank you.
  • Armstrong and Ward quotation in full is: "The writers are aware that there are other varieties and greater wealth of detail than are here recorded". Will change "are" to "[is]", if that works. Thank you for catching that; I was confused by the notional agreement in other Britishisms like "The committee are", I suppose.
Good solution. Finetooth (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note on WP:DUPLINK -- I acquiesce on these changes, I suppose if this is policy. My thought process was that one of the Ida C. Wards you unlinked was three sections/seven paragraphs from the last mention of Ward, and nine paragraphs from its initial wikilink. Catford's name appears ten paragraphs after the only previous time he's mentioned and wikilinked. Is it expected a reader will remember that a name from much earlier in the article was wikilinked? Apparently, according to the MOS...
  • Also, I suppose that following your guidelines I should say who Firth is under "courses and lectures" and link him there, and then just hope by the time they get to students they remember he was notable enough to have been linked in the previous subsection?
Your logic makes sense. The guidelines are not laws or absolutes, and if you think an extra link in a few instances would be helpful, please re-add them. Whatever you decide about this will not affect my support for this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other wording suggestions and changes make sense and will be incorporated into the article. Thank you. Umimmak (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source spot check as this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted. Brian, are you still able to do this, having bravely volunteered above? If not, we can add this to the list at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

[edit]

I found it very difficult to carry out a thorough spotcheck, since the vast majority of sources are books or articles I don't have. Of the online sources, some are in foreign languages, others are behind paywalls and others involve lengthy downloads I don't have time for. From what remains, I picked six sources at random, and in each case they supported the cited text, with no issues of close paraphrasing. So I'm prepared to say that spotchecking is satisfactory. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate you giving an effort! (P.S., quotations from some of the less available sources remain in an earlier version of the article [17] in case they'd be useful for you, or some other editor Sarastro1 finds, to spot check some of the harder to obtain sources. I'm not sure if "satisfactory" means its meets standards for FA or not.) (P.P.S., should I somehow warn the reader that certain files are large? Is there a standard way to let them know?) Umimmak (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject bar and See also

[edit]

Greetings, Today I added a subject bar thinking this will help the average Wikipedia reader find additional topic information. For the SA, I'm totally out of my element here, so I'm wondering if there are specific articles that could be added onto See also? Overall, a well written article. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might change the subject bar to the portal bar, just because only portals are linked and the portal bar is less clunky than the subject bar. I also don't think SA sections are mandatory, any potentially useful articles I could think of are already linked and incorporated in the body. Umimmak (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm happy with the spot checks for this article, and all other checks have been completed. Therefore I will be promoting shortly. I note that several reviewers have suggested that the technical sections here are a little difficult to follow, but that is probably unavoidable in such an article and should not be a bar to promotion. In an ideal world, we would have had a technical review, but I suspect that no such thing is possible at FAC and that the biggest expert on the subject is likely to be the nominator. In any case, there is no need to hold this up any longer as there is a clear consensus to promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarastro1 and to all the other reviewers for their helpful feedback! And yes it's unfortunate there was not a technical review. I left a message in early October in the WikiProject Lingistics page, but unfortunately it and the Phonetics Task Force aren't as active as other wikprojects, it seems. Umimmak (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2017 [18].

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz

[edit]
Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of Frederick the Great's cavalry generals, usually credited with the training of cavalry and development of cavalry tactics. I've experimented with a different citation template for this, to aid in the review process auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Major_General_von_Seydlitz_pipe_Prussian_cavalry_Battle_of_Rossbach_Richard_Knötel.jpg: When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

[edit]

Not all I have to say, but some observations for now:

  • "Seydlitz emerged as a redoubtable Rittmeister (cavalry captain) in the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), also known as the First and Second Silesian Wars." My understanding is that the War of Austrian Succession was a wider conflict that included the Silesian Wars, so I find the "also known as" a bit misleading. If you mean to say that Seydlitz earned his promotion after service in those two wars, I think you should drop the reference to the wider War of Austrian Succession and just say "emerged as a [captain] in the Silesian Wars." Wikilinked, naturally. compromised...:)
  • "He was still not healthy enough to participate in the annual campaigns". What is meant by the phrase "annual campaigns"? Perhaps it would be more clear if it read "front line operations" or similar. removed annual. Campaigning was done annually, and usually not during the winter....too cold for man and beast....So annual campaigns were conducted from March to November, sometimes December. Sieges might occur during the winter, but not usually.
  • You use the title "King" multiple times in the lede but its not directly established that by this you mean Frederick. Might help if you say "King Frederick" the first time or similar. fixed
  • "His future sovereign always addressed him in German." Might be worth mentioning Frederick by name here. done
  • "Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, a notoriously violent man.[11][Note 4]" The footnote explaining Schütz's violent tenancies is WP:UNDUE for this article. left it in and clarified that Seydlitz disapproved of the man's tactics.
  • "A subordinate brought him two healthy Circassian girls" A wikilink to Circassian beauties might give us a better idea of the purpose of their introduction to Seydlitz. ooooh, I didn't see that link. Very good.
  • "after an attack of apoplexy, he completed a couple of stays at Carlsbad to take the waters." Wouldn't hurt to clarify that Carlsbad was a spa town or otherwise state that these were mineral waters he was "taking", as they say. wikilinked, etc.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I'm satisfied with your responses above, my final observations:

  • "Seydlitz's cavalry again saved the day." "Saved the day" is rather colloquial, perhaps "played a decisive role" or similar would be more suitable.
  • 'I couldn't find this, but it may have been edited out.
  • "brought to an end his formerly close friendship" might sound better as "brought an end to his formerly close friendship"
  • fixed. Good call.
  • "The K2169 (a county roadway) passing through Reichertswerben is named von Seydlitz Strasse." Is there any secondary source that can support this?
  • it's on the maps....and cited to google.....and yes, cited to the anniversary brochure published.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Indy, all your comments are addressed. Are there more? If not, do you support? auntieruth (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delay, I thought I had already given my support. Good to see that you have a secondary source for the road. I now gladly support this nomination. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Refs 4, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 18 all show Harvard errors. I can't see immediately what the problems are, but they're most likely minor drafting errors within the source templates.
  • Ref 24: needs publisher details
  • There is inconsistency in the display of publisher locations for books. Either all, or none, should have them.
  • Isbn formats should be regulated in 13-digit format. You can use this to convert 10-digit to 13.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Parsecboy

[edit]

I came to nominate an article myself and couldn't help but be excited to see this up for FA.

  • There's a duplicate link for major in the second section
  • In this note, there's only one citation given - which biography makes the assertion and which one rejects it?
  • "...the victorious meeting at Katholisch-Hennersdorf..." - readers might be a bit thrown seeing a battle described as a "meeting". A link to meeting engagement would be appropriate, I'd think.
  • "...the peace on the 25 December 1748..." - I think the "the" is extraneous (or something is missing).
  • "By the start of the next war..." - piping Seven Years' War to "war" seems a little WP:EGGy to me. Ditto for Raid on Berlin to "raid" below.
  • Shift the link to heavy cavalry up to the first occurrence. Also for syphilis in the Later life section.
  • On the Semi-retirement section - it seems a little odd to split off 2 sentences into their own subsection.
  • On the subject of memorials, there's also German cruiser Seydlitz. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Just a few from me. I reviewed this at GAN and have been through it again to look through the changes since then:

  • "Frederick's Court" should probably be "Frederick the Great's court", (and link Frederick) as you haven't introduced him in the body at that point. done
  • I assume that Margrave Frederick William of Brandenburg-Schwedt was the same chap as the Cuirassier regiment was named after? If so, it is a bit weird that one is Wilhelm and one is William? done
  • In August, 1744 - drop the comma after August done
  • I suggest introducing and linking the concept of coup d'œil in the preceding para where you state "his ability to see at a glance what needed to be done", alternatively, you need to explain what coup d'œil is, as it is an unfamiliar term

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • coup d'œil : it is introduced in the lead, and I'm not sure what you mean by introducing it into the paragraph before Rossbach. I can introduce it in the 1740s battles...is that what you mean? auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it should be introduced as a concept when it is first mentioned in the body. In the preceding para it says "his ability to see at a glance what needed to be done". I suggest adding at the end of that sentence ", a concept known as coup d'œil." Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
duh. I got it now. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I reviewed this at A Class, but I have a few further comments.
  • "and then moved the battlefield to the south of the country" how do you move a battlefield?
  • "Hussars, commanded by Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, a violent man whose conduct of warfare Seydlitz disapproved." This reads as a bit odd. Maybe "Hussars. They were commanded by Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, who was a brutal man, and Seydlitz condemned his conduct in warfare."
  • "cavalry horses were the sturdy warm-blood Trakehner" Trakehners?
  • "In May 1757, regardless of the custom of keeping the heavy cavalry in reserve, Seydlitz brought his regiment forward" I think "in defiance of" would be better than "regardless of".
  • "the Prussian army had defeated the combined armies of two European powers" You have not said which powers (apart from referring to "French/Imperial artillery") It would be helpful to say that the battle was against France and the Holy Roman Empire.
  • "The K2169 (a county roadway) passing through Reichertswerben is named von Seydlitz Strasse." Is there any evidence that it was named after him?
  • @Dudley Miles: well, b attlefield broadly. I fixed it. The bit about Schutz has been rewritten several times, and now it's back to the way it originally was. Trakehner/Trakehners, either way. In cavalry talk, horses are plural or singular as horse. defiance is better. Thanks. I added the different army, and the road in Reichertswerben goes directly through where he regrouped his cavalry. auntieruth (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This is ready for promotion, but just a couple of minor issues to consider. Not all the images have alt text, something in which I always feel, while not an explicit requirement at FA, we should demonstrate best practice. Also, the duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have one or two (which may be argued as being necessary, but I think they should be double checked). This tool will highlight any duplication. But these issues are not enough to delay promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 [19].

Scarlett Johansson

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added.
It does not. Pls look again and you'll find the alt text.

Support on prose Comments by Moise

[edit]
Resolved comments
Hi FrB.TG. Comments on what I've read so far:

Lead:

  • "She voiced an intelligent computer operating system in the 2013 comedy-drama Her and played an alien in the 2013 science fiction film Under the Skin and a woman with psychokinetic abilities in the 2014 science fiction action Lucy." Sentence feels a little long and has two instances of "and" (even though the second one doesn't introduce a new clause so is still grammatically correct). Maybe try to break the sentence up somehow, or change the second "and" to "as well as", or at the very least put a comma after Her.
  • Third and fourth paragraphs have two sentences in a row starting with "She". Feels a bit repetitive, especially in the third paragraph. Maybe if you broke up the sentence I quoted above into two sentences, it would solve both issues in the third paragraph.

Films with Woody Allen:

  • "When Allen offered Johansson the part, she accepted it on a condition that he change her role's nationality." Would be nice to know more about this.
  • Thanks for adding the precision about what nationalities they were. I was hoping to also know the reason why she preferred playing an American (maybe she wasn't comfortable with a British accent?) and was going to add it myself, but when I looked in the source I did't find anything about Johansson requesting the change. Is it possible the information is in a different source? Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the "Why I love London" source says, "Scarlett Johansson replaced Kate Winslet shortly before shooting began, a switch that required the character to change nationality. 'It was not a problem,' Allen says. 'It took about an hour.'"
  • Yes, it does say that there was a "required" change in nationality, but not that Johansson wasn't willing to take the part if the nationality wasn't changed. One could imagine from what is written in the source that perhaps it was Allen that felt the nationality change was better. It feels like a bit of a jump to me. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source (GamesRadar) [[20]] contains the line "So I had to recast and it turned out I could cast an American so I went down the list and saw Scarlett’s name" which may suggest a different sequence of events for Scarlett's character becoming American. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to be more faithful to the source. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish reviewing the rest soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moisejp. I have rearranged the lead a bit. Hopefully it reads better now. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe:

  • "The film gained mainly favorable reviews, and Anne Billson praised Johansson for bringing depth to a rather uninteresting character that it made one wish to watch her story than Damon's." The end of the sentence (from "that it made..." onwards) doesn't seem to quite fit grammatically. Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's too much detail anyway. Removed that part. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got distracted by a couple of other reviews, but will continue this one very soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Music career:

  • "The album was named the "23rd best album of 2008" by NME and peaked at number on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart and number 126 on Billboard 200." The Heatseekers position is missing from the sentence, and I looked in ref #175 to try to add it, but I could only find the Top 200 information in it. Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

Transition to adult roles:

  • "Webber found the actress too modern, but thought it was a positive attribute and that hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work." I find this sentence quite confusing. Johansson was "too" modern but this was a good thing—that's already contradictory. And it's not clear to me what "hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work" means. Is it possible to clarify this sentence? Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Johansson is supposed to play a 17th century character in the film. When Webber met with Johansson he thought she was too modern to play the character, but he was instead fascinated with her modernness. In the source's words, When he first met Johansson, who was 17 at the time, she was en route to a New York Knicks game -- a far cry from the 17th century. But her very modernness fascinated Webber. "I realized that what would work was to take this intelligent, zippy girl and repress all that. Is there a better way to summarize it? (Although I am beginning to wonder if it should at all be mentioned in the article). – FrB.TG (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, FrB.TG, I don't have any immediate ideas. It's tricky. I hope it doesn't sound like a cop-out, but with so many good details throughout the article—especially if you're unsure whether this detail belongs—it could be worthwhile to remove. Moisejp (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen:

  • "She also appeared in Brian De Palma's The Black Dahlia, a film noir shot in Los Angeles and Bulgaria. Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film, but thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part.[69] CNN noted, "[Johansson] takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen," and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph found her miscast in her part." Johansson says she miscast in a way, Billson says also she was miscast. It could be a good idea to join these two in the prose. Moisejp (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel:

  • "In November 2011, Johansson was supposed to make her directorial debut in an adaption of Truman Capote's novel, Summer Crossing, with the screenplay by playwright Tristine Skyler." Did she end up making it or not, and if she didn't, why not? Moisejp (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I read about it was in a 2015 article, which says that it is still in the making. I guess it is one of those films that never come to fruition. Should I shift it to Upcoming projects or just remove and perhaps add it back when the principal photography for the film begins?
  • If you can write it in a way that leaves it open-ended but still true to the actual sources you have, then putting it in Upcoming projects could work. Otherwise you could consider removing it. Moisejp (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johansson was intimidated by the role's complexity, and considered her recording sessions for the role challenging but liberating. "You're liberated from your body." " Can you find a synonym for "liberating" to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the user John, he would have asked to remove the quote, since the intimidated part summarizes the quote.

Music career: (I know some of these sections are appearing twice, but my first read-through of the article was a little scattered, and now I'm trying to go through each section more deliberately.)

  • "Reviews of the album were mixed, or average." I'm not sure the exact distinction being made between "mixed" and "average". Do you need both words? Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johansson was issued a cease and desist order from the lead singer of the Los Angeles-based rock band the Singles, demanding her to stop using their name." Do you have information about how that situation ended, and whether Johansson's band end up changing their name?
No, unfortunately not. Newspapers or tabloids haven't really added further about it.

Okay, I think those are all my comments. I have also made several copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both the comments and the copyedits. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right, this article is good to go in my books. If you can just do something about the info on her directorial debut, as discussed above, that would be awesome. Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I have removed the directorial part for now, and will consider adding it back when/if the principal photography begins. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved comments
*For this sentence (Johansson shifted to adult roles with her performances in Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) and Lost in Translation (2003), for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress.), would it be better to remove the two (2003) parenthesis and move the year to the following “Johansson shifted to adult roles in 2003 with her performances…”? Just providing a suggestion to avoid the repetitions of 2003 in the same sentence.
  • I am not certain about the “Also in 2010” transition in the lead’s third paragraph. Maybe revise it to something like “Also in the same year” or “In the same year”.
  • Would there be a way to reword this sentence (The highest-grossing actress of 2016, she is also, as of May 2017, the highest-grossing actress of all time in North America.) without repeating “highest-grossing” twice? Just seems repetitive here.
  • This is more of a clarification question but is there a reason why ('introducing' credit on this film) has single quotation marks (i.e. ‘.’) as opposed to double quotation marks (i.e. “.”).
  • In the phrase (Made on a paltry budget of $4 million), I am not sure if the word “paltry” is necessary. I would let the numbers speak for themselves.
  • Could you possibly revise the following sentence (Aspiring to appear on Broadway since her childhood, Johansson made her debut on Broadway in a 2010 revival of the drama A View from the Bridge, written by Arthur Miller.) to avoid the repetition of the word “Broadway”?
  • Entertainment Weekly was linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • I think that this “and speak in English accent” should be revised to this (and speak in an English accent).
  • For this part (while taking note of her first fully nude role. For the role,) I would avoid the repetition of the word “role” in such close proximity.
  • In this part (her lips, green eyes, and voice are among her trademarks), who considers these her trademarks? I am just curious about the attribution for this.
  • In this phrase (Often sexually compared to that of Marilyn Monroe,), is the “sexually” part needed in “sexually compared”? Something about it sounds a little off to me. I understand the intended meaning, but I am still not quite so sure about it.
  • I am not sure about the immediate value of the second paragraph of “Public image” section. It seems rather repetitive to just list her placement on lists of the “sexiest celebrity”. It is important information to include as she is known as a sex symbol, but I am curious if this could be cut down further.
I know it is somewhat repetitive to list down those lists, and I have seen some strong opposition from a certain user, but I think they are important, as they are, like, the awards she receive for her films. Regardless, I have trimmed it a little.
  • Thank you for addressing this. I would not compare her appearances on these lists to her awards from fils as they are completely separate things. I am still not entirely convinced of the value of the paragraph, but I understand your point, and will leave this up to future, more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the second paragraph of the “Philanthropy” subsection be better suited for the final paragraph in the “Endorsements” subsection. It seems a little odd to have information in one subsection about how she resigned from company due to conflicting endorsements and then place the full reasonings behind it in a later subsection.
Simply removed that part from Endorsement as I think it belongs more in Philanthropy.
  • In this sentence (Her endeavors included appearances in Iowa during January 2008, where her efforts were targeted at younger voters; an appearance at Cornell College; and a speaking engagement at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota on Super Tuesday, 2008.), all instances of the semicolon should be a comma.
  • For this part (for The Black Eyed Peas frontman will.i.am's song), I do not know why it is necessary to bring up The Black Eyed Peas if they were not a part of the song or video? I think the descriptive phrase “singer” or “rapper” would suffice here.
  • Do you think it is notable/relevant enough to include her appearance on SNL as Ivanka Trump in the skit “Complicit” as that got some media attention after it aired.
I think it's enough to mention her 2017 appearance. Mentioning also that would be somewhat overkill.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the "her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks" aspect, I would think that WP:In-text attribution would not be appropriate if there are multiple or various sources stating this. In-text attribution could make it seem like it's just according to that one person or media outlet. But I see that this has been resolved by adding "the media" in front of "considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
Resolved comments
This is pretty formidable, with 290-odd citations, so I'm doing it in stages. First column:
Well, she has been active since 1994, has starred in dozens of films, released two albums and done other works, so it would naturally be a little large.
  • Ref 7: The publisher should be rendered as E!News, with the wikilink
  • Ref 19: What makes this a high quality, reliable source? It's self-published, and reads rather like a fan piece. Also, the book is unpaginated, so "pp. 5" doesn't make sense as a reference point.
  • Ref 26: The Redford quote is clearly on p. 12, so why the open page range?
  • Ref 36: Again, the page reference should be precise, not to an open-ended range
  • Ref 70: The link seems to go to an entirely different website, unrelated to Johansson

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I have addressed your concerns and look forward to the rest. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second column:

  • Ref 98: Source has a differently-worded headline
  • Ref 100: Authorname is in wrong format – should be surname first
  • Ref 111: Link goes to an entirely different headline – is this the intended source?
  • Ref 119: The E! issue – see note re ref 7, above
  • Ref 164: Authorname in wrong format.

3rd col to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All adjusted, thanks. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third column:

  • Ref 186: Why is this source reliable ("Pitchfork")? Also, authorname format error
Replaced.
  • Ref 190: I'm sure that "Independent.ie" isn't part of the title
  • Ref 199: who is the publisher here? "On The Red Carpet" doesn't seem to be an organisation – it looks to me as though "ABC Eyewitness News" is the probable publisher
  • Ref 228: Authorname format
  • Ref 236: The word is "Ever", not "Eve"
  • Ref 239: Why is this source reliable ("PopSugar")? For some reason the site stops me from scrolling to the foot to check on its credentials.
I think I have seen it being used in another FA (can't remember which), but I have replaced it.
  • Ref 240: Authorname format
  • Ref 244: Why is this source reliable ("Aid still Required")?
Johansson supports the organization, and the source is used to cite that. Can't think of a better source than the one from the organization itself.

And that's it, done. It would be helpful, if you delete or replace a source, if you would add a brief note. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a thorough review of sources. I have left replies under the comments where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Resolved comments
I expect to have the usual stack of nitpicks, and begin construction with the following:
  • I think I've suggested to you in previous articles that there be more facts about what the subject is best known for in the lede paragraph, given what the reader is likely to see if they google. I do so again.
  • "she was married twice," As she lives, I might say "she has been married twice".
  • "comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family (from Poland and Belarus)." I think "Ashkenazic" is more commonly used when an adjective. Also, I might say the family is "of Polish and Belarusian descent" if the connection is not recent (say post World War II), in which case you don't need the parens.
I also prefer it that way (and is now changed back to that), but there was a user that thought otherwise.
  • "She was devastated when a talent agent signed up her brother instead of her. Determined, she eventually decided to become an actress anyway." I would cut "up" as unneeded and "eventually" (a 7-year-old hasn't experienced "eventually")
  • "and made her first stage appearance in the Off Broadway play Sophistry opposite Ethan Hawke,[19] in which she had only two lines.[18]" I take "opposite" to mean leading actor (or actress) opposite the leading actress (or actor), if you know what I mean. Two lines is not a leading part, and given the age difference ... I might substitute "with" for "opposite".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have addressed these, and look forward to more. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but I’d prefer to wait until November 6. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also that year, Johansson underwent tonsillectomy," likely should be an "a" prior to tonsillectomy
  • "The Nanny Diaries, in which she had the role of a college graduate working as a nanny alongside Chris Evans and Laura Linney. " If the latter two were not also nannies, I would move the "alongside ..." clause to after "Diaries,"
  • "Some critics and Broadway actors saw her as undeserving of the award.[100]" Isn't that true of most awards?
  • "did not look a lot like Leigh" did not look much like Leigh?
  • " Following an FBI investigation, Christopher Chaney was arrested, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison."Unless he's notable in some other way, I would avoid naming the perp. Why give him publicity?
  • "for using her name in the novel The First Thing We Look At, by Gregoire Delacourt. The book featured a character who looked like Johannson, and was mistaken for her, although she herself was not a character in the novel." This is a bit confusing. Looks like her, name's like her's .

That's it...--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now addressed these as well. Thanks for the review. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Flyer22 Reborn

[edit]
Resolved comments
Comment: Regarding the award bit, I don't think it's true that, for most awards, some critics are going to consider the actor undeserving of it. For one, how are we defining "critics"? If we mean professional critics, then I stand by my comment. And it's certainly not the case that actors usually respond to such criticism. Johansson took the time to respond in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but then US Weekly is not much of a strong source to be used in an FA/C. Reviewers have previously discouraged its usage in previous FLCs and FACs. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As a source, Us Weekly is not much different than People or Rolling Stone, which are very much allowed. We had to conduct an RfC just to keep editors (well, mainly one) from removing People magazine. Us Weekly is one of the sources that celebrities trust and it passes WP:Reliable sources. We might need to conduct an RfC on it as well. Either way, there are other reliable sources that cover the "Johansson didn't deserve the award" matter, like this The Hollywood Reporter source or the source she gave the interview to -- broadwayworld.com.
Wehwalt, did you mean to remove our comments? If so, why? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, must have gotten caught up in the edit somehow. Please feel free to restore. On the question of criticism, I don't think the criticism of the award is important but it's not something I care about greatly. My comments are usually advice. (Wehwalt)--08:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Query resolved at the article's talk page.

Thanks for the heading add; I thought about doing that, but I had already responded to a section higher up and my comments aren't really reviews. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t review it even if you want to ;-) cuz you’re one of the major contributors of the article. I created the header to separate your comment from Wehwalt’s although it was related to his. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Major, you say? Nah. I just tended to some things in the article here and there. You did all the work. LOL. But I know what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However it was done, it was worth the doing, judging by the result.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this removal per Sarastro1's comments below, I might have kept the Sean Penn mention since the source states that the relationship was highly publicized and documents Johansson commenting on the media attention it received having been an adjustment for her. But then again, it was not on a Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow level. By this, I mean that although Paltrow similarly mentioned having had to deal with her relationship with Pitt being high-profile, Penn and Johansson didn't date long and there was no engagement. Pitt and Paltrow dated for a few years, there was an engagement, which Paltrow said was called off because she did not want kids she was not ready for marriage, and Paltrow noted that the Pitt relationship taught her the need for public discretion about her romantic life. So I understand the rationale behind removing the Penn piece.

As for the length of the Public image section, it's fine, in my opinion. Johansson's appearance is a significant part of her public image; so it makes sense that the section has two paragraphs devoted to that. But I would not have mentioned all of the magazine listings currently included. I would have summarized the matter by stating that she has been featured on various "hottest" and "most beautiful woman" lists, or something like that, and retained the "She is the only woman to be named 'Sexiest Woman Alive' twice by Esquire (2006 and 2013)" due to its notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also read the Penn part in the source that it was highly publicized. However, what prompted me to remove it that it was brief and a source stated that it might have been a rumored relationship, one that she never admitted to be in. This is what she has said about Penn, "We spent time together, yeah... I never put a title on it, really, but we were seeing each other." I believe the publicity might have been because of their age difference. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I saw that the source states "alleged romance with Sean Penn," but Johansson stating "I never put a title on it, really, but we were seeing each other" and the source stating "and though they are no longer seeing each other, Johansson said they are friends" confirms to me that they were dating. She wasn't speaking in terms of simply hanging out as friends. They were dating, but she didn't put a name on it. Afterward, they remained friends. This People source also states that she dated Penn and that it was high-profile. You might be right that it was high-profile because of the age difference. Many people were probably intrigued and/or shocked by the age difference, similar to Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher. Anyway, if it wasn't clear before, I don't view your removal of that text as a big issue. I just wanted to comment on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the relationship is not currently mentioned in the Sean Penn article either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is very much appreciated. I am glad that you do it; it makes me recheck things that I may or may not be right about. On another note, I don't understand how you add your well-detailed thoughts, and revert five-six vandals in the meanwhile. :D (Keep it up!) FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STiki makes it easy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until a few minutes ago, I didn't notice that the sex symbol aspect was removed from the lead, but that's a significant aspect of her public image and I don't see any valid reason to exclude it from the lead. It makes sense to exclude it from the lead in the case of Jennifer Lawrence. The difference is that, when comparing Lawrence to Johansson, Johansson is substantially better known for her looks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if one needs examples where we include "sex symbol" or "physical appearance" material in the lead of celebrity articles, Marilyn Monroe and Angelina Jolie are two featured article examples. Granted, a lot of fuss has been made over their appearances and the impact their appearances had on society; so, yeah, not mentioning that aspect in the leads of their Wikipedia articles would have been a big oversight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I tweaked it for flow here and here. The final paragraph is really about her public image and personal life. Basically, the world's interest in her as a public figure (which includes her image and interest in her personal life). I think that, like the Angelina Jolie article, the public image stuff should come before the personal life stuff in the lead, although (for both articles) the Public image section is after that lower in the article. Before I tweaked the final paragraph, it began with the public image stuff, then went to the personal life stuff, and jumped right back to the public image stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

[edit]
Resolved comments
*"She was devastated when a talent agent signed one of her brothers ..." - I'm guessing you can't be any be more specific with her age here? Are you sure she was seven or under though, as she is presented as seven in the next sentence.
  • People outside of the Americas will likely never have heard of Wonder Bread. Maybe you should wikilink it? Up to you.
We are not supposed to wiki-link inside a quotation, per WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point.
  • "and she hit her head and injured herself"- this raises questions of how this happened and how badly injured she was.
Well, in the source, Johansson has only said that she was bruised and hit her head.
  • "to mostly poor reviews" - from the prose it's not clear if you're referring to the film of specifically Scarlett's performance. If you're referring to her performance, perhaps add some context about why it was considered poor.
  • I've been reading 64th Tony Awards#Summary of awards. Perhaps we could clarify that criticism of Scarlett's award was not limited to her, but rather was part of an overall criticism of Hollywood recipients?
  • "Johansson was paid $17.5 million" - this addition is nice, but it raises more questions than it answers. Why is this the first mention of her payment? Is this a particularly large sum for her compared to her previous roles? There's nothing to compare this amount to.
The source does not give info of that sort. I just added it as I thought this is a large sum for an actress. However, it is not confirmed and sources say it might be a rumor. In this case, I think it is best to remove it, which I have.
  • "Johansson was issued a cease and desist order" - Is there any follow up on this? Did she 'cease and desist'?
No, unfortunately not, per my response above to Moisejp.
  • "She created some controversy when she appeared nude" - The source doesn't appear to back this up, rather it just backs up that the cover-shoot occurred. And why did this cause controversy? Just from up-tight conservatives who are opposed to nudity full stop or were there other reasons? This would be of interest.
  • "Too Many Women, working against breast cancer," - this is confusing. I think it would be better if you specified what Too Many Women does in brackets, assuming that 'working against breast cancer' is the explanation of what they do.

I'm really impressed with the amount of work that has gone into this. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have replied where necessary otherwise I have just gone ahead. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this. Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comments
Coordinator comments: Just a few queries from me before we think about promotion. I'm just thinking out loud here, and noting some issues that regularly come up in biographies of actors.
  • First, I notice instances of the "with [noun] [verb]ing" construction which are best avoided: "with critics deeming it melodramatic, unoriginal and sexist", "with Hartnett citing their busy lives as the reason for their split" and "with proceeds going to the President's re-election campaign".
  • The sections on her singing career and public image seem a little long; I'm not sure her music career warrants such a long section and the latter section has a whole list of "she was X's sexiest woman in XXXX" which seems too much (can we not just say something like she regularly features highly in these polls?). There are often complaints when articles reach the main page if there is undue emphasis on sex appeal.
Re the music section, she has a discography page so you would expect it to consist of a few paras; regardless, I have reduced it a bit. I have also trimmed the public image section.
  • Similarly, I wonder if we need to list every relationship that she has been in, and I think we could cut parts of that section. For example, we currently have "Johansson began a relationship with Canadian actor Ryan Reynolds in 2007,[194] and in May 2008, it was reported that they were engaged.[195] In September 2008, the couple married in a quiet ceremony near Tofino, British Columbia. They purchased a $2.8 million home together near Los Angeles.[196] In December 2010, the couple announced their separation; their divorce was finalized in July 2011." I would imagine some of this could be trimmed and we could summarise the whole relationship in about two sentences.
Yeah, I agree. I have removed some of her brief or rumored relationships and the house bit.
  • Finally, I notice that there is no "overview" section of her career or comments on her acting style/ability. These are not always possible, but it is always a question worth asking. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a specific section dedicated to it, but there are a few quotes from her (""Unfortunately, because it's adults..", "acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions" and the one in the public image section) about how she chooses roles and some sources giving an overview(-esque) of her career (e.g. the Vulture source discussing her onscreen romance with older costars and the Anne Billson one). Regarding her acting ability, I have left it on the reviews of her films. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Before we promote, I wonder if John or Corinne could have a last look at the prose and see if we are good to go from a 1a viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from John

[edit]

I had a preliminary look. It's a nice article, almost ready to go. Few too many quotes and I'm sure I saw an "it was revealed" in there. I'll have a better look in the next days. --John (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: From a Ctrl+F search, it appears that there is one instance of "it was revealed" in paragraph 3 of Personal life. I haven't changed it yet as I don't know the optimal replacement, but feel free to change it as you please. I'm sure you didn't need me to find it, but I agree that it's not quite encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken out the revealed part (which was there before I expanded the article and somehow missed it) and have summarized a small number of quotes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) John just a gentle reminder. FrB.TG (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, sorry to be such a pain in the arse. I understand you might be busy but when you get time, it would be really great if you could continue your review if you have more to add. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, I apologise for having been too busy to look at this over the past days. I will look at it tonight before I go to bed. --John (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section:

Lead

  • Her achievements include being among the world's highest-paid actresses from 2014 to 2016: the link is a bit eggy, isn't it?
  • Off-Broadway is usually hyphenated, I think.
  • She was nominated for Golden Globe Awards for these films feels like it needs a number in front of "Golden".
  • the 2013 comedy-drama Her; do we need that hyphen? --John (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All done. FrB.TG
Thank you. I took the liberty of signing for you. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Johansson's mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family of Polish Jewish and Belarusian Jewish descent whose family surname was originally "Szlamberg". Having three "Jewish"s in quick succession makes this a jangly sentence. Some creative piping maybe, if we really need all three links. Is her ethnic heritage really worthy of such detailed discussion?
  • Growing up, her family had limited financial means. Almost everybody in the world can say this. Do we mean she was poor? What do the sources say?
  • She was particularly fond of musical theater, describing herself as "one of those jazz-hands kids". (quote no 1) I am deeply unsatisfied by this quote. What does this even mean?
  • I always had the chance to do whatever I wanted to do, my parents were very open about that [...] Acting has been a passion of mine. I wanted to be in musicals as a kid, and took tap dance, so for me it's a dream come true, my childhood was filled with things that I loved to do, and also very normal things: I lived in New York, I have a family life and went to a regular school. If anything, I look back and think, 'Wow, I did a lot of things that a lot of people don't get to do in their lifetime'. (quote no 2) There's good stuff here but why is it a pull quote? Is this a quote that people often refer to her by? I don't see why this can't be summarised and/or shortened.
I have paraphrased most of it but have retained a small part of it, which I think is better in her own words.
  • Determined, she decided to become an actress anyway. I don't like this. I think I'd recast this and the previous one into one sentence.
  • She remembers being on the set of the film, recalling, "for some reason, I just knew what to do, instinctively. It was like, I don't know ... fate." (quote no 3) I think this can happily be summarised too. Remember, there is nothing to stop the vital parts of a quote being shunted into a reference or a footnote, for those who really need to read every word. All of these quotes so far are pretty mundane and probably apply to a great many actors. We just need an encyclopedic gist, not chapter and verse. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early roles (1996–2002)

  • "Unfortunately, because it's adults writing these scripts, it's tough [for young actors to find realistic roles]. The problem is adults portray kids like mall rats and not seriously ... Kids and teenagers just aren't being portrayed with any real depth." —Johansson on finding good roles as a teenager (quote no 4) Again, this is a great and telling quote, but I don't think it needs to be quoted in full and I don't think it needs to be a pull quote.
  • Quotes no 4-8 are what seem to me like well-chosen quotes from reviewers and I am fine with them. I particularly liked On Johansson's maturity, Redford described her as "13 going on 30". (quote no 7)
  • Nominated for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress for the film, Johansson believed that it "changed things for me in a lot of ways [...] I went through this realization that acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions." (quote no 9) In this case I don't think the quote adds anything. It can best be summarised. I also don't like the sentence structure, I would recast that.
  • Quotes 10 and 11 are fine with me. It's getting late here. I may have one more section in me tonight. In any case I'll try to finish up by this time tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transition to adult roles (2003–2004)

  • Comedy-drama again. Is this a recognised term? With or without the hyphen? I know we have an article on it, but it isn't a very good article. I genuinely don't know here.
Although certainly not the best, our article hyphenates it as does this.
  • I think the whole first para could be reorganised. No issue with Ebert's quote (no 10) nor no 11 from Entertainment Weekly.
  • Webber interviewed 150 girls before Johansson was cast for the part. could read as patronising or even sexist. These were adult women, albeit young. They wouldn't be interviewing guys for a female role; why state the gender at all? Just say "150 young actors".
  • He felt the actress "just stood out. She had something distinctive about her. (quote no 12) seems fluffy and inessential.
  • Quotes no 13 and 14 are ok, I suppose. We don't need "similarly" though. They aren't that similar.
  • Johansson had five releases in 2004, three of which—the teen heist film The Perfect Score, the drama A Love Song for Bobby Long, and the drama A Good Woman, adapted from Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan—were critical and commercial failures. is good material but too long and meandering for a sentence.
  • Opined See WP:SAID. "Wrote" is fine.
  • Johansson voiced the role of Princess Mindy, the daughter of King Neptune Do we need "the role of"?
  • She agreed to do the film because of her love for cartoons and the animated series The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991–1995). Awkward sentence. Surely The Ren & Stimpy Show is a cartoon? And do we need the dates?
  • ...who is nearly half his age... is clumsy and ambiguous. "much younger" would be fine I think.
  • Fine with quotes 15 and 16. --John (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have done most of these things except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films with Woody Allen (2005–2009)

  • In Johansson and Rhys Meyers The New York Times saw some of the best acting in an Allen film in a long time, and Mick LaSalle, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said that Johansson "is a powerhouse from the word go", with a performance that "borders on astonishing". The sentence structure is off-putting; I had to read this twice to parse it. Ok with quote no 17 (I'll keep the same numbering scheme for simplicity, even though I know you have now removed some.)
  • The film received mixed reviews and grossed $162,949,164 against a $126 million budget. I'd be inclined to round the first number to $163 million.
  • Ebert was critical of the film, but found Johansson "lovely as always", and Mick LaSalle opined that she "brings deftness and freshness" to her part. Not sure we need the first quote (no 18); neutral on the second (19).
  • Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film. Nonetheless, she thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part, and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph likewise found her miscast. I'm not a fan of "Nonetheless", and I don't think the quote (no 20) is merited. I think these two sentences could be rewritten into one.
  • CNN noted that she "takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen". Quote no 21 can happily be summarised.
Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning.
  • Also in 2006, Johansson starred in the short film When the Deal Goes Down, directed by Bennett Miller, set to Bob Dylan's song "When the Deal Goes Down...", released to promote his album, Modern Times. This is not a FA sentence.
  • Nolan, who was interested in having Johansson play the role, described her as possessing an "ambiguity" and "a shielded quality" (quote no 21) is ok, I suppose, but the sentence should be recast.
  • The film was both a critical and box office success, recommended by the Los Angeles Times as "an adult, provocative piece of work". (quote no 22) Fine but lose "both".
  • Some critics were skeptical of her performance: Anne Billson referred to her as miscast, and Dan Jolin in Empire magazine criticized her English accent, writing that she "forgets to engage her audience, trilling the film's only bum note" "Referred" sounds a wee bit WP:SAID again; have you read elegant variation? Quote no 23 is gratuitous and could be removed, perhaps to a footnote.
  • Quotes 24-28 are fine I guess, but I dislike "garnered". "Earned"?
  • Quote 29 is ok but "labelled" is elegant variation.

Marvel Cinematic Universe and stage roles (2010–2013)

  • Set in the 1950s, in an Italian-American neighborhood in New York, it tells the tragic tale of Eddie (played by Liev Schreiber), who has an inappropriate love for his wife's orphaned niece, Catherine (played by Johansson). Johansson was initially uncomfortable playing a teenage character, but later agreed to do the play after a friend convinced her to take on the part. The repetition of the subject's name is awkward. These sentences could be recast to flow better.
  • Ben Brantley of The New York Times wrote of Johansson's performance that she "melts into her character so thoroughly that her nimbus of celebrity disappears". This quote (no 30) can be summarised I think.
Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I have done these things. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, thank you. On we go.
  • ... it examines the relationships among members of the family of Big Daddy... -> it examines the relationships within the family of Big Daddy
  • Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who admitted to being a fan of his acting work "Admitted" is a bit like "revealed". It's the language a tabloid uses to titillate its subliterate readers. I prefer "Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who had previously admired his acting work."
  • Claudia Puig of USA Today (no 31) can stay.
  • "speaks Samantha in tones sweet, sexy, caring, manipulative and scary" (no 32); I find the quote a bit icky. Could we possibly just use the adjectives?
  • Johansson improvised her conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who were unknowingly participating in the film; these scenes were filmed with hidden cameras. -> Johansson improvised conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who did not know they were being filmed.

Recent work (2014–present)

  • Johansson was attracted to her character's way of doing her job, employing her feminine wiles and not her sexuality and physical appeal Just "physical appeal" would be fine here, I think.
  • Odie Henderson (quote no 33) is fine, as is Richard Roeper (34).
  • The Jim Vejvoda quote (35) can be summarised.
  • Johansson's pregnancy -> "her pregnancy"
  • Earlier in 2016, Johansson featured in Coen brothers' critically acclaimed comedy film Hail, Caesar! needs a "the" in front of "Coen brothers". I don't like "critically acclaimed" either; almost everything has been "acclaimed" by at least one critic. Was it "well-reviewed" or "positively received"? Either of these would be better, if the sources support it.
  • Johansson played the cyborg, supersoldier Motoko Kusanagi in Rupert Sanders's 2017 film adaptation of the Ghost in the Shell franchise The comma is awkward, and aren't all supersoldiers cyborgs? One link or the other maybe?
  • The film received mixed reviews: it was praised... -> The film was praised...

Music career

  • She performed with the Jesus and Mary Chain for a special Coachella reunion show in Indio, California, in April 2007. What was "special" about it? Aren't all reunions "special"? I would just remove this.
  • Johansson later spoke of the opportunity she had to record the album, adding, "I thought I would do maybe an album of standards, because I'm not a songwriter. I'm a vocalist." (no 39) This adds nothing at all. I would just remove this too.
  • added her voice to -> "sang on"
  • In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles. It is made up of... -> "In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles with..."
  • The first single released by the group was called "Candy". -> "The group's first single was called "Candy"."

Personal life

  • Johansson is reluctant to discuss her personal life, saying, "It's nice to have everybody not know your business." I am agnostic on quote no 40. I'd probably completely remove this, on the basis that she seems to have discussed her personal life quite a bit; the source this quote is drawn from also includes ""Contrary to popular belief, I am not promiscuous", and I think by including this we are falling into the trap of reporting her words about herself in Wikipedia's voice. I'd certainly remove the quote.
  • In November 2012, Johansson started dating Frenchman Romain Dauriac... This paragraph is very choppy and needs an edit or two. Too many short sentences.
  • They separated in the summer of 2016. -> "They separated in mid-2016." (WP:SEASON)
  • Johansson was awarded $3,400, a fraction of the $68,000 she had claimed. -> "Johansson was awarded $3,400; she had claimed $68,000." --John (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public image

  • Johansson is described as a sex symbol by the media, which considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks. All of the media? Trademarks? This isn't quite right.
There are two sources supporting it. It would sound strange to say this and this or some of the media consider these her trademarks. Of course it does not mean all of the media, but the general. I can find other sources saying these things about her, but I failed to find one that says "the media says these things".
  • A string of three medium-sized quotations (41-43, unless I've missed one or two) by guys who think she is sexy, including Woody Allen. Hmm. This is perhaps a case for sending the quotes to the reference and just say they have gone on record commenting on her attractiveness. Then her quote about it, which I suppose is fine but could just as easily be summarised.
The Woody Allen quote sounds unnecessary, yes, but I believe comments from Sydney Morning Herald and New Yorker can be kept and are relevant in my opinion.
  • Johansson's sex appeal also cost her the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part. -> "Johansson lost the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part."
  • What is the pull-quote about? What does it mean? What does it relate to? Is it something frequently quoted by her?
This one should be fine in my opinion; she talks about how she approaches roles or how she acts. This looks like a distinctive quote to me.
  • After appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Johansson was announced as the face of the new Dolce & Gabbana make-up collection in early 2009. She made a personal appearance at the London store, Selfridges, in July 2009 to help launch and promote the line We don't need the date it was announced, just the actual date it happened is fine.

Other ventures

  • took part in social advocacy as part of the anti-poverty campaign ONE, sounds interesting. What social advocacy did she take part in? The source doesn't say.
Source (page four) only says she took part in it. No particular what she did.
  • The two quotes regarding Oxfam and SodaStream really add nothing (I've lost count now but I reckon we were well over 40). It's fine just to say why she withdrew, without the two quotes to support it.
  • Of George W. Bush's 2004 reelection, she said, "[I am] disappointed. I think it was a disappointment for a large percentage of the population." -> "When George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, she said she was disappointed."
  • Johansson publicly endorsed and supported Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's 2013 run for New York City Comptroller by hosting a series of fundraisers. I'm not sure what a private endorsement would look like. Just "supported" would be fine. Does this even merit a mention?
  • She elaborated, "Once the heaviness [of the election] began to subside, an opportunity has presented itself to make real long-term change, not just for future Americans, but in the way we view our responsibility to get involved with and stay active in our communities. Let this weight not drag you down, but help to get your heels stuck in." This looks like yet another self-serving quote. Vanity Fair has a more interesting take on it, that she was advocating for Planned Parenthood based on her own experience with the organisation.
There is a similar one from LA Times already used in the article.

That concludes my first pass on 1a grounds. --John (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I have addressed these as well. FrB.TG (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final nips and tucks

Are you ok with these edits? I finished this second phase of the review tonight. --John (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thank you for that and also for your thorough review. When expanding a BLP next time, I’ll make sure I keep the quotes limited to the good ones. FrB.TG (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, regarding those series of edits, I restored the "ScarJo" quote here (followup note here); I did this because the nickname aspect does not flow well with the "sexiest list"/Madame Tussauds New York paragraph, and I think it's better to address why Johansson dislikes the nickname. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can also summarize her reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have paraphrased the quote and let it be part of the prose, which I think is better. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I take it that you don't think the "associate that name with pop stars" part is needed? It does seem that people would think of J.Lo when reading it and take it as an insult with regard to pop stars. I'm not sure if we should mention the pop stars part or not. The gist is that she finds the name lazy and flippant; so your summary gets that across. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if "insulting" should be replaced with "flippant." Apparently, she finds the name disrespectful and something not giving her the seriousness she deserves; so I wonder if "flippant," which is a synonym for "disrespectful," gets that across better. But then again, "insulting" is more commonly used than "flippant." We could also use the word "disrespectful." If you think it's fine as is, I'm okay with that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]
Changed to this. I don't think readers are likely to get what she means by "violent," especially outside of the quote. I don't even understand what she means by it. So I added "flippant" in its place. She uses both "flippant" and "insulting," and these two words don't always automatically mean the same thing; so I think it's fine to include both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely getting there. I still have a question about why we have used the source:

Do you feel like any of the characters you’ve played have been close to who you actually are?

All of the characters are close to who I am in some ways. The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act. So there is a part of me in every role that I play. For better or worse.

and truncated it to

"The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act." —Johansson on her approach to acting

It seems to me we've omitted the question she was responding to, and the first and last sentences of her response, and added on the explanation that the quote is "on her approach to acting". It seems rather to be about how she feels about the characters she plays. I don't like it, and I don't see that is belongs as a pull quote in a section about her "Public image". --John (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: sorry for another ping. Would you mind finishing your review, as I’d like to see this nom conclude. FrB.TG (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Last few niggles.
  • She remembers being on the set of the film, knowing instinctively what to do. Would you mind if we recast this as "She says that when she was on the film set, she knew intuitively what to do"? The "-ing" form is jarring, especially when repeated twice in a sentence, and this wasn't instinct but perhaps more intuitiveness.
  • I'm aware that alt text for images isn't essential for FA any more, but I like them and if we are going to have them they should be more descriptive. For example, the one for File:Lee Strasberg Institute 115 East 15th Street.jpg should not read A picture of the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute. but something more like "A red-brick three-story building with a tree outside it" so as to actually provide info for people who can't see the picture, rather than just duplicate the caption.
  • Where's the sourcing that Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media and fans? One source says it is "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using" is sourced to an archived article on Yahoo.com, maybe not the strongest of sources. I do prefer my version which was "Johansson has been called "ScarJo" by the media and fans, but dislikes it." but really the "and fans" is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed. --John (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "and fans" part, but I do think that her reason to dislike the nickname should be retained in prose rather than in footnote in quotes. I liked your other suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that, but I think that we are struggling even with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media. What does "commonly" even mean here? I don't see it in the Guardian coverage, for example. And thanks for implementing my suggestion for the alt text but I think all or most of them would need to be similarly adjusted. --John (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point of "commonly" was the point that all qualifiers have. And we do use qualifiers, such generally or typically (and, yeah, commonly too), on Wikipedia. Qualifiers such as these let readers know that it's not an "always" matter. The wording "prone to using" is also something that lets one know that it's not an "always" or "solely" matter. Johansson is not solely called "ScarJo" by the media, but it's common enough that she's commented on it multiple times. That stated, I can live with the removal of "commonly" for the piece. "Fans" should be there as well since she's called this by fans too. But since "fans" is not sourced, we'll have to do without it for now. I obviously agree with FrB.TG that Johansson's reasons for disliking the nickname should be retained. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "the media" in general though, at least according to our sources, it is "gossip magazines"; can you live with this? --John (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess. I don't know about The Guardian, but Rolling Stone and Variety have. Not sure if that qualifies as the media in general though. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per this CBS News source and this The Sydney Morning Herald source, it is not just the media who calls her ScarJo; it is the general pubic, as in the media and fans, which is the original wording I used per the sources. The CBS source, which had been in the article before, states, "Your fame means that your name has been reduced to acronym that everybody uses." The Sydney Morning Herald states, "Johansson has said she finds the nickname insulting and wants her fans to stop using it." So we have sources noting that the media and her fans call her "ScarJo," and that she strongly dislikes this. One source stating "a gossip magazine mainstay" does not mean that gossip magazines alone call her "ScarJo." Per the sources, it's clear that people in general call her that, not just gossip magazines. Indeed, one source that John cited above states "the name that the media is prone to using," which means the "media commonly calls her this." We have sources stating the "media" and "fans." Per this, I removed John's wording of "certain sections of the media." Use of "certain sections of the media" is not wording employed by any of the sources and it's WP:Weasel wording because it makes people wonder "Which sections?" when reading it. I changed the wording to "by the public," and supported this with the CBS News source, which says that "everybody uses" the nickname "ScarJo." I also changed the Yahoo! source to The Sydney Morning Herald source for Johansson's interview since John expressed hesitancy about using the Yahoo! source. I was going to use the Glamour magazine source as a direct source, but I didn't see the part where Johansson comments on the matter when I clicked on URLs for it (such as this one, which only shows photos and has brief descriptions). And since The Sydney Morning Herald uses the word "fans," that was a plus per my previous "and fans" argument. I re-added "commonly" per what I stated above and in this paragraph (it's more accurate and flows better), but we can remove that again. I also re-added "is," because there is no indication that Johansson being called "ScarJo" is a past matter and not a present matter as well.
I don't see that we need to spend any more time on this particular aspect. Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by both the media and fans, very much dislikes, and we note this. Simple. Let's move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't live with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the public on a BLP FAC as it is introducing a synthesis from sources which speak of acronym that everybody uses (although it clearly is an acronym it clearly isn't used by everybody, so I would distrust this source) and ones that refer to "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using"; how, do we get from there to 'commonly called "ScarJo" by the public'? I'm sure there is a good compromise out there, but this isn't it. --John (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, "commonly" is no more WP:Synthesis than your use of "certain sections of the media." When we look at the definition of "tend," we see that it means "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic." So how is a reliable source stating "the name that the media is prone to using" not the same thing as "the name that the media commonly calls her"? As for the CBS News source stating "an acronym that everybody uses," the source obviously does not mean that everyone in the world uses the name, just like sources don't mean that all critics hated a film when they state "critics panned the film." There is no reason to take such a strict reading of sources and forgo WP:Common sense. We are allowed to use synonyms. As for distrusting sources, it is CBS News; it is undoubtedly a reliable source. So are the Rolling Stone and Variety sources above. There is nothing that says we must use a The Guardian source instead. We go by what reliable sources state. And the CBS News source is speaking of the the fact Johansson is widely called "ScarJo." So, per the sources, we can leave the text as "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the public.", which is not ideal to me since it leaves out the important "commonly" qualifier, or we can add "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." We have reliable sources stating "media" and "fans." I don't see what is so contentious about this text you keep disputing. I did remove "commonly" (followup note here), despite "tend to" being a synonym for "frequently" and "frequently" being a synonym for "commonly." Stating "Johansson is frequently called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." would also work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, John stated, "I do prefer my version which was 'Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it.' but really the 'and fans' is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed." Per this and what I stated above, I have changed the text to "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." The first source (the Yahoo! source) states "media" and the second source (the The Sydney Morning Herald source) states "fans." The text is completely supported by the sources. And as stated before, use of "is" happens to be more accurate than "has been" in this case. And use of "the media and fans" obviously does not mean all of the media and fans, which is why adding the qualifier "commonly" or "frequently" is better. It's why one source states "prone to." But I trust that our readers will have common sense, just like they will know that "she is described as a sex symbol by the media" does not mean every media outlet ever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: Maybe noting here that some scholarly sources call her "ScarJo" or specifically comment on the "ScarJo" aspect will help show how common and notable the "ScarJo" nickname is. For example, this 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of the Word" source, from OUP Oxford, page 1019, states, "A small set of public celebrity nicknames combine a forename initial with a truncation of the surname [...] Forms that combine forename and surname truncations, such as Cujo for Curtis Joseph or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson, are also found." This 2016 "The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television" source, from Springer, page 42, flat out uses "ScarJo" in its title for a section when analyzing some of Johansson's films. The only reason we even mention "ScarJo" in the Wikipedia article is because of how common it is and because Johansson has stated multiple times that she dislikes it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John:, by stating "the media", we certainly do not mean all of the media. I don't think this "all of the media" point applies anywhere as that is not true in any case. Since there are many reliable sources that have called her that, I think it is currently okay, although, if I am being honest, I wasn't a big fan of "commonly" either. I have added an "often" there to imply that they do not always call her that. Hope it works now. FrB.TG (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Johansson dislikes the nickname "ScarJo" which some media and fans refer to her by, finding it lazy, flippant and insulting.? I think putting her dislike first is important, and I think "some" is fairer than "often". I had never heard of it before undertaking this review, and although I take your examples as given, I'm not sure we have the sources to say "often" and there seem to be sources which never use the nickname. It might seem silly to press this point, but it is slightly running into BLP and the principle of "do no harm", so it's important to get it right. As far as I'm aware this is my last outstanding point. --John (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm trying to understand your issue with the text, but I can't. Your latest suggested wording doesn't flow well and it's unnecessary WP:Weasel wording. "Some media" begs the question of "which media?", and, as FrB.TG and I have shown, it's not just the gossip media calling her this. You stated that you had never heard of it and that some sources don't call her this. But that does not negate how common the nickname is. I can point to numerous things that are common with regard to a specific topic, but that some or many editors have never heard of. The fact that all of the media has not referred to her as "ScarJo" does not mean that the nickname is not common. If it were not common, I highly doubt that the first scholarly book I cited above would have taken the time to mention it. I highly doubt that Johansson would have taken the time to comment on the topic multiple times. I highly doubt that sources would state "prone to using" and "an acronym that everybody uses." If it's not used as much now as it once was, that is because some of the media have respected Johansson's wishes. But we don't have sources noting this decrease in usage. As for use of "often," it is supported by "prone to," which equates to "tends to." I've already linked to what "tend" means, for anyone needing to see a definition of it and its synonyms. But, like I noted before, we can forgo a qualifier in this case, even though a qualifier would be better. You take issue with "often," even though sources and Google searches show that it is an "often" matter, but sources don't state "some" on this issue. They are clear that the nickname is widely used. Again, you proposed the following: "Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it." The only difference between that and the current wording (besides the fact that we note why she dislikes the name) is that "often" is included (which, again, is something we can remove) and that "is" takes the place of "has been." The current wording, which is supported by ample evidence, is nowhere close to harming Johansson. It's not a WP:BLP violation. This is nothing to spend so much time on, or fail an article over. FrB.TG has done a wonderful job on the article, and this piece is a minor aspect of it.
All that stated, why don't we just go back to your "has been" wording? The text would read as follows: Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it, finding it lazy, flippant and insulting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the text back to "has been." Can you live with this, John? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. FrB.TG, Flyer22 Reborn, it's been a pleasure to work with you. I think (without having checked) that this may be my most exacting FAC, but I think the quality of the article speaks of the thoroughness of the reviews it has undergone. I'm sure there are still minor improvements to be made but this is now at FA standard. Support. --John (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. This might be the most thorough review in any of my FACs. I am grateful for all of your contributions. FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that things have finally worked out. Happy Thanksgiving Eve to everyone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: FrB.TG and John, the Public image section currently states: "Johansson dislikes being objectified as she believes it does not last." To me, this line implies that she would like being objectified if it did last. It previously stated, "Regardless, Johansson dislikes being 'super-sexualised' as 'the new Marilyn Monroe' and 'always be[ing] an object of desire. Because it doesn't last.'" I feel that it would be better to state the following: Johansson dislikes being sexualized, and believes that a preoccupation with attractiveness does not last. And it seems that we should drop this source since it doesn't show her stating that she dislikes it, and instead simply retain the second source...which does show her stating that? I also think use of "sexualized" is better per the sources and that some outlets that praise Johansson's looks likely don't think that they are objectifying her. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your version is much better. On a side note, is this ready to be closed now, Sarastro1? FrB.TG (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor change here. Flows okay, I think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TriiipleThreat

[edit]

Do we really need images of Robert Redford and Tom Waits? Images add a lot of WP:WEIGHT to particular pieces of information and by adding these images, they appear to diminish Johansson's own accomplishments by shifting responsibility to these artist. It seems the prose alone would be sufficient.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many images of Johansson herself; the two images of these two men hardly diminish her accomplishments. I have made two simple statements in the images, that Redford gave Johansson her breakthrough role and Johansson's first album was based on works of Waits. Julianne Moore, for example, an FA, has images of her directors. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s right there either.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the merits of these images, I wouldn't base anything on the status of Julianne Moore. I wouldn't support its promotion if it was at FAC and it seems to have had a very easy (ie incomplete) review back in 2013. --John (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly did not base it on that. I only mentioned that article to state that it is not uncommon to also add images that not of the subject itself. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took the time to read the Julianne Moore article, and I think it is very well-written. I know that the quoteboxes there may not be some editors' style, but, in my opinion, it's still an article worthy of being a featured article. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Julianne Moore/archive1, there are not as many reviewers there as there are here, but there are some editors there who are experienced FAC reviewers (and are even more experienced years later). The reviewing process seen there is not much different than the one seen here, although one aspect here had a slightly prolonged debate. All that stated, comparing the promoted version to the current version, we see that the Robert Altman image was not there in the promoted version. Sure, a Jeff Bridges image is there, but it's an image of Moore and Bridges. He's not by himself. Same goes for the Colin Firth image. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the male images at this (the Scarlett Johansson) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm not sure these image issues, or the status of another article, are relevant to this FAC and any further discussion of the images can take place on the article talk page. Well done to all concerned here for a robust but very civil FAC! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 [21].

Sonic the Hedgehog Spinball

[edit]
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much to say about this one. This article is nice and compact which reflects well on a lacklustre and rushed game. I've used the most out of the hard to find magazine sources (some of which I spent longer tracking down as opposed to writing itself), as well as more contemporary respective reviews. I think that this article is polished enough—and while you might know me for going over the top with reception sections—I managed to squeeze out all of the reliable reviewers I could find. A couple of scans which are available online aren't listed at WP:VG/S, so I omitted them (can't speak German either). It looks like that this is going to be a no-frills FAC while I have some more exciting stuff in the pipeline. JAGUAR  15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would imagine that the infobox image requires ALT text. I would also recommend adding ALT text for all of the images used in the article.
  • Is there a reason for the reference to the original EU release date for the Sega Genesis in the infobox? It just seems odd to have only one reference, and I would think that this would be covered in the body of the article.
  • I anticipated that someone would ask for the release dates to be sourced (personally I wouldn't bother sourcing them, but if someone asks I'll do it). While I was reading one of the old magazines yesterday I saw the official release date for Europe in there. I've added sources for all of the dates in the infobox with the exception of the Japanese one as unfortunately I can't find it. I don't think I could mention them in the prose... JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Unlike most other Sonic games), I would recommend linking “Sonic games” to the main article on the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise as I do not see a link to the main franchise page prior to this (unless I am missing it).
  • The final sentence of the lead’s first paragraph and the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph both have a similar sentence construction (i.e. “is set in”). I would recommend revising this.
  • I am not entirely sure what is meant by “pinball-like environments”. Environments that resemble a pinball? Do you mean environments reminiscent of those used in pinball tables?
  • For this sentence (Various aspects of gameplay garnered a mixed reception from critics, with the game's control scheme receiving particular criticism), reference 32 needs to be put in front of reference 33.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for looking at this! I should have hopefully addressed your concerns. Unfortunately I couldn't find a couple of release dates. I'll see if I can dig deeper in some of the obscure magazine scans but it's not something not worry about. The Master System port itself is so obscure I couldn't even find any reviews for it! JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments and for the explanation on the release dates. That makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TheJoebro64
  • My Russian counterpart has an enviable skill for tracking down obscure sources. I remember the Russian version of Nights into Dreams helped me gather enough sources to turn it into an FA, and by coincidence the same author and I were bringing Nights: Journey of Dreams to FA at the same time. Anyway, on a more serious note the Russian Wikipedia does seem to have different standards than ours; they frequently cite unreliable sources. The Green Hill Zone is unreliable and I don't think I can attribute a source for the Sonic comic. I remember scanning the Russian article a few months ago and decided there wasn't anything else to add. To make up for this I've expanded the legacy section a bit by mentioning more of Alton Towers' rollercoaster. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. About the comic adaptation though, I've used cite journal to source this same thing on Sonic Colors and it works fine.
  • Was the iOS version a full port, or was it just emulated? As far as I know, most Sega mobile ports until 2013 were basically just crappy emulations.
  • Fotenote 42, TSSZ News, is a Sonic fansite and not a Wikipedia-approved RS.
  • I disagree with italicising websites and organisations (arguably IGN's format should be treated the same as CBS or BBC), but I've italicised Eurogamer and GameSpot since they're more like publications. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work on this, Jaguar. Very close to supporting. JOEBRO64 19:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: thanks for looking through this—appreciate it! I should have hopefully clarified all of the above. I couldn't find anything else from the Russian article worth mentioning as I'm also not sure if I can source a comic directly. I've never done anything like that before and am uncertain if it'll pass FA standards. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to lend my support now. I think this is certainly an interesting article about a mediocre pinball game. Also, it might be worth mentioning that the game was supposed to be in Sonic Classic Collection. JOEBRO64 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's interesting. I've added it. JAGUAR  20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Harry Mitchell)

  • I wonder if a photo of the console might be helpful? It might help clarify concepts like "direction pad" for the uninitiated
  • newly-accessible No hyphen after -ly adverbs.
  • depicted as regular pinball machines with Sonic at the controls you mean they show Sonic playing a pinball machine? If that's what you mean, just say that rather than over-complicating it. And use "show" rather than "depict"—I'd let you off if we were talking about a painting, but as a general rule, use everyday words except when you need to vary the prose.
  • Rephrased to These rounds are shown as Sonic playing a regular pinball machine. Unfortunately I have a bad habit of over-complicating things sometimes! JAGUAR  16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the tilt shake is used too often, however, the flippers will lock You can probably guess what I'm going to say! ;)
  • and a ball will be lost Can you explain very concisely what the consequence of that is?
  • The 1992 holiday season saw the success Try to avoid time periods "seeing" something
  • upcoming holiday season and therefore decided [...] during the 1993 holiday season Redundancy. Also, you could lose that "therefore" without any real loss, or replace it with "thus" or something less ... pretentious.
  • I've removed one of the duplicate "holiday seasons" and replaced "therefore" with "thus". Not sure if it would have sounded better being removed altogether! Not sure but I think "holiday season" is used more in the US and Canada. Personally I would prefer "Christmas season"... JAGUAR  16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • who gave the project a green-light. Do we need to say "green light"? Can we not use plain English like "approve"? Also, just for reference, you only need the hyphen if you're using it as a compound adjective.
  • due to the fact that I'm pretty sure I mentioned that phrase in your last FAC; it's an abomination!
  • He did, however, regret → nonetheless
  • garnered a mixed reception from critics, with the game's control scheme receiving particular criticism First, don't use with a connective like that; second, "particular criticism" is jarring next to "mixed reception"
  • I've removed the connective "with" and rephrased this to Various aspects of gameplay garnered a mixed reception from critics, though the game's control scheme received the most criticism. I hope this sounds better? JAGUAR  16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a spinning rollercoaster of the same name The last name mentioned here was Sonic Pinball Party

—Overall, good work. I looked mainly at the prose, which generally flows nicely. I made a few copy edits, but there's a lot less to do here than there was on Nights. There's nothing above that should be too vexing to address, and I expect I'll support once it's addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: thank you very much for looking through this! Really appreciate the copyedits too. I've hopefully addressed all of your concerns; I had to think carefully on how to rephrase a couple of those sentences. I'm still learning on how to avoid tired phrases like "due to the fact that" and the overuse of "with", but practice makes perfect. A nice little article overall—I'm glad it's going smoother than Nights! JAGUAR  16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Practice does indeed make perfect (and if you ever wonder why I highlight something trivial like a hyphen rather than just fixing it myself, it's because you're more likely to remember it and take that memory to your next FAC). I used to overuse "with" but had that beaten out of me at FAC! Anyway, I'm satisfied, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I'm glad to say that I'm slowly but surely breaking my bad habit of over-complicating things. JAGUAR  09:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Panagiotis Zois

[edit]

The article uses three images:

  • File:Sonic Spinball Box.jpeg - Cover of the video game used in the infobox. Has a fair-use rationale and is low resolution.
  • File:Sonic Spinball Mega Drive Screenshot.png - Screenshot taken from the game. Used in the "Gameplay" section to illustrate, well, the gameplay. Image has a fair-use rationale.
  • File:Sega Mega Drive PAL.jpg - Image is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence. Used appropriately to show the original platform the game was released in, in the "Release" sub-section.

All three images are appropriately used in the article and the copyrighted ones have fair-use rationales. It's a pass. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Glad everything is in order. JAGUAR  14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I vaguely remember playing this game (probably rented from a video rental store), and finding it to be lacklustre. The article is admirably comprehensive, but its prose currently falls short of FA standards as it is at times over-complex or imprecise. I'd like to highlight the following examples, but a general copy edit along these lines would be helpful:

  • "Unlike most other Sonic games, it based on in the universe of the Saturday morning Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon" - there's a word missing here, and the construction of this sentence is confusing. Could it be restated as something like "It is one of the few Sonic games to be based on the universe of the Saturday morning Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon"?
  • Thanks, rephrased. I also dug into some research and discovered that the game is set in the universe of the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog cartoon, so I corrected the name. JAGUAR  14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this statement isn't referenced or discussed in the article, which states that the game was based on a level of Sonic the Hedgehog 2. Please clarify this.
  • I've added a sentence mentioning the game's setting in the cartoon's universe in the release subsection. Since I could only find one source backing this up I would be open to removing it altogether. The game's pinball theme was inspired from the level in Sonic 2, whereas the setting and character visuals are more akin to the cartoon. JAGUAR  14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought I've now removed both mentions of the game being based on the cartoon. The fact that the only vague mention of it being in a French source seems to suggest that it isn't notable in itself. I tried looking again for more mentions but found nothing. Another Sonic spin-off which was released in the same year as this game was actually based in the universe of that cartoon, but I don't see how it applies for Sonic Spinball. JAGUAR  10:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was hastily designed amid extreme time constraints and was developed in a total of 61 days" - could also be simplified (Eg, "The game was hastily developed, with most work taking place over 61 days").
  • "The goal of each level is to collect all of the Chaos Emeralds that serve to stabilize the volcano and subsequently defeat the newly accessible boss located at the top of the level." - this is the first time a Volcano is mentioned
  • I've removed the part about the volcano as it is unimportant to the gameplay. I think "collecting Chaos Emeralds" (which is always the main theme in the series) still makes sense. JAGUAR  14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Some Chaos Emeralds are blocked off by obstacles that require Sonic to hit certain switches or bumpers in order to create a clear path to the Chaos Emerald." - don't need to say 'Chaos Emerald' twice in the same sentence
  • It would be better to place the 'plot' section before the 'gameplay' section - this would help readers to understand the terminology
  • " Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was met with success during the 1992 holiday season, crediting with boosting sales of the Sega Genesis" - wordy and awkward (with the tense changing)
  • Rephrased to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was credited with boosting sales of the Sega Genesis in the 1992 holiday season.
  • "According to Peter Morawiec, the game's designer, Sega's research team suggested that the "Casino Night Zone" of Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was among the most popular levels in the game, thus providing the general direction of the upcoming game." - also over-complex (and might work better as two sentences)
  • "Morwiec, along with the rest of the team, also recognized the possible effects that a failure to capitalize on the new-found popularity of Sonic the Hedgehog had in North America would have on Sega, in the event that the game would not be well received" - also over-complex Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to streamline this (along with much of the development section) into the active voice. I found it difficult to do so due to the fact that it's based on retrospective interviews. JAGUAR  10:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Nick-D! I should have hopefully addressed everything. I'm already taking steps to ensure that I don't over-complicate phrases in the future articles that I'll write. JAGUAR  14:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changes generally look good, but as noted above I think that there's further scope to streamline with wording, especially by avoiding using passive voice. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as noted in this edit, the material on the theme tune is confusing: did the development team or Hirokazu Yasuhara realise there was a rights problem? (do any sources also note why Sega didn't simply buy the rights for the song for this game?) Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: thanks for checking up. I've rephrased this slightly. The team were oblivious of this right up prior to launch—Hirokazu Yasuhara actually informed Moreweic of the rights issue during a casual conversation. I couldn't find out why Sega didn't buy out the rights for the theme tune, but I discovered that Dreams Come True still retains ownership, and it wasn't until 2011 when the official soundtrack was released on CD. I couldn't find anything relevant to this game, however. JAGUAR  10:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes look good, but there's still some more awkward wording:

  • "The development team understood that the game would have to be completed in under a year to be ready in time for the 1993 holiday season—a schedule Morawiec considered "tight" for a game which needed a pre-requisite level of quality." - wordy, and what 'pre-requisite' means here isn't clear (I presume it means that the game had to be good to avoid damaging the reputation of this series)
  • "The team also recognized the effects of failing to capitalize on the new-found popularity of Sonic the Hedgehog in North America, if the game was not be well received." - repetitive and also over-long
  • "Morawiec recalled that this caused "quite a fiasco" when Hirokazu Yasuhara, the lead designer on Sonic Team, explained that the theme tune was owned by Japanese band Dreams Come True, and that a new one would have to be composed before the game could be released." - over complex, and "caused "quite a fiasco" when..." is confusing. Rephrasing this as two sentences might help. For consideration, I've also copy edited the article further, mainly with an eye to simplifying the phrasing a bit. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: I've attempted to simplify all of the above. I was stuck on how to do this without cutting too much content, but I merged the first two sentences from the development's second paragraph so it now reads The development team knew that the game would have to be completed in under a year to be ready in time for the 1993 holiday season—a schedule Morawiec considered "tight" for a game which needed to capitalize on the series' new-found popularity in North America. I hope this isn't too confusing? Hopefully compacting these two sentences cuts down repetition. I also split the sentence you mentioned about the game's music into two and condensed it a bit, replacing "quite a fiasco" with "caused an uproar". Thank you for the copyedits. JAGUAR  13:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support These changes look good, and I'm pleased to now support this nomination. Sorry for my slow response to the above - I've been travelling for most of the last week. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 [22].

Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fourth-century AD Christian patchwork Latin poem, arranged by the Roman noblewoman Faltonia Betitia Proba. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is composed entirely of lines by the Roman poet Virgil, but the author has taken them, rearranged them, and re-contextualized them to be about the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. In addition to its peculiar poetic style, the work is unique for a number of reasons: for instance, it is one of the first examples of Christian poetry, and perhaps the first instance of a Christian, poetic description of hell. The poem was also likely the first work by a women to have been printed and disseminated via the printing press. Finally, this work falls under the umbrella of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers, meaning that the promotion of this article would help bring attention to an area that deserves study but has unfortunately been under-represented on this site. In regards to its readiness, the article was promoted to "good" status on May 2, 2016. It has undergone two peer-reviews (one in December of 2015, and one in June of 2017), and it was copy-edited in June of 2017 by Miniapolis. It looks good, reads well, has images, and is properly formatted. I think it is time for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 32: I rather think that "Dorothy Disse" is the publisher of this website, as well as its author, in which case the question arises: what makes her a reliable source? Incidentally, the link to the original source no longer works.
  • That's a good point. Here is a really useful 'review' of the website by then-UIowa current-Concordia University faculty member Nora E. Jaffary explaining in detail why it's a good, reliable source. Jaffary makes some solid points (if I do say so) that I believe support its inclusion on this page. As to the second point, I'm not sure what you mean; I did archive it, so in terms of actually accessing it, it should not be a huge issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant was, there are two links in the reference, the first of which goes to the source while the second gives "Internal server error". There is no problem in accessing the source via the working link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if I'm coming across as thick, but I guess I'm confused as to the issue? The first link has 'died', and so I've added an archive link. If I remove the original, dead url link I believe the citation template will give an error message. Anyway, I believe we're supposed to keep them as per WP:KDL.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: page range inconsistent
  • Ref 60: "p." missing?
  • Refs 73 and 84: I assume that your sources are published editions of these ancient works, in which case you need to provide details.

Other than these points, sources seem fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tim riley

[edit]

Support. Well written, and (as far as a layman can judge) a comprehensive treatment of a delightfully dotty topic. Nicely illustrated, and well sourced and referenced. The lead is on the short side, but having read the main text I didn't see anything that I thought should have been mentioned in the lead. I enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

[edit]
Resolved comments from Finetooth
This is professionally written, informative, and nicely illustrated. I have no first-hand knowledge of the poem itself or the period in which it was written, but I'm able to comment on prose, logic, and MOS issues. Nothing here will give you much trouble. My main concern has to do with confusion about the authorship controversy, as noted below.
Lead
  • ¶1 "taken from other authors and disposed in a new form" – Would "arranged" be better than "disposed"?
Origin and style
  • ¶2 The footnote numbers [7][4][8] should be arranged in ascending order: [4][7][8].
  • ¶3 "reinterprets a number of New Testament episodes in which Jesus urged his followers to eschew wealth into passages" – Maybe "reinterprets ... as" rather than "reinterprets ... into"?
  • ¶4 "This is because Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary" were never used by Virgil,..." – Tighten by flipping to active voice? Suggestion: "This is because Virgil never used Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary,...".
  • ¶4 "To compensate for this issue, the poet took to using..." – Tighten by deleting "issue" and replacing "took to using" with "used"?
Summary
  • ¶3 "Christ's deeds are telescoped down..." – Maybe "reduced to" or "expressed as" rather than "telescoped down"?
  • ¶3 "After Christ's death, Proba transforms lines referring to the erotic love between Dido and Aeneas to signify "the sacred love of Christ and his followers." - Rather than saying that after Christ's death, Proba does something, simply delete "After Christ's death"?
  • ¶3 "After his resurrection, Christ describes the world to come to his followers with the prophecy..." – Does Christ make this prophecy before or after his death? The sentence as written suggests "after". Recast the sentence if "before" is correct.
Reception
  • "¶1 "...Proba's cento was popular, and is attested in manuscript records..." – Maybe "as is attested" rather than "and is attested"?
  • ¶1 The Manual of Style in MOS:LWQ recommends against linking terms (mysogynistic in this case) inside a direct quotation.
Authorship controversy
  • ¶1 "largely on the assertion of Isidore" – Link Isidore here as well as in the lead and in the caption? Or have I missed another one in the main text?
  • ¶1 "...Danuta Shanzer has argued that the poem was not written by Anicia Faltonia Proba..." and "...who agree with [Shanzer] developed the following arguments as to why they believe that the work was by Faltonia Betitia Proba..." – Big confusion here. The rest of the paragraph asserts that Anicia Proba was the author and not her grandmother. Contradiction?
  • I would move the image of Isidore to the left so that he looks into the page rather than out.
General
  • ISBNs in the bibliography and further reading sections need hyphens. A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens.
  • The link checkers found no dead URLS or dabs.
  • I see no duplink problems.

Support by Dudley

[edit]
Resolved comments from Dudley
  • "after the author's conversion to Christianity" I think it should be "the arranger's". Author is not strictly correct, and is confusing as Proba has just been described as arranging the poem and it is not clear whether a separate author is being referred to.
  • In the lead you say the poem was written 350-60 in opposition to Julian's anti-Christianity as emperor, but he was emperor 361-3, after the the poem was written. In the main text you say that her conversion rather than the poem dates to 350-60.
  • "The impetus for its creation is unknown, although several hypotheses have been proposed; Proba may have tried to circumvent a law enacted by Roman Emperor Julian forbidding Christians from teaching classical Greek and Latin literature in which they did not believe, or she rebutted the unflattering and demonizing descriptions of Jesus espoused by Julian in Caesares and Contra Galilaeos. Although the poem was widely circulated," As all the ideas about Proba's motivation are speculations wihout evidence, I do not think they belong in the lead. I would expand on the poem's early popularity instead.
  • "proemium" This links to Preface, which gives the alternative proem but not proemium. I think "proem" is preferable. It is more understandable for readers than the very rare "proemium".
  • "She seems to de-emphasize the importance of asceticism" Presumably compared with the New Testament, but this should be spelled out.
  • "Concerning the latter, " This phrase is clumsy and superfluous.
  • I find the frequent use of brackets irritating and unnecessary, but this is a matter of personal preference.
  • Sigrid Schottenius Culhead. You sometimes spell the name as Cullhed, sometimes Culhead, but presumably they are the same person?
  • "The following New Testament episodes deal with the life of Jesus, his crucifixion, and the coming of the Holy Spirit." Do you mean that the cento is based on these episodes?
  • "Culhead writes that the aforementioned views of Mary in the poem are inadequate" Do you mean the views of scholars in the previous paragraph? This wording is clumsy and needs clarification.
  • "who called De laudibus Christi apocryphal" I do not understand what is meant by this. OED defines apocryphal as "A writing or statement of doubtful authorship or authenticity".
  • "Despite these criticisms, Roman Emperor Arcadius (AD 395–408)..." This is reads oddly as one of the two criticisms cited was long after the death of Arcadius.
  • "With that said" This is strange wording. What is wrong with "However,"?
  • "Faltonia Betitia Proba's alleged death in AD 351 is unproven" You have not previously referred to this alleged death, stating that 351 was the date of her marriage.
    I've add this info to the previous paragraph. The scholars who think it wasn't written by Faltonia Proba argue that she died in AD 351, but not many other scholars accept this (especially with the date range that's discussed near the beginning of the article).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article, but needs some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your helpful and thoughtful comments and critiques. How are these changes looking?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Edwininlondon

[edit]
Resolved comments from Edwininlondon

Thank you for bringing this here. We need a bit of diversity. My firs set of comments below:

Yes, that works. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why it isn't just "late antiquity's poverty of ideas" Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hower -> However you mean?
Ah, I see. I changed it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I appreciate your useful comments. Here are my changes; do tell me what you think!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. A bit more:

One thing that I miss is the textual history. In Astronomica you have a whole section about it, but here there isn't anything at all. Is there nothing to be said? Surely there is some copy of a copy written by some monk 100s of years ago... :) Edwininlondon (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll try to respond to/fix them in the coming days. In regards to the textual history, I would have to look at the sources again, but I think the issue is there really isn't anything interesting to consider. This work is preserved in a way that something like the Astronomica isn't. And since it's made up entirely of stuff borrowed from Vergil, even minor mistakes would be easy to fix. But I'll try to find something.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Here are the I have made. Do tell me what you think. In regards to the textual history, I'm not finding a whole lot.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional copy-edits as well.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Too bad about the textual history, but that's a nice to have, not necessary. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Caeciliusinhorto

[edit]
Resolved comments from Caeciliusinhorto

An excellent article. I have reviewed it before, and it was very good then; if anything it has improved. Two comments:

  • why is Christ's crucifixion only "partially" conveyed with "several lines describing Hadean punishment"?
    Good point. I've re-done this whole section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps worth noting (re. Proba's treatment of Jesus' injunction to eschew wealth) that in late antiquity this was a theological issue in a way that it no longer is today, with ascetics taking this very seriously. I don't think this is actually necessary, but non-specialists might not realise that while today barely anyone takes Jesus' radical positions on wealth literally, in late antiquity this was very much a live issue, and e.g. Anthony the Great gave up a not insubstantial inheritance to live an ascetic life in the desert.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will try to respond to them in the coming days.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: I believe I fixed the first issue. I'd love to hear your ideas about the second!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto and Edwininlondon: Sorry to ping you to death, but I realize that I didn't cover the Flood or the Exodus in the original poem summary, so I whipped this up. Please tell me what you think!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One thing in the new paragraph I would change: repetition of "discusses... discussed" in the first sentence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. That slipped past me.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2017 [25].

Cleopatra Selene I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Cleopatra, but not the most famous one. Actually, her story is as interesting. Cleopatra Selene I married her two brothers, then married her cousins (two of them,.... who were also brothers). She then married her step-son and gave birth to two children, one of them became king. This is a summary of the story of Cleopatra Selene, queen consort of Egypt and Syria then regent and queen regnant of Syria. She started as a winning card in the hands of her mother and became an important political player herself. The article was reviewed by our great editor Constantine and took two months to write because most of the sources (which are scarce to say the least) were not available online which meant that I had to tour the country to find the sources at different libraries. Hope this will be an enjoyable read into the mysterious life of the queen.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

[edit]
Thanks for the effort
  • You explain the name Selene, but maybe the name Cleopatra should be explained too? What was its significance since so many different queens had this name?
Done
  • Maybe give some context for sister-brother marriages, that it was normal back then?
Done. It was (still) further explained in the notes. Now note number 7
  • To me, since this is a pretty short article, I think some of the more significant footnotes should be incorporated into the main text. I think it would give a better flow, and a fuller/more comprehensive reading experience. Since I wanted to know more details about what happened, I had to go back and forth between the article and the notes to get the full picture, which was kind of disruptive.
I have eliminated four notes. The rest are divided into: 1- opinions by different scholars which will confuse most readers and are not historic events, just theories. 2- notes about other events not really related to the queen, such as the marriage of Cleopatra IV or the long arguments about Ptolemy XII's legitimacy which is already the focus of a paragraph. Putting them into the main text would deviate the article from its main subject.
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Herakleon will never be accepted as king" Should be past tense.
done
  • "ugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son" This should mean we there are depictions of her, that we could possibly use here?
Yes, and I have links to the three coins but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
Hmmm, so it seems most of these photos have been recently published? And we don't know of old sources that have published images of the coins? If they weren't 3D objects, we would be able to upload the images freely... We would be allowed to trace-draw the images, but I think the results would be dubious... FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the oldest was published in the late 1940s.... sadly
In what country? The US had pretty lax copyright laws until the 1970s, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a chance. The oldest was published in 1952 in the USA. Now, the publisher have the coin on their website and I read this note "All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." This is the link, can you make sure ?
Wikipedia sadly doesn't allow non-commercial, but if the oldest one was published in the 1950s in the US, there is a chance the copyright of the book was not renewed. Search the title of the book here[26], and if it doesn't show up, it wasn't renewed. Then you can upload the image with a licence like this image has:[27] FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It didnt show up. It is from 1952. This is the link. How will I upload the picture ? I dont have the picture that was published in 1952. I only have the newer version taken lately and published on the website of the ANS.
What is the title of the 1952 publication? Perhaps we can find it online, or request it at the resource request[28]... I definitely think it would be worth it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author is Bellinger, Alfred R... The year: (1952)... The article: "Notes on Some Coins from Antioch in Syria"... The journal is: Museum Notes... The volume is: 5... The publisher is: The American Numismatic Society... ISSN is: 0145-1413.--------I tried to find it online but its not provided. Only Jstor allows me to see it but only the first page and I couldnt access it through my university
That definitely looks like a winner. I suggest you request it at the resource request, and enable your email (under preferences) so it can be sent to you. I have limited JSTOR access so I can read the article online, but I can already see there are some nice images we could get in higher resolution with the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for it
Nice, I'll assist if you need help uploading, and then I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image was added
Nice, might be a good idea to add the JSTOR link to Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it)" Never seen such a link to a foreign language Wikipedia, not sure if it's allowed.
fixed
  • "if they actually existed and sent to Kos" Were sent to.
fixed
  • I think "morganic marriage" could be explained briefly in parenthesis or such.
done
  • "son of Ptolemy X, was among the princess", "had two Egyptian princess in his hands" Princes.
fixed
  • "by his niece Cleopatra III" Only mentioned in intro.
fixed
  • "Considered by her mother more easy to control than her sister" Only stated in intro.
fixed
  • "but the marriage lasted less than a year" Only explicitly stated in intro.
fixed
  • "To protect herself and her position" Also seems only to be stated in the intro.
fixed
  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars" Fed up seems a bit too informal here.
changed wording
  • One last thing, you state in the blurb here that she married her cousins, but no cousins are explicitly mentioned in the article?
Yes, Antiochus VIII and his brother are the sons of Cleopatra Thea, the aunt of Selene
Oh, I mean, from reading the article, you wouldn't know they were cousins, could it be stated explicitly? FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

At a first look, I have some problems with the prose in this article. Some examples follow.

Grammatical problems:

  • "Considered more easy to control by her mother": more easy to control than what?
More easily controlled than Cleopatra IV. I reworded the sentence.
  • "As a queen of Syria, she is the second to rule with the name Cleopatra": tense. Should be "was".
Done.

Redundancies:

  • "leaving Cleopatra Selene free for her mother to possibly marry her to the new king, Ptolemy X.": "possibly" is entirely unnecessary here.
Well, it does seem unnecessary at first glance. However, the article explains that this marriage is not attested but a very strong theory. So, Selene possibly married Ptolemy X but we can not say it as a fact and that is way it is important to note this in the lede.
Hmm. I might suggest rewording this for clarity, then, because I did not get that at all. Tension between the king and his mother grew and ended with Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt, leaving Cleopatra Selene behind; she probably then married the new king, Ptolemy X., perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done
  • "the marriage lasted less than a year before she lost her new husband who was killed in 95 BC": "she lost her new husband" and "who was killed" tell us substantially the same thing. Simply "before her new husband was killed" would be fine.
Done.

I don't have time to do a full review right now; I shall come back to this later. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars": "fed up with" seems like an extremely casual register for encyclopediac writing.
fixed
  • "between 135–130 BC": "between 135 and 130 BC". See MOS:DATERANGE.
fixed
  • "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention the queen with the name Selene": this is a little unclear, but I think means: "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, call the queen Selene"?
fixed
  • The second paragraph of Cleopatra Selene I#Queen of Egypt is confusing to me. First we read that Cleopatra III decided that Cleopatra Selene should marry Antiochus VIII; then that Cleopatra Selene divorced Ptolemy X; then that Ptolemy ran away before the divorce. The chronology seems all mixed up.
fixed
  • "Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn"": again, not really sure what this means. Cleopatra III seems to have done a very good job of keeping Cleopatra Selene in husbands, so far!
This quote is a circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Selene married Ptolemy X. Selene is one of the two sisters who was married to her brothers (not brother) in turn (this means Ptolemy IX and X)
I think this needs more clarification, then, because this wasn't at all obvious to me from reading the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cant explain it cause I have no source for the explenation. Chriss Bennett who wrote the academic article "Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies. Ancient Society. Peeters Publishers. 28" missed to include that quote in the article. He had a website where he said that he should have used that quote (see not 13, section III). I cant use the website as a source as it wont fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. However, deleting the sentence would be damaging as it is an important evidence and some readers will be able to analize it
At least per my reading of WP:SPS, if we are accepting Bennett's scholarly articles as reliable sources, his website might be acceptable as a reliable source for claims within the same field, even if it hasn't been published with editorial oversight. On the other hand, if you don't think that Bennett's website counts as a reliable source, and you expect readers to draw this conclusion from the quote, then you are in danger of violating WP:SYNTH. (In fact, I don't think that readers are likely to draw this conclusion, and you are not violating any policies but you are failing criterion 1a of WP:WIAFA: non sequiturs are not a feature of prose which is "engaging" and "of a professional standard". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bennett's work is accepted by modern scholarship as a whole so he is a pretty respected expert in this field, His website is defunct and the current website is only hosting the content of the original one and thats why I cant consider reliable, not because of doubts regarding Bennett. However, what you said about WP:SYNTH and criterion 1a violations is totally baseless. The sentence is referenced, and it's talking about Cleopatra III and her daughters and Selene was one of them. If I have added an explenation without a reference then you would have been able to claim a failure to fulfill criterion 1a. Since the sentence is referenced then you are using criterion 1a wrong. There are no non sequiturs in this article. All sentences has something to do with delivering the best possible knowledge about this vague queen. So, no SYNTH is here and we cant delete this very important passage. I will put it as a note and this would be a suitanle solution rather that delete it !
I still don't really see why you don't think the website is a reliable source: it's hosted by a reputable academic institution, and is hosting the works of an expert in the field. I think you are misinterpreting criterion 1a, though: that's not about referencing at all, but about quality of writing. A random quote without any explanation of its relevance is, I maintain, bad writing, and therefore a violation of criterion 1a. (I think it's better as a footnote insofar as it isn't distracting from the flow of the main text, but I'd still like to see an in-text explanation of the relevance. This is the only time you quote an ancient source directly: readers will want to know (or at least this reader wants to know) why it's important enough for that.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many experienced editors read the article and the quote and found no problem understanding it; it can not be random as you describe it since this article is about one of Cleopatra III's daughters and the quote is about Cleopatra III's daughters. As a writer of feautured content, bad writing can not describe what I write and must be maintained as your own opinion and not an actual bad writing. Anyway, I explained Bennett's view just to put an end to this
  • "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene most probably resided there." This seems a bit of a non sequitur. If the fact that Cleopatra Selene lived in Antioch is worth pointing out, probably it should go before the assassination, with "details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear".
I believe this is the most suitable place cause we cant say that Selene resided in Antioch for the duration of Antiochus VIII's reign since he was evicted from that city several times by his brother Antiochus XI. Hence, we can be sure only at the time of his death that Selene might have resided in the capital
Okay, I see the point that this is making now. In that case, this might be better placed with the next paragraph, where the fact that Cleopatra Selene was in Antioch is relevant to Antiochus IX's seizure of power and marriage to her? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current place is also suitable since her residing at the capital at the time of the assasination is directly related to the time of her marriage to Antiochus VIII. The following paragraph starts with telling that the queen held out in Antioch before the coming of Antiochus IX. Moving that sentence below will turn the paragraph on Antiochus VIII into a very short one. Plus, the sentence clarify that Antioch was part of Antiochus's VIII realm and its more suitable for it to be in Antiochus VIII's paragraph than in the paragraph about Antiochus IX.
I am still unconvinced by this, but if you insist I would at the least rewrite this sentence to put the focus on Cleopatra Selene. Perhaps "At the time of Antiochus' assassination, Cleopatra Selene was probably staying in Antioch, the capital of Syria."? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see why is this becoming an issue. The paragraph is about Antiochus VIII. The guy lost the city multiple times so its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it. I can not delete this fact like you suggest! Disagreeing on the place of a sentence is not part of the criterea for FA.
its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it Why is it important to mention that his wife was in it at all? It seems to me that that fact is only important when explaining her marriage to Antiochus IX – hence why I believe that it makes more sense for it to be part of the next paragraph. If there's another reason that it is important to tell readers this, I'm really not seeing it, and I think the article should make it clearer. Even the note which follows this claim is about Cleopatra's relationship with Antiochus IX. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing the change you want will damage the article. I can not see the merit of your proposed deletion of information and changing the place of the sentence from its most suitable place. I can not convince you why it is important if, after all I have wrote, you can not see it. Convincing an reviewer is not what a featured review is about. Its about guaranteeing the best information for the reader and deleting an information would definitely damage the article. Feel free to Oppose the nomination.
  • "the queen needed an ally who will help her control the capital": another tense problem. "who would help".
fixed
  • "It is unlikely that this marriage appeased Antiochus VIII's sons." I know what you mean, but I don't think that "appeased" is quite the right word here.
fixed
  • "Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and lost his life." No need for the passive voice here. "killed" is more concise and straightforward.
done
  • "The rationale of the marriage might be more pragmatic": once again, be careful with tenses. "might have been". I would also say "rationale for" rather than "rationale of".
fixed
  • "jugate coins": might be worth linking jugate
done

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Would be nice to have an image of her if one might be available
I have links to the three coins of her but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
I'll add those tags

Comments from Dank

[edit]
  • "[[:it:Alfred Bellinger|Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]": I changed this to [[Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]. If you don't like the red link, then create a stub here on the English Wikipedia.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

Sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. A very minor formatting point: where citations are to multiple pages (25, 40, 70, 72, 76, 77), pp. rather than p. should be used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

done

Support Comments from RL0919

[edit]

There are some tangles and uncertainties, but as best I can tell, most of that is due to the subject having a complex and imperfectly understood life. I only have a few suggestions for improvement:

  • "... the Ptolemaics practiced it perhaps to consolidate the dynasty." That they practiced it seems clear, so I assume 'perhaps' is meant to qualify the motivation. In that case, should there should be a comma between 'it' and 'perhaps'?
done
  • "It seems that Ptolemy X was horrified by his mother's ruthlessness and ran away as can be read in the work of Justin." This wording seems awkward, and it is ambiguous as to whether both clauses are supported by Justin or just the second. If Justin affirms both points, perhaps it could be recast to something like, "Justin wrote that Ptolemy X was horrified by his mother's ruthlessness and ran away."
done
  • The encyclopedia article by Peter Nadig listed under Sources doesn't seem to be used anywhere as a source. Use, remove, or move to a Further reading section.
removed
  • WP:ALT text for the images would be desirable but isn't mandatory.
Done

That's all I have; everything else seems to be in order. --RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review
No other issues in my standard review checks, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I had a look at this last night with a view to promoting, and couldn't quite follow parts of it. I looked again today and I'm still not sure. There are parts that are very hard to follow and would stand some rephrasing to make clearer. It isn't helped by the (unavoidable) huge number of Cleopatras who are mentioned. For example:

  • "In 116 BC, shortly after Ptolemy IX's ascension to the throne,[15] his mother, Cleopatra III forced him to divorce her daughter Cleopatra IV": I'm not sure why there is a comma after mother. And from this I assume that he was divorcing his sister? But it does not come across quite as clearly as that, and had it not been for the start of this section, I think I'd have missed it. Maybe we could say that he was married to his sister, Cleopatra IV but their mother forced them to divorce: just change the order around slightly.
  • "the 2nd-century historian Justin implied that this was Cleopatra III's condition to accept Ptolemy as co-ruler.": This is the first indication that he was a co-ruler and can we make explicit why it was her decision? In fact, we are missing quite a lot of background information about who these people were, or how the whole system worked. Can we add context, given that criterion 1b requires the subject to be set in context.
  • "Cleopatra Selene, favored by her mother, was chosen as the new queen consort in 115 BC.": Given the large number of Cleopatras, can we re-establish who her mother was here? Who was it that chose her? And my reading is the second sister that he married. But it should be made explicit I think.
  • There are a few places where we give the opinions of people but don't say who they are or why their opinion matters: for example who are Grace Macurdy and Auguste Bouché-Leclercq?

This is just from one section. I am not opposing or recusing at the moment, but I think this needs to be looked at. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarastro1. I talked more about the family in the family section and this will take the confusion about Cleopatra IV and the brothers away. I also gave context to the situation in egypt upon the death of Ptolemy VIII and why his son was going to be a co-ruler. I added the profession of the people mentioned; sometimes I just assume that every reader already knows who those historians are. I have went through the article to make sure that there are no more ambiguities (I didnt focuse much on the situation in Egypt but I did focus on the situation of Syria and so I think the section about her reign in Syria is well informative. If not, Im ready to write more whenever a reviewer gives a comment). I hope that I have adressed your comments well.
I'm still finding this a little hard to follow, but I'm possibly being thick. I wonder if Mike Christie could have a look, particularly in terms of 1b and putting the subject in context. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to take a look, if not tonight then by the end of the week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through the article. Please revert any copyedits I make as needed.

  • The article named "Cleopatra Selene I" but that name does not appear anywhere in the article. There's only one mention of "Cleopatra II Selene" in the article, which makes it appear that that's the modern way to refer to her, so I am quite puzzled.
thanks for your review. Actually, Cleopatra Selene I is just the name given to the article on Wikipedia. Its not prevalent in scholarship and I would like to rename the article Cleopatra Selene of Syria.
Why not to Cleopatra II Selene, which is listed as an alternate name? FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would be suitable. But then we need to move the article of Cleopatra Thea to Cleopatra I Thea. What do you think ?
Whatever most of the sources use is probably what should be used for either. Is there any prevailing name? FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is the problem. Numbering the Cleopatras of Syria was introduced by professor Michael Roy Burgess. But most sources dont use the numbering and simply mention Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra Selene with no regnal numbers
  • In the first paragraph of the lead I found myself clicking through to other articles to understand the relationships better. It's a tangle, and hard to clarify concisely, but I think the attempt has to be made. It's not clear, for example, that Cleopatra IV is also Cleopatra III's daughter, nor is it clear that Cleopatra Selene was queen consort of Egypt at her first marriage.
I reworded the lead
  • I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleopatra Selene's parents had many children, including Ptolemy X, and, Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra IV, who married before the death of their father. Suggest making this "Cleopatra Selene had many siblings, including Ptolemy X, Ptolemy IX, and Cleopatra IV" and leaving the marriage of the latter two to the "Queen of Egypt" opening paragraph, where it fits naturally -- currently you don't mention the marriage at that point.
Done
  • In 103 BC, Ptolemy IX was fighting in Judea; this caused Cleopatra III to worry and she sent troops against her son. The queen mother feared an alliance against her between Ptolemy IX and his friend Antiochus IX of Syria, who was fighting a civil war with his brother Antiochus VIII. Suggest restructuring these two sentences: don't say she sent troops till we know that she's worried, and why.
Done
  • Justin wrote that Ptolemy X abandoned his mother and ran away; he was probably horrified by his mother's ruthlessness: is this Justin's opinion? If so, I'd make it "and that he was probably" in order to make that clear. In fact, I think the paragraph needs some rewriting for flow -- for example we have "an alliance against her between Ptolemy IX and his friend Antiochus IX of Syria" followed soon by "an alliance between her son and Antiochus IX", a redundancy which could be eliminated by a bit of reorganization. Similarly, the last clause of the section ("this seems to have happened...") looks back, which is confusing; it would be better to build that into the chronological sequence by e.g. saying "According to Justin, Ptolemy X was probably horrified by his mother's ruthlessness; Justin records that he deserted her, and it seems to be after Ptolemy X's departure that Cleopatra decided..." or something along those lines.
The king being horrified is the explenation given to Justin's statement by a modern historian. I deleted the whole part about him being horrified. I removed the redundancy and restructered the paragraph to include the timing of Selene's marriage in the chornological sequence.
  • Why would Cleopatra Selene's marriage to Antiochus VIII prevent an alliance between Ptolemy IX and Antiochus IX?
Fair point. I replaced "prevent" with "counter"
  • I don't think you can say both he is generally assumed to have died at around this date (92 BC) and also with modern scholarship proposing the date of 88 BC for Antiochus' demise. Do you mean "was once generally assumed"?
Yes, many modern scholars assume that he died in 92 BC. I made it clearer.

-- Stopping there for the evening; more tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • In the view of historian Auguste Bouché-Leclercq, Cleopatra Selene had little reason to trust the five children of her previous husband: these are not her children, so I'd suggest making it "no known offspring resulting from the marriage, though five of Antiochus VIII's children from his previous marriage are known" at the top of the section, and then "little reason to trust Antiochus VIII's five children" at this point to provide a little more connective tissue. Actually, according to the Wikipedia article on Antiochus VIII he had at least six children, not five; should we be saying "six children", or perhaps "five sons"?
Done
Oh sorry, didnt notice. I fixed it. (the source says sons. The daughter of Antiochus VIII was married to a foreign king and played no part in the mess
  • There are no dates in the paragraph about Antiochus IX except the initial 95 BC, but it's apparent from the following paragraph that Seleucus killed Antiochus IX and entered the capital no later than 94 BC, so these events follow quite quickly on one another. Can we make that clearer? Perhaps "Within a year of his accession, Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and killed" or whatever similar wording the sources will support?
Done. But I wrote within a year of his marriage cause he has been a king for a long time before marrying selene in opposition to his brother Antiochus VIII (and he had already controlled the capital twice before)
  • Seleucus VI was pushed out of Antioch in 94 BC: by Antiochus X? You don't actually say that Antiochus X took Antioch back.
Done
  • The children were probably in Cilicia or somewhere else in Asia Minor for protection: suggest "had been" rather than "were", since at this point I gather they would be back in Syria with their mother, alongside Antiochus XIII. Or, given that apparently she never controlled Antioch during this period, did the other children stay in Cilicia? In that case I'd say "probably remained", to make it clear we're talking about the period when Antiochus XIII ruled, and that she was not with her children.
Done. I wrote "probably remained" cause even when she declared her son king, it doesnt appear that she moved him to syria. She might have controlled her syrian lands from Cilicia

-- Out of time this morning; more tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

  • put to death the successors of Seleucus, and carry off their wives and daughters into captivity: this should be "carried", but since it's a direct quote I didn't want to just change it. If it's really this way in the original, I'd make it "[carried]" which would warn the reader of the changed to the quote.
Yes, the source lists the quote as such. I used "[carried]"
  • I've been thinking about Sarastro1's comments about 1b and the need for context. I looked through some other FAs on historical figures that might not be well known to most readers, and I think Shunzhi Emperor is a good example of an article that gives some brief, helpful historical background. I think something like that would be helpful here. There are two substantial paragraphs in Shunzhi Emperor; you don't need quite that much here, since this is a shorter article. The goal is to give a reader who knows nothing about the topic a sense of the world in which Cleopatra Selene was operating. I have to say I was surprised that so many articles did very little along these lines -- I looked at Diocletian, Zenobia, Offa of Mercia, and Simeon I of Bulgaria, for example; the last two give a little background, but not much.
I wrote a new section titled Historical Background. Hope its adequate.

Overall I think this is FA quality. The prose is at a minimum workmanlike throughout; it doesn't exactly sparkle, but this is difficult material to work with, and I think it passes the bar. If the remaining two points can be dealt with I'll be glad to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there is no alt text in this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. However, there is no need to delay promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2017 [29].

Jean Bolikango

[edit]
Nominator: Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jean Bolikango, a prominent Congolese educator, writer, social figure, and politician. He began his career in the Belgian Congo as a teacher, where he educated two future prime ministers. He also wrote an award winning novel and contributed to a Catholic newspaper. In 1946 he founded an important cultural association. By the late 1950s he was the only Congolese to hold an executive position in the Belgian colonial administration. In the lead up to the independence of the Congo he took on the role as leader of the Bangala people. Most of his attempts to secure important government positions failed (though he did twice serve briefly as deputy prime minister of the Congo), but he had significant influence as an opposition leader in Parliament until 1965. His career was quiet afterwards but he held esteem among the Bangala people until his death. He is remembered as one of the fathers of Congolese independence and as an elder statesman of the Congo. I think that, in spite of its relatively small size, this article includes all the information available on Bolikango and is ready for FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

Taking a preliminary look:

  • There are two dead link tags in the list of sources. These sources need to replaced.
  • I found another dead link: Associated Press 16 April 1966. This also needs replacing.
  • There are several Harvard errors affecting the following sources:
  • La Fontaine (refs 4, 5, 11)
  • O'Brien (ref 50}
  • Kyle (ref 52)
  • Multimedia Congo 2007 (ref 58)
The issue in these cases appears to be a discrepancy between the date/year given in the citation and that given in the source.
  • The list of sources should be in alphabetical sequence.

There may be other sources-related matters, but perhaps you'd deal with the above first. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to @Brianboulton:

  1. From WP:LR: "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." I must ask on what basis should I replace these sources?
@Brianboulton: Ah thank you for the clarification. The Digital Congo link is probably salvageable, as I've seen links from that website rescued before. Though the last time it happened on this page was because of the WaybackMedic 2.1, and I don't know how to activate it. The other link is apparently "permanent"ly dead. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Removed the link, as it was only a scan anyway and the link was not going to be of much help.
3. Fixed the cite errors.
4. Alphabetized.
-Indy beetle (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, but the second caption should end in a period as a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]
Lede
[edit]
Early life
[edit]
  • Do we have any idea which ethno-cultural group Bolikango belonged to? That would appear to be pretty important information that we are missing here. If we can find that out, it would also go in the lede too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the names of some organisations italicised and others not? Ensure that this is standardised (I would suggest non-italicisation as the more appropriate option here as we are dealing with the names of groups, rather than books). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " by the colonial administration for its attachment to Belgian social ideals" - this is the first indication that Belgium controlled the Congo in this period. I think that we need to make this more explicit for readers unfamiliar with Central African history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That year he hosted and contributed to the drafting of the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine, in his own home." I think that this could be reworded; at present it is a little confusing to have "he hosted" right at the beginning and only "in his own home" at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Political career
[edit]

Response to @Midnightblueowl:

  1. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. Revised to say he "was a prominent Congolese educator, writer, and conservative politician who enjoyed a substantial amount of popularity among the Bangala people. He served twice as Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in September 1960 and from February to August 1962. He also headed the Parti de l'Unité Nationale and worked as a key opposition member in Parliament in the early 1960s."
  4. Done.
  5. Revised as "warring factions in the Congo".
  6. Done.
  7. Seeing as his legacy section is rather small, I've tacked this on to the end of the last lede paragraph: "His grandson created the Jean Bolikango Foundation in his memory to promote social progress. The President of the Congo posthumously awarded Bolikango a medal in 2005 for his long career in public service."
  8. Added that he was born into a Bangala family.
  9. Done.
  10. Corrected so that none are italicised.
  11. It does read that he was born in the Belgian Congo. I'm not sure how else I could make this more explicit without being undue. Suggestions?
  12. Done.
  13. It is mentioned previously that Kethulle de Ryhove was a missionary who worked with Bolikango to establish UNISCO.
  14. Revised as "That year he hosted in his home and contributed to the drafting of the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine."
  15. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts
[edit]
  • "The Bangala were, however, only a unified political faction in the capital" - this could be read in several ways. Would it be better to phrase this as something like "The Bangala were, however, only unified as a political faction in the capital"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
MOS:DATE doesn't have an elicit prescribed method, but from what I've seen when the date is written in this format commas are not typically used. "Between Monday 31 January and Sunday 6 February 2011 star gazers will be asked to count the number of stars they can see within the constellation of Orion" --> The Guardian "On 13 May 2007 Daniel was born." --> Grammarly
  • "This could be best accomplished, in his view, with an alliance of his own groups" - to avoid a repetition of "with" in this sentence, it might be best to use "through an alliance" rather than "with an alliance". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "the new party retained its regional bias and failed to amass substantial outside support and cost Bolikango much of his backing in Léopoldville" - Bit repetitive to have "and... and". To deal with this prose problem, perhaps change "and cost Bolikango" to "costing Bolikango"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "endeavour to form a harmonious ensemble."... When we have a sentence that is a direct quotation, it is really best to include a citation right at the end of the sentence, even if it means duplicating the citation that comes a sentence or two later. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Per above on dates.
@Midnightblueowl: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your excellent work on this article, Indy beetle. I am very happy to support it as a Featured Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

This generally reads well. I fixed two dead URLs, as you have noted, and I made several minor changes to the prose. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here are a few suggestions and guestions.
Early life
  • ¶1 "In 1946 he became the president of the Association des Anciens élèves des pères de Scheut[a] (ADAPÉS), a position he held until his death." - Would it be helpful to link to CICM Missionaries and briefly explain what kind of association ADAPÉS was? Otherwise "Fathers of Scheut" may seem a bit mysterious, especially to readers who have no idea what "Scheut" refers to.
  • ¶3 "That year he hosted in his home and contributed to the drafting of the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine." – It's not clear from this what he hosted in his home. Was it a meeting at which multiple people worked on the draft? If so, that should be worked into the sentence.
  • The infobox mentions a wife, Claire, but she is not mentioned in the main text. Perhaps you could mention her in this section (with an RS), give the marriage date if you have a source for that, and give the names of their children, if you have a source.
Political career
  • ¶1 "He considered the Sengalese poet and politician Léopold Sédar Senghor to be a principle influence on his beliefs." – In what way? Influenced him how?
  • ¶1 "He believed the Congo should be a united in a broad fashion..." – Delete "a" before "united"?
Early organization
  • ¶2 "...as the Front Common[i]'s (the political umbrella over all the Congolese delegations) spokesperson." – This is a bit confusing in its structure. Suggestion: "... as the spokesperson for the Front Common[i], the political umbrella for all the Congolese delegations."
Congo crisis
  • ¶2 "Lumumba soon thereafter was dismissed from office by President Kasa-Vubu and replaced with Joseph Iléo." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Soon thereafter, President Kasa-Vubu dismissed Lumumba from office and replaced him with Joseph Iléo."
  • ¶2 "During Iléo's short terms,..." – Terms or term? More than one?
General
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
  • Some of the ISBNs in the reference section lack hyphens, which should be added. A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens.
  • The dab-link checker found no problems.
  • The duplink checker found no overlinks.

Response to @Finetooth:

  1. Added to the footnote that it was "an alumni association for Congolese who were educated by Scheut Missionaries"
  2. Revised as "That year he met with a handful of his former students and other Congolese leaders in his home. Together they drafted the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine."
  3. Cite and brief statement ion the body added. Kanza doesn't mention anything other than that she was his wife.
  4. Legum does not say.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. I've clarified with a new cite: "During Iléo's brief first term Bolikango served as Minister of Information and Minister of Defence. During Iléo's second term in early 1961 he held the post of Deputy Prime Minister." Iléo was in power for a few days in 1960 before his government was replaced. He then returned to power in February 1961.
  9. Done.
  10. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All good. Support on prose. I have one further suggestion of a general nature. I find that your method of listing responses by number slows down the review process by forcing the reviewer to figure out which number corresponds to which comment. More seamless, in my opinion, would be to place your responses, indented to set them apart visually, directly below the comments they respond to. Finetooth (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only found a couple new issues to report (not including a few things that Finetooth commented on already):

  • Political career: Three sentences in a row start with "He". Not a huge deal, but to improve the prose it would be nice to see some variation in one or two of them.
  • The full Conor Cruise O'Brien reference should be put in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @Giants2008:

  1. Done.
  2. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The comments (by myself and Finetooth) have received responses, and the article appears to meet FA standards. Nice job on the kind of subject we don't see too often at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Midnightblueowl, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Midnightblueowl's remaining concerns have been addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I note that there is no alt text on this article. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. However, there is no need to delay promotion any further. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2017 [30].

DJ AM

[edit]
Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a DJ who had a short but very interesting and tragic life. Article is GA and has recently received a peer review and copyedit. Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'm going on vacation and going to have very limited and quite possible no internet between November 9 and 20; if you can't promote this now and in the event that someone does oppose before November 20 can you please leave this open till I get back? Incidentally we have four reviews/supports, an image check, a source check, and no major issues found with anything. How am I doing? If you think the review is lacking in any one area please let me know. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll be looking at this on my next run through, if Ian doesn’t go through first. I’ll certainly leave it open if anyone opposes. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • In this sentence (During four years in his early twenties he focused solely on drug use and deejaying.), there should be a comma after “twenties”.
  • In this sentence (In 2006 he accepted a $1 million), add a comma after “2006”.
  • In this phrase (After watching Herbie Hancock perform "Rockit" ), I would specify that “Rockit” was a song recorded by Herbie Hancock to avoid a potential misreading of this being a cover or something. I think that the following short descriptive phrase in front of “Rockit” (his 1983 single) would be beneficial.
  • Could you possibly clarify the following phrase (for his treatment of younger patients) by adding more context? How did he treat the younger patients?
  • The source only says "he was later indicted and dismissed for excessive abuse of young enrollees". I haven't been able to find anybody else making this allegation. I'd be happy to remove it if it's too vague. Freikorp (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first mention of Alcoholics Anonymous, I would spell out the acronym and put it in parenthesis next to it to make the meaning clear.
  • In this phrase (help other addicts, sponsoring them and taking them to meetings), I would remove the comma and add “by” as I think that would make the sentence stronger.
  • In this phrase (impressed with Goldstein's performance there), I do not think the “there” is necessary.
  • I would add the year in which “Butterfly” was released.
  • In this phrase (in 2003 he weighed), add a comma after “2003”.
  • In the phrase (The crash killed both crew members and the other two passengers), did we know the identities of the other two passengers?
  • In this phrase (Following the crash, the show's producer Cheryl Sirulnick, said), I do not believe the comma after “Sirulnick” is necessary.
  • In this phrase (Shortly thereafter Goldstein leaves the building,), add a comma after “thereafter”.
  • Remove the link to “cocaine” in the “Death” section as it was already linked in a previous section.
  • In the “Filmography” table, I would change “2005–2007” to “2005, 2007” as he appeared in only one episode in 2005 and one in 2007. The original phrasing gives off the impression that he consistently appeared from 2005 to 2007.
  • In the same table, do you think that you should also clarify he was the host of Gone Too Far?
  • Do you think information on DJ AM”s collaboration with Samantha Ronson for Challah and Challah Back should be mentioned in the body of the article? Right now, she is only listed in associated acts, put in the discography, and a brief note on her appearance at his funeral.
  • I can't find any RS sources that comment on the album, let alone high quality ones. The albums were added to the article by someone else. I can't find any reference to them on discogs, allmusic or YouTube. If it wasn't for several non-RS sources (like this one [31]) commenting on them, I'd be liable to think they didn't exist. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very odd indeed. I will leave this up to more experienced users to look into. I have no issues with the albums being included in the "Discography" section as evidence of their release is available (although, not through the best sources in the world). Ideally, it would great to have more information on this, but I understand the issues with it. It is fine then as it stands. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned that he scratched on an album for Madonna, though it is not included in the “Discography” section.
  • Do you think that Downtown Calling should be mentioned in the body of the article? It is currently only brought up in the “Filmography” section.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for you comments Aoba47. I've made all the relevant changes, with the exception of three things that I have replied to above. Let me know if there are any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. This was a very fascinating read, and to be completely honest, I have never heard of this person prior to taking this up for review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "During four years in his early twenties," - This is phrased awkwardly. Might be better to say from age 2X-2Y...
  • "His drug problems became worse after leaving the center. During four years in his early twenties, he focused solely on drug use and deejaying." - I think these two sentences can be combined.
  • "Goldstein became sober and went on to sponsor other addicts through Alcoholics Anonymous." - Went on should be replaced with "and later sponsored". Went on is clunky and doesn't say much.
  • "After forming a relationship with Nicole Richie in 2003, his career skyrocketed" - Were they dating? Unclear from the ambiguous term "relationship"
  • "Goldstein appeared as himself in several television series, contributed mixes and appeared as a playable character in the video game DJ Hero, and filmed a cameo appearance for Iron Man 2. " - Contributed mixes "to"
  • "Goldstein witnessed his father openly taking cocaine and marijuana throughout his childhood.[2]" - Don't think taking is the right verb here, maybe using?
  • "His father died the following year.[4][6]" - Unclear which father; his biological father or his "dad"?
  • "In 1997, he attempted suicide; with the gun in his mouth, it jammed as he pulled the trigger.[4][6]" - Should just be "the gun jammed in his mouth as he pulled the trigger"
  • "A visiting promoter, impressed with Goldstein's performance, offered him his first legitimate deejaying job working at the Hollywood club The Dragonfly.[10]" - Avoid original research words like "legitimate"
  • "The surgery was effective, and he lost over 100 lb (45 kg) within a year.[4] " - more than, not over
  • "an unheard of amount for a DJ at the time.[2]" - Unheard of sounds a little bit like slang to me
  • "and later felt the need to call his sponsor. " - Might help to briefly explain what a sponsor is in addition to linking it.

Ultimately, a short and highly interesting article. The prose needs some fine-tuning before it's ready, but here are some initial comments. ceranthor 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Goldstein began deejaying in clubs in Los Angeles, and joined the band Crazy Town in 1999." - Get rid of the comma and make it "and joined" or keep the comma and make it ", and he joined".
  • "and was also charging upwards of $10,000" - same note as above
  • "Goldstein was also one half of TRV$DJAM along with Travis Barker." - The way this is currently written; this idea seems like an afterthought. Integrate this and the following sentence more smoothly into the paragraph
  • "The DJ AM Memorial Fund, an organization designed to help people struggling with drug addiction, was launched in his memory" - Who launched it? Mention that here briefly
  • "and was obese by the age of 10.[4" - and he became obese
  • "He attended the Quaker school Friends' Central.[5] " - clarify which years of school if possible?
  • When he was 14, Herbert was incarcerated for committing bank fraud - I'd just say his father
  • "disclosed that Hebert was not his biological father," - Herbert
  • "He also became involved with deejaying:" - it's unclear whether this was his first experience actually deejaying; was he deejaying before this point?
  • "Goldstein would go on to be a sponsor for several people.[2]" - became a sponsor, not go on to be
  • "and was asked to join the rap/rock group Crazy Town in 1999." - and he was asked
  • " to escape the drug-related dysfunction that was plaguing it.[12]" - Very clunky; better as "to escape the drug-related dysfunction plaguing the group", and tweak the first half of the sentence
  • "Goldstein dated singer Mandy Moore for two months in 2007, and remained close friends with her after separating.[21]" - get rid of the comma after 2007
  • " The crash killed both crew members and the other two passengers, a security guard and Barker's assistant, and critically injured Goldstein and Barker.[24]" - I'd get rid of and and change to "assistant, critically injuring Goldstein..."
  • "Goldstein suffered burns on his hands and parts of his head.[26] Moore flew to be by his side in hospital.[27] He was released on September 26, 2008.[28]" - very choppy sentence structure here

More comments after this. ceranthor 11:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to address each of these new concerns Ceranthor. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "illegal after-hours club" - What does this mean?

Otherwise, I think the prose has been fine-tuned enough. Support on prose. ceranthor 15:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Freikorp (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

[edit]
  • Goldstein was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He became obsessed with deejaying as a child after watching Herbie Hancock perform his 1983 single "Rockit" - I would join these two sentences; sth like, Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he became..
  • His drug problems became worse after leaving the center; Goldstein spent several years in his early twenties addicted to crack cocaine - just a suggestion, I think it would work better as sth like, After leaving the center, his drug problems became worse and he was addicted to crack cocaine for several years in his early twenties.
  • and was asked to join the band Crazy Town in 1999 - instead of saying "was asked to" I would simply write joined the band.
  • contributed mixes to - do we mean contributed to mixes here?
Oh, I see. My bad. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • contributed mixes to and appeared as a playable character in the video game DJ Hero, and filmed a - I don't think you need the first "and".
I meant replace it with a comma. :-) FrB.TG (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of the lead. More soon. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far FrB.TG. I've made replies. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • When he was 14, his father was incarcerated - I assume it was his stepfather, although I think it would be more helpful if you are specific (perhaps mention his first name).
  • that Hebert, the man he thought was his father, was not biologically so - I think it is safe to say that the reader is aware of Hebert's role in his life. Would be much more simple as "that Hebert was not his biological father

Career

  • Us Weekly editor Janice Min said: "He's an amazing DJ, but there are a lot of amazing DJs. The difference is that there's only one who dated Nicole. It put him on the map." - perhaps it would be worth paraphrasing this quote.
  • He was an avid sneakerhead, owning over 1,000 pairs - more than.
  • His obsession led to him being offered a cameo as himself purchasing a pair in the 2006 TV series Entourage episode "What About Bob?". - I am not a fan of the word 'obsession' here. In the previous sentence, you say he was an 'avid' (as in interested) collector of sneakers, but in the next you describe it as an obsession, which is stronger, more intense than 'avid'. Perhaps simply say, "This led to" or replace obsession with another word?
  • He played private events - played at? – FrB.TG (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final year

  • appearing as himself deejaying Tony Stark's birthday party - seems worth linking Tony Stark and also mentioning who played the character.
  • Goldstein was involved with Activision's DJ Hero video game, contributing original mixes - contributing original mixes to, per the lede.
  • Goldstein was the host of Gone Too Far, a drug intervention reality show for MTV - WP:OVERLINKING here.
  • He had approached MTV in mid 2008, pitching the idea of - not a fan of pitch, perhaps discuss? Also, using infinitive form would read better here (the pitching part), I think.

Relapse

  • Goldstein said that while he had been sober for nine years, every day he had to remind himself that he was still a drug addict, saying - don't like the placement of every day here. Perhaps place it after "himself"?

That's it. I have made quite a few edits that you might wanna check. Pls let me know if I have messed up anything. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again FrB.TG. I'm very happy with your changes. I've attempted to address all of your listed points above. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing these. I would like comments from other reviewers addressed before I add my final judgement of the article. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate some comments on the FAC of Scarlett Johansson. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 2: What is the nature of the source "Manifest"?
  • Ref 13: Who was the broadcaster? You provide this information in similar refs 14, 17, 19.
  • Ref 23: Please check spelling of "Drumer" (Drummer?)
  • Ref 54: I think the proper source title is "Grammy Awards" rather than the informal name "The Grammys". And it should not be italicized.
  • Refs 58, 60 and 61: Can you give the record label as publisher information?
  • Ref 60: I dont understand what the word "feat" is doing in the middle of the reference.
It is to state that the song "Forever" is by Wolfgang Gartner featuring (feat) Will.i.am. I have a query of my own here: why is Forever in italics when it should be in quotation marks? – FrB.TG (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "feat" to "featuring" for clarification. Italics is the default styling for the "|title" parameter in Template:Cite av media. Freikorp (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can get rid of it by using {{noitalics}}. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that, cheers. Done. Freikorp (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to these minor points, the sources appear to be appropriate, reliable and well organised. Brianboulton (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. It's nice to see you here. Thanks for your review. I've tried to address everything. Freikorp (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde93

[edit]
  • " that he was not his biological son" I'd use "Goldstein" at the first of these, to avoid confusion
  • Can we provide a link to deejaying at its first use in the body?
  • "The phrase "fell in" is a bit colloquial for me
  • "also telling him that he was homosexual and dying from HIV/AIDS." Again, the "he" is ambiguous
  • It would be quite interesting to learn how and why he managed to become sober so suddenly.
  • "Mandy Moore flew to be by his side in hospital." Shouldn't this just be "Moore"?
Thanks so much for your comments Vanamonde93. Freikorp (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little dissatisfied with the order of the "relapse" section. We have folks talking about what caused his relapse, then there's material about things leading up to it, then stuff about the consequences of his relapse: but I'm not seeing where we explicitly discuss the relapse itself.
  • I'd like to see citations for the discography and filmography. I know folks have varying standards for that sort of thing, but coming from articles with lots of unsourced bullshit, I think if we can source it we should.
  • All the filmography appearances are now referenced in the prose. I've also found references for appearances and production. Finding sources for scratching and remixes is proving much more difficult. This information may only be able to be sourced by tracking down a physical copy and reading the linear notes, and possibly not even then. Freikorp (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photos are all much of a muchness. It would be nice to have one of him deejaying, though I can understand if such is not available.
  • I've replaced one of old photos with an image of him performing. There were four images of him with an appropriate license on Flickr, but only one was in focus, so that's the one I added. Freikorp (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out, that image didn't have the appropriate license after all, so I've reverted back to the old image. Well I can definitely confirm there are no free images of him on Flickr then. Freikorp (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally solid article. I'm wondering if there's available information about a few aspects of his life not mentioned here: his relationships other than the one mentioned, and/or any information on personal views (political or otherwise). It's quite possible these are not known, but thought I'd ask.
  • I've expanded slightly on his relationship with Moore and have added several sources regarding the last women he dated. In my search for sources in expanding this article I can't say I've come across anything that mentions his personal, political or religious views, unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2017 [41].

Melanie Barnett

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about is a fictional character who appears in the American sitcom The Game, portrayed by actress Tia Mowry. Introduced in a backdoor pilot on Girlfriends as Joan Clayton's cousin, Melanie chooses to support her boyfriend Derwin Davis' career in the fictional National Football League (NFL) team the San Diego Sabres rather than attend the medical program at Johns Hopkins University. The series primarily focuses on Melanie and Derwin's rocky relationship, with Melanie's fears of infidelity serving as the core of a majority of the episodes' storylines. I found a surprisingly nice amount of coverage on the character, ranging from Melanie's character development to Mowry's casting, departure, and return. Critics responded negatively to Melanie, though the character received more positive attention from fans. Mowry's performance received primarily positive reviews from critics.

I created and expanded this article earlier in the year by myself. This is one of the projects that I am the most proud of on here. I have actually never seen this show and I was primarily inspired to make this article after seeing ChangedforBetter's work on the Denise Huxtable page. I hope that this nomination encourages more people to work on articles on fictional characters and put them through the FAC process and create and work on new articles for notable fictional characters who do not already have one on here. I believe that this article meets all of the criteria for a featured article. I look forward to everyone's feedback and suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceranthor

[edit]
  • which aired on The CW Television Network and BET - I usually expect a time frame after this; "from 2006 to 2015" should do the trick.
  • rather than attend the medical program - do you mean medical school? I've never heard of a "medical program" in the US
  • Intelligence is one of her defining characteristics. Mowry left the series in 2012 on learning that her role would be reduced as a result of co-star Pooch Hall's decision - These two sentences have little to do with each other, and I'm afraid it's disjointed to read. Better organization of ideas would help; I think it would be best to move the intelligence bit to the second paragraph
  • I have removed the intelligence part as I do not believe it is important enough enough to be included in the lead. I think that should hopefully solve this, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother. - I know this is just the lead, but a brief explanation of why the character was criticized would help
  • Derwin proposes marriage to her on live television, during the halftime of a Sabres game, and despite her concerns she accepts.[6] - this comes sort of abruptly; could you transition to this or provide more context prior to it?
  • During this time, she has an abortion, leaving her highly unlikely to conceive children naturally. - Does the show elaborate if this infertility is due to a complication? If so could you clarify that?
  • and because she is considered an unfit parent is allowed limited contact with the child - considered unfit because?
  • I have added some more information. I had to include a reference to the primary source (an episode of the series) as I could not find a credible/reliable source to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cynthia Addai-Robinson was originally cast to play Melanie,[4] before Tia Mowry was chosen to play the role instead - This sentence reads awkwardly, particularly the second half. Tweak it a bit
  • professor Marquita Marie Gammage - of what institution?

This is a well-written and interesting article. It just needs a few more details fleshed out before it's totally ready. ceranthor 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time to review this. I would also like to thank you for your kind words. I enjoyed making this article, and I am glad you found it interesting. I believe that I have addressed all of your remarks, and I look forward to hearing your response. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I think this is a well-written and engaging article. ceranthor 21:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Panagiotis Zois

[edit]
  • File:MelanieBarnettImage.jpg - Image is under a fair-use licence and has the appropriate rationale. Used only once in the infobox. Sidenote: You really do go all the way with image information.
  • File:Mara Brock Akil.jpg - Image originates from a YouTube video which uses the Creative Commons licence Attribution 3.0 Unported, which is acceptable in Wikipedia. Used in "Production" section which discusses Akil.
  • File:Lauren London.jpg - To be honest, this image worries me a little. While it also has the CC Attribution 3.0 licence, it lacks a source. As for the PictureAtlanta.net website, it's down. The description says that the author is a guy named Travis Hudgons; I did find his Flickr account and the same image of London but it's copyrighted and watermarked. Here's the link.

So basically, the first two images are just fine, but I think the third one needs to go. Unless another image London exists that isn't copyrighted. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "which aired on The CW Television Network" - I think Television Network should either be part of the link or just go.
  • "on the sitcom Girlfriends as Joan Clayton's cousin" - who plays Clayton?
  • "the fictional National Football League (NFL) team the San Diego Sabres" - a comma needed between team and the.
  • "Critical response to the character Melanie was primarily negative, with critics" - critical ... critics
  • "portrayal as being unable" - would replacing this with simply "inability" work here?
  • "She received nominations for two NAACP Image Awards and a Teen Choice Awards nomination for the role" - nominations ... nomination.
  • I count seven despite's in the article, which is a little repetitive.
  • "Tasha and Kelly offer Melanie advice, such as using" - shouldn't advice be plural here?
  • "The couple end their engagement after Melanie discovers that Derwin was having sex with a singer" - I don't think using continuous tense works here.
  • "Due to this, she is considered an unfit parent" - by whom?

Down to the end of section Role. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • She received nominations for two NAACP Image Awards and a Teen Choice Awards for the role. - singular here (TCA)
  • Akil had originally conceived the show's premise out of her respect for football, - Mara's surname is Brock Akil, not just Akil.
  • Akil referred to their characters, Melanie and Derwin - ^^
  • During this process, she lost ten pounds and chose to straighten her hair for auditions -> During this process, she lost 10 pounds (4.5 kg) and straightened her hair for auditions.
  • To prepare for the role, she consulted frequently with - consulted not consulted with. They are both correct, but I think the usage of the former is more common.
  • When discussing her reasons for auditioning, she said: "I can take on challenging roles and that's where I want to go". - this quote can be paraphrased.
  • VIBE Vixen's Jennifer Hickman referred to Melanie as "bookwormy" - this one is rather tricky (since the term is not very common) but we are not supposed to wiki-link inside a quotation, per WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point.
  • Random source comment: there seems to be something missing or extra in ref 33: "Taylor, Derrick Bryson (June 21, 2012). "Is Lauren London Replacing Tia Mowry on 'The Game?'". Essencedead-url=no. Retrieved August 9, 2016."
  • Media outlets viewed Keira and London as a replacement for Melanie and Mowry. - respectively? – FrB.TG (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mowry decided to leave the show when Melanie's role was slated to become "less important" in comparison to previous seasons. - less important can be paraphrased. Also "decided to leave" -> "left"
  • Greg Braxton of The Los Angeles Times -> Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times. (Also, take the out of the link).
  • For the series finale, Mowry and Hall reprised their roles as Melanie and Derwin - their characters' names should be mentioned at the earliest instance of "Mowry and Hall".
  • even though -> though (they both have the same meaning; this does not require action, just a suggestion).
  • Melanie Barnett has been widely criticized by television critics. - again criticized .. critics. Also consider removing widely.
  • She contrasted Melanie with white characters on television, writing - either comma or "that" after writing
  • Despite this negative feedback, Mowry received positive feedback from fans - I would remove the despite part. Critics and fans usually have different opinions. There is nothing unnormal about it. I also believe that FAC is not a big fan of the words despite, however etc.
  • Even though she was critical of the overall show, The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan called Mowry "charming and capable". - I was a little confused with the sentence. For a second, I thought Mowry was critical of the show. Would be better as "The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan was critical of the overall show, she called Mowry..." Also, regarding The Chicago Tribune, see my point above about Los Angles Times. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and your edits have helped a lot. Hopefully, more reviewers will be able to help with this in the future, but I greatly appreciate your help and feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

Sources seem to be in good order, of appropriate reliability.

  • Ref 28 requires a page ref.
  • As a general point, it isn't necessary, with well-known journals such as the NYT, Washington Post or San Francisco Chronicle, to include the publishing firm's name as well as the title. This can add a lot of clutter to the reference, e.g. "The New York Times. The New York Times Company". Not worth amending here, but perhaps bear im mind next time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. I believe that I have addressed both of your points. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]
  • "Melanie and Derwin were replaced by draft pick Bryce "The Blueprint" Westbrook and child star Keira Whitaker, portrayed by Jay Ellis and Lauren London, respectively. Media outlets viewed Keira and London as a replacement for Melanie and Mowry" - it's already been established that Ellis and London were replacements, why did critics state the obvious or is there another meaning to it? Also, shouldn't "viewed Keira and London as a replacement" be viewed Ellis and London (the actress' last name)?
  • I have revised this. I have changed the first sentence to reflect that the new characters were introduced following Melanie and Derwin's exist. Critics thought the new characters were replacements for the old ones, while the producer and actors from the show argued otherwise. As for the "Keira and London" part, I am comparing the character and the actor to "Melanie and Mowry" so bringing in the actor playing Bryce "The Blueprint" Westbrook (i.e. Ellis) would not make sense in this context. Hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaime Lee wrote that viewers had connected with the fictional couple relating to their struggles. Jennifer Hickman felt that Melanie's romance and struggles with Derwin would be appealing to viewers" - Jamie Lee and Jennifer Hickman from where? What magazines/publications? I noticed that they're in the fans' feedback paragraph.

I had no idea that this was Tia Mowry from Sister, Sister! I used to love watching that when I was a child. I've come late to this review and have already seen a large and established set of comments above, which explains why I couldn't spot many issues. Overall this is well written, comprehensive and enjoyable to read. I satisfied that this meets the FA criteria so I'll go ahead and support this now. JAGUAR  11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

[edit]
  • I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention the name of the pilot ("The Game") in the lead, but up to you.
  • "with the fictional National Football League (NFL) team, the San Diego Sabres" - I'd write this "with the San Diego Sabres, a fictional National Football League (NFL) team." As it's currently written it made me wonder if the National Football League was itself fictional.
  • "retired NFL fullback Jameel Cook" - NFL is wikilinked here, though its already linked in its un-abbreviated mention in the 'Role' section.
  • "happily-evey-after (sic)" - you can probably get rid of the 'sic' tag and just correct the typo as per MOS:PMC.

That's all I found. Very well written and comprehensive. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Thank you for your comments! I believe that I have addressed everything, and I look forward to hearing back from you. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise

[edit]

Hi Aoba. I hope all is well. I'd like to review this article.

Lead:

  • "Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother, given her personal and professional sacrifices to support Derwin and inability to properly care for her stepson." I don't understand how "personal and professional sacrifices to support Derwin" relates to motherhood.
  • Revised to hopefully be more clearer. I tried to convey that critics disliked how Melanie was portrayed as unable to become a mother as she put other personal and professional issues first. I have removed it as it is not necessary for the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Role:

  • "Introduced as the cousin of Joan Clayton (Tracee Ellis Ross) in a backdoor pilot on Girlfriends,[5] Melanie Barnett aspires to be a doctor and is admitted to the medical school at Johns Hopkins University.[6][7] Against Joan's objections, Melanie refuses to attend Johns Hopkins in favor of moving to San Diego to support her boyfriend Derwin Davis' career with the San Diego Sabres, a fictional National Football League (NFL) team." Just checking, but should it be "initially aspires to be a doctor"? Also, "refuses" is very strong—would just like to confirm that "decides against" would not be more suitable. (I haven't seen the show, so I don't know.)
  • Changed "refuses" to "decides against". I kept "aspires" the same as Melanie is shown as always wanting to be a doctor throughout the series (in the end, she does go to medical school). Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tasha and Kelly offer Melanie words of advice, such as using an ultraviolet light to check for fluids on hotel bed sheets": "offer Melanie words of advice" seems unnecessarily wordy. Maybe something like "Tasha's and Kelly's advice included the idea of using an ultraviolet light to check for fluids on hotel bed sheets."

Creation and casting:

  • "The New York Times' Virginia Heffernan wrote that one of the show's objectives was "to relieve ideological tensions instead of creating or ignoring them", citing its multi-ethnic female cast of characters as one of the means of achieving this narrative." Would something like "achieving this goal" be better? I'm not sure that "reliev[ing] ideological tensions instead of creating or ignoring them" is in itself a narrative.
  • "Brock Akil created the characters of Melanie and Derwin to give viewers access to the world of professional football." Seems closely liked to "Brock Akil had originally conceived the show's premise out of her respect for football, an appreciation she shares with her husband" and there may be some overlap. Perhaps these two sentences could be combined to reduce the overlap and acknowledge the sentences' close relationship.
  • The third paragraph talks about the sisters' audition and says that "Akil initially debated whether they would be appropriate for the show's tone." This suggest's The Game's tone. But wouldn't the audition have been for Girlfriends, where she originally appeared? And was Cynthia Addai-Robinson considered for The Game even though Tia Mowry had played the role in Girlfriends? Or if Mowry's audition was for The Game, why is there no mention of Akil taking into consideration that Mowry had already played the part? This is all unclear and confusing. Moisejp (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have partially revised this; I will try to explain this here. Melanie only appeared in one episode of Girlfriends in the backdoor pilot for what would become The Game. She was not a regular on Girlfriends and did not appear in any previous episodes; the character was created for the specific purposes of a spin-off. This is a relatively common practice for spin-offs and backdoor pilots. So both actors involved (Addai-Robinson and Mowry) auditioned for The Game and never auditioned for Girlfriends. Addai-Robinson was originally announced to play the character, but she was replaced by Mowry before any production on the show started. I have added this part in (before she was replaced by Tia Mowry prior to the development of the backdoor pilot) to make it clear that Addai-Robinson was replaced prior to the backdoor pilot in Girlfriends and that Mowry always played the role. I hope that clears things up, but let me know if you have any further questions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mowry was billed as The Game's lead actress,[24] with Ken Parish Perkins of The Chicago Defender identifying the series as her star vehicle.[25] Pooch Hall (Derwin Davis) and Mowry were credited as the show's two main stars.[20][3] Brock Akil referred to their characters, Melanie and Derwin, as "the heart" of the series." This part seems repetitive. It's just saying in four different ways that Melanie and Derwin were the main characters and the actors that played them were the show's stars.
  • "When approached by Brock Akil, Tia responded: "I'm a woman, Mara. I can do this." " Should this be "When questioned by Brock Akil"?
  • According to a previous commentator, Brock Akil is her full last name. It is a combination of her maiden name and her husband's last name. Her full name is Mara Brock Akil, with Mara being the first name. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal and characterization:

  • Two sentences in the second paragraph begin with "Describing..."

Departure:

  • "Ellis and London denied comparisons made between Melanie and Derwin to Bryce and Lauren, believing that they were all separate characters." Would "disagreed with" be more precise here than "denied"? Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Melanie:

  • "Jennifer Hickman felt that Melanie's romance and struggles with Derwin would be appealing to viewers." This sentence feels out of place and I'd like to suggest it could be worthwhile to remove. For one thing, it doesn't add much from other points, and thus feels repetitive. But more importantly, Hickman says the "romance and struggles would be appealing to viewers". This means it was just her expectation and can't be used as evidence of what fans' reaction actually was.

Response to Mowry:

  • "Critical response to Mowry's performance was primarily positive." We get three positive reviews and one negative one. Three out of four reviews doesn't seem like a big enough sample to be sure it was "primarily positive".
  • Revised. I still think that positive should stay as most of the reviews were positive with the exception of one, but I have removed "primarily". I am open to other ideas/suggestions though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every review in this section has a quotation in it. I feel it would be stronger with a little more paraphrasing.

Those are all of my comments for now. I may do another read-through after you address these. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your review. I always appreciate your comments, and you are one of my inspirations for how to best reviews articles. Please let me know if you have any questions and/or concerns. Have a great rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment. Okay, I am doing a second read-through now.

Lead:

  • "Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother, such as her informed inability to properly care for her stepson." Why "informed"?

Role:

  • "While living in San Diego": Maybe try to find a way to avoid repeating "San Diego" here. Perhaps "While living there"?
  • "Storylines frequently address her fears that Derwin will cheat on her with other women." Consider removing "with other women" for succinctness.
  • "She chooses to return to medical school rather than continue "life as a football girlfriend"." Does she immediately return to medical school? The text says it's not till later that she enrolls in John Hopkins. If she doesn't immediately go to school, then "chooses" may give the wrong impression. Also, although it sounds natural, "return to" seems a little imprecise because she never initially ended up going the first time around.
  • "She struggles constantly to balance her career and her relationships with Derwin and other men." Maybe okay, and I think the reader can sort of imagine the general gist of this, but if you could make it clearer, it would be even better. Is her "career" at this point being a medical student at another school (if so, I might use "studies" instead), or is she working while waiting to get into John Hopkins? If she and Derwin have broken up, does she need to balance her relationship with him and other men? I guess from the context that they still have feelings for each other and while broken up are still trying to get back together, which they eventually do. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised to hopefully be clearer. I have kept the "career" part as from what I can tell, she only considered going back to medical school at this point and does not officially make the decision until her departure at the end of the fifth season. Please let me know if this needs more revision. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creation and casting:

  • "Brock Akil had originally conceived the show's premise and the characters of Melanie and Derwin to give viewers access to the world of professional football, a sport that she and her husband appreciate.[18][19] Brock Akil had originally conceived the show's premise out of her respect for football, an appreciation she shares with her husband." I think you must have tweaked this sentence but missed deleting the old version.
  • "Mowry viewed Melanie as her first "adult role," " Should this comma be outside the quotation marks as is usual in MOS? I hesitated to change it because I know MOS lists a few exceptions and I'm sometimes not sure whether a particular instance may fall under an exception.
  • "Mowry viewed Melanie as her first "adult role," and explained that she wanted to be seen as more mature following her appearances as Tia Landry on Sister, Sister. When discussing her reasons for auditioning, she said that she wanted to take on a more difficult role." Feels a bit wordy and repetitive. Maybe you could make this more compact by combining ideas. You could also look at whether the next sentence "She described Melanie and The Game as opportunities to showcase her individuality" could possibly be included in your tightening as well, although for me it was the earlier sentences that struck me the most.
  • "Melanie's intellect, one of her defining characteristics, earned her the nickname "Med School".[1][30] VIBE Vixen's Jennifer Hickman referred to Melanie as "bookwormy".[31] While discussing Melanie's first appearance in the pilot episode, Virginia Heffernan characterized her as "wholesome and a good student". Heffernan called the character a "kind of Cosby Show figure" because of her initial reluctance to join the Sabre Sunbeams." I feel you could also make this more compact. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Departure and return:

  • "Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times compared Mowry and Hall's departures to Brittany Daniel (Kelly Pitts) exiting the show following its transition to BET and Jill Marie Jones (Toni Childs) deciding to leave Girlfriends." This feels like filler information to me. Or maybe if it was shortened it would feel less superfluous. But I admit I don't have hardly any knowledge of BET or these shows, and possibly for someone with a deeper knowledge of these shows, it might be more meaningful. So if you feel it is good as is, I won't insist—just letting you know my impression from my particular background. (Or maybe just clarify for the general reader how the similarity of the departures in the two shows is significant.) Moisejp (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the rest of the article and nothing else jumps out at me. But did you see my note from 02:22, 29 October 2017? I think you have missed saving your second-to-last batch of edits. Moisejp (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother, such as her informed inability to properly care for her stepson." → "informed" is still present, though you said you removed it.
  • "While living in San Diego": Maybe try to find a way to avoid repeating "San Diego" here. Perhaps "While living there" → I didn't see any change to this text, though you said you revised it.
  • "Storylines frequently address her fears that Derwin will cheat on her with other women." → I see no change.
  • "She chooses to return to medical school rather than continue "life as a football girlfriend"." → I see no change.
  • For my final comment in this batch, I see you did make a change to mention the couple still have feelings for each other, and I think that part looks better now, thank you. Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns are all addressed. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status Update

[edit]

@Sarastro1:@Ian Rose: I would greatly appreciate a status update for this nomination when either of you have the time. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Can I just clarify one detail. "When discussing the transition to BET...": Presumably the show moved to BET at some point, but we never explicitly say so in this article. Just for smoothness (given that it mentions BET in the lead and we have this comment here), perhaps we should say something about this? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another: "Despite her reservations, Brock Akil hired Mowry based on her strong work ethic and desire to be part of the series": Whose reservations? It isn't entirely clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Glancing through, I think the prose could stand a little tightening. Nothing too major. It would be great if Corinne could have a look. If not, I might give it a quick once over myself but I would then have to recuse. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the note, and it is always good to have another set of eyes to look over the prose so I appreciate either you or Corinne doing it. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2017 [42].

Raymond Leane

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Leane was a highly decorated Australian Army officer who rose from the rank of captain to lead a brigade during World War I, and was dubbed "the foremost fighting leader" in the Australian Imperial Force. After the war he was quickly appointed as the Commissioner of the South Australia Police, a role he carried out with distinction for 24 years, overseeing significant developments in the force, for which he was knighted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_fighting_Leanes_of_Prospect_1915_P02136-001.jpg: source states this is a studio portrait from the UK - not sure AustraliaGov would apply
  • File:SLSA_B9700_Anzac_Day_March_1937.jpg: as a newspaper photograph, the copyright wouldn't automatically have belonged to the government, unless there was some agreement to that effect? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article at GA. I believe that it meets the FA standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

All sources seem of appropriate quality/reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

During the war, two of his four brothers who served were killed, and six of his nephews also served, two of whom were killed. - I think it sounds better more repetitive actually, thus: "During the war, two of his four brothers who served, and two of six of his nephews who served, were killed." or something like it. It just flows a bit oddly as is.
 Done
In its capture, the 11th Battalion had lost 36 killed and 73 wounded.[ - this strikes me as odd grammatically.
 Done
The article has both "while" and "whilst" in it - suggest choosing one (I like the former...)
 Done
and carried him (in his arms) to a spot where he dug a grave (himself) before erecting a cross above it - I'd argue that the words in parentheses are redundant...
 Done
In November 1928, two of Leane's sons, Lionel and Geoffrey, had joined the mounted police - why "had joined" (pluperfect) tense here?

:::it is out of chronological order, as the narrative has already gone into 1930, so I used "had" to denote that it had already happened.

Oh ok, it lust looks off as the 1930 is the previous paragraph, but ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on track for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas Liber, all addressed I believe. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

[edit]

What a wonderfully written article it is. Just few minor issues!

  • I guess one style should be retained, of putting a double quote mark before or after a fullstop.
  • It varies depending on the source. I am trying to apply MOS:TQ. Can you point to where you think I've misapplied it? Thanks.
  • "On 25–27 May" or "From 25 to 27 May"?
  • Done.

Thanks for taking a look, Adityavagarwal! I just have that query about the quotation marks. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - A super solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks go to go. Can I have dispensation for a new nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine with me. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2017 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2017 [43].

Northern rosella

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've scoured everywhere and feel I have covered just about all information available on this pretty parrot. I feel it has come together okay and is within striking distance of FA status. have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's nothing in the lead that actually says what the Northern rosella is (a species of parrot). This should be in the first sentence, as is the case in the other FA parrot (and parrotfinch) articles: Broad-billed parrot, Mascarene parrot, Rodrigues parrot, Turquoise parrot, Fiji parrotfinch. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch...I rejigged it now... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

[edit]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer" The article is pretty empty, perhaps find and include this important type illustration?
having trouble locating it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so, can't find it either... FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: could this be the illustration? - Which is one of 52 plates held by the NHM in London - see here. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NHM has a watermarked image here - Aa77zz (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very likely! I think it would be good to include somehow, since that image is what the species is based on... FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's definitely it...surely it is out of copyright... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gregory Mathews described P. venustus hillii in 1910" You could add "the subspecies" before the name, so the reader will know what you're talking about.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly through bowdlerisation" I have no idea what that is.
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was basal to the other" Could be linked and maybe explained.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that non-sister taxa" Likewise.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description section feels like a wall of text, but I can't really see any place where it would make sense to split it...
  • "the adult northern rosella weighs 90–110 g (3.2–3.9 oz), is 29 to 32 cm" And is?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the western subspecies hillii" Seems out of place and redundant to mention this under description.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not a gregarious bird" Could be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus tetrodonta)", listed later as ", E. tetradonta". Seems odd you would list all species with the common name first and scientific name in parenthesis, except for this example.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird louse Forficuloecus wilsoni" Everywhere else the scientific name is in parenthesis after the common name.
it is a species of bird louse. And has no common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)" Why is the abreviation, and not the full name, linked?
target article is at acronym...but switched now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is IUCN not spelled out, like CITES is?
is now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breeders have attempted to use sprinklers in enclosures to induce pairs to breed at other times" How would this help?
not spelt out in source but presumably to mimic rain (monsoon) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "native to Australia's Top End" That term is neither used or explained in the article body.
just changed to "northern Australia" as the term adds nothing really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sexes have similar plumage, while younger birds are generally duller with occasional spots of red." Maybe include females in the latter group as well, as you state they are occasionally red in the article body.
good point - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

Lead

  • Spell out IUCN
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and naming

  • Spell out RAOU
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • nonsister -> non-sister?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Arnhem Land (as in lead)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Gould reported in 1848" perhaps just Gould here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, a mitochondrial study by Ashlee Shipham and colleagues published in 2017..." Shipman et al used nuclear DNA in their study ("genomic wide sampling of thousands of loci") which they considered more reliable and which gave a different tree from that obtained using mtDNA.
damn...I need to read these articles when less tired...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • First sentence needs to be split
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strangely HBW alive has 28cm and 85g - not within the range given in the wiki article
I'll stick with HANZAB... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention bill colour
I did...see "The beak is off-white with a grey cere"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link retrices
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour

  • "The northern rosella is not a gregarious bird, found solitarily or in pairs, although several birds will perch together in the same tree." -> ..."and is found solitary or ..."?
changed to "alone" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

  • "Plant species it eats both seeds and nectar of include" word missing?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • add size of egg in inches
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

  • Are there published estimates of the population size?
not known - remote areas its lives in and poorly studied Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Perhaps add some links:[reply]

  • link scapulars in lead and body
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link mantle in lead and body
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Melville Island (Australia)
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link cere
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Tiwi Islands
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re comment from FunkMonk above:

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on Bauer

  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer from a specimen collected by Robert Brown..." From your source (Australian Faunal Directory) it isn't clear that Kuhl based his description on the drawing - he could have used the actual holotype. He mentions that it was in the Museum of the Linnean Society (now in the NHM). Bauer's illustration is from the same specimen. (I've been following up all the references on the Australian Faunal Directory page to see whether Brauer's illustration has been published). - Aa77zz (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 23: The hyphen in the page range should be replaced by an ndash
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page range formats should be consistent - compare, e.g. ref 16 with 9, 23 and perhaps others.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennyOz

[edit]
  • "International Ornithologists' Union (IOC)" was it intentional to keep that acronym after the name change?
No idea, but I do know they still have "IOC" on their site.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly reword to avoid close (proximity) repetition?
"...there is no evidence indicating a decline in population." and
"...with no evidence of any significant decline."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, JennyOz (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Riley

[edit]
  • Rosella should be linked in the lead.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, it might be good to say "nominate" (linked) before "Northern Territory subspecies", as the other subspecies has its name shown in the lead.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, "blue green" should probably be hyphenated.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarity, in the sentence "The long tail is blue green and the wings are blue-violet and black", "black" and "blue-violet" should probably be switched, as it might be interpreted as meaning that the wings are blue-violet and blue-black.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this phrase, "but may also eat insects", you should probably say "it".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There probably shouldn't be a comma separating "Brown" and "in 1821" in the sentence "Dutch zoologist Coenraad Jacob Temminckpublished the name Psittacus brownii, in honour of Brown, in 1821."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be better to say "synonymous to the nominate" or something like that instead of just "synonymous". This can be found in the sentence "Animal taxonomist Arthur Cain treated the subspecies as synonymous as the only difference he knew of was the colour of the cheeks, but conceded further evidence could prove them distinct."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably specify what "this" is in the sentence "Gould reported in 1848 that this was the local name used, and it was the most common name at the end of the 19th century."
changed "this" to "the latter" to avoid repetition yet highlight what was being discussed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description section, you inconsistently use "to" and "–" to represent ranges of numbers.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) More:[reply]

changed the first "and" to "with" instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not quite - one subspecies has predominantly white with some blue and the other predominantly blue with some white - this info is in the sentences following Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four problems with the sentence "These last are mainly white with lower borders violet in the nominate subspecies, and more blue with narrow upper segment white in subspecies hillii." First off, violet should be before "lower borders". Second off, after the comma, you do not specify whether you are talking about the cheek patch as a whole or just the lower borders. Third off, "narrow upper segment white" should be "a narrow white upper segment". Fourth, you should specify what "these last" are.
changed "these last" to "which" to link. switched the two colour adjectives to the places identified. To me it seems obvious that I am talking about the whole cheek patches of the two subspecies in each segment...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... looking at it now, it does seem pretty obvious. Also, it might be better to say "the latter of which" instead of just "which". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
err, that could make it really confusing. To my eyes, the "which" clearly refers to the cheeks and cheeks alone. Making it "last of which" sounds weird as leads me to wonder how it refers to a portion of the cheeks... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence, "The feathers of the lower neck, mantle and scapulars are black narrowly fringed with yellow, giving a scalloped appearance, while the feathers of the back, rump, upper tail coverts and underparts are pale yellow with black borders, and concealed grey bases; those of the breast have very dark grey bases, occasionally tinged with red", should probably be broken up into two sentences, with a split at the semicolon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe try and reword this sentence so you don't have two "south"s so close together: "In Western Australia, it is found across the Kimberley south to the 18th parallel south, around Derby, Windjana Gorge National Park, the northern King Leopold Ranges, Springvale Station and Warmun, with vagrants reported at Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just abbreviated it to "18th parallel" as it is obvious which one we're talking about Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Saying "further east country" sounds odd. This can be found in the sentence "t is absent from central Arnhem Land, but is found further east in country around the western and southern coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria, south to Borroloola and across the border into western Queensland[21] as far as the Nicholson River." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, reading it again "in country" is redundant so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The northern rosella lives in grassy open forests and woodlands, including deciduous eucalypt savannah woodlands", do you mean to say that the woodlands are also grassy and open, or not? If not, then maybe switching around the two would do the trick. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they are both grassy and open Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "More specific habitat includes vegetation along small creeks and gorges, sandstone outcrops and escarpments, as well as some forested offshore islands", you should probably say "habitats include", as "habitat" seems to be plural. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
was thinking of it as a collective noun but done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
reworded, does that help? they generally feed on the ground...unless in canopy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not say "winter" in the sentence "Nesting occurs in tree hollows in winter, often in eucalypts located near water." If the source doesn't specify the months, then saying "Northern Hemisphere" or "Southern Hemisphere winter" should be ok. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SH added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The incubation period is around 19 or 20 days, with the female performing this duty alone", "performing this duty alone" doesn't really make sense, as there isn't a verb that "this duty" refers to. Maybe say instead, "with only the female incubating the eggs". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "The female incubates the eggs alone, over a period of 19 or 20 days" instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
see above - I unabbreviated it in the course of this FAC. Technically they are separate areas of article, like how we link once in lead and once in body. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There shouldn't be an Oxford comma in the sentence "Like most species of parrots, the northern rosella is protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) with its placement on the Appendix II list of vulnerable species, which makes the import, export, and trade of listed wild-caught animals illegal", as you do not use Oxford commas throughout the rest of the article. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @RileyBugz: are you now satisfied with items to this point? Any other issues? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • "formerly known as... smutty rosella" - Should this have a "the" before smutty?
could argue that either way (I did muse on this before) - added it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thoroughly impressed with the tightness of the prose here. The images are useful and illustrative, and the references seem sound to me. ceranthor 16:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Vanamonde

[edit]

I wanted to comment on Pied Butcherbird, seeing as I'd reviewed it for GAN, but I'm away for a few weeks and it's disappeared...oh well. I guess this will have to do. Also apologies if I raise anything discussed above: the review is as long as the article, and I'm only going to read the one :) Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All my relatively minor concerns have been addressed, happy to support this. Vanamonde (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: I wonder if the painting would be better lower down or on the other side, to avoid what is a very narrow block of text on small screens.
Am happy if you want to play around and find a better place for it. All my screens are wide now... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • Am I alone in thinking that "blue" is typically a dark color, and so "pale cheeks...blue in the Western..." sounds odd? Sky blue? Light blue?
the cheeks are paler than the surrounding feathers, just in some cases they are manily blue and in others white. I could change to "paler" cheeks I guess Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, let it be; I don't think there's a good way around this.
  • " related eastern and pale-headed rosellas" Maybe link these?
linked - thought I had done already... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found that the eastern rosella was basal to the lineage that split into the pale-headed and northern rosellas, and that non-sister taxa were hence able to hybridise" I'm unsure about what is meant here. Why does the eastern lineage being basal allow non-sister clades to hybridise?
It is unusual that species that are not sister taxa can interbreed in nature - but that is what was found here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. In which case, should it not be "found that the eastern rosella was basal to the lineage that split into the pale-headed and northern rosellas, and hence, that non-sister taxa were able to hybridise among the rosellas" or something along these lines? Just clarifying that basal-ness implies non-sister hybridization, and not that it allows it.
done as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It exhibits a sharp and short chit-chut... while perched they make a three note whistle..." These should match, I think?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple of serial comma mismatches again, I think. eg ", and fern-leaved grevillea", ", and fruit"
got 'em all (I think...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the conservation section, two consecutive sentences end in "numbers"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some plural-singular switches in "Aviculture"
part-tweaked. I don't think I can singularise the first sentence.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose in this piece is generally very very solid. The ecology section, though, is a bit thin. Is this all there is on the species?
It is not a well-known species in the wild. Much information is missing from birds from northern Australia Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

That's all I have. Solid piece of work as always. Vanamonde (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

[edit]
  • I think in the "Conservation Status" section, we should have the mention of it being least concern at the beginning of the section.
I flipped it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than this, iIt is a great article, and I see no issues! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Strong support It is a beatufully written article! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But whether included or not, I will promote this shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2017&oldid=812937743"