Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2022

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 October 2022 [1].

Aliens (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 science fiction action film Aliens directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, in what would be the first of the two trendsetting sequels he made. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lankyant

[edit]
  • Within Plot and Cast it calls the colony Hadleys Hope but in every source I can find it is Hadley's Hope, with the apostrophe. It also makes more grammatical sense with the apostrophe.
  • In the lead I would change 'troop' to 'unit', however, if kept as troop I would wikilink it.
  • In plot, the sentence "descending into alien-secretion-covered corridors." seems clunky. I suggest "descending into corridors covered in alien secretion."

That's it for now, will go through the rest of the article when I get chance :) Lankyant (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lankyant, all changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Some comments about this well-written article which I've just noticed to get things started.

(1) There is an odd redirect to this film page from "M56 Smart Gun" even though there is no article for "M56 Smart Gun"; it just seems to redirect to the top of the Aliens film article with no explanation.

(2) In the lead section, you do mention this is the second film in the franchise, which is accurate. Given the strength of your Sequels section at the end of this article, it seems like it would be useful to state how large the franchise is in the lead section. For example, 'it is the second film in the 12 films in the Alien franchise', or, 'it is the second film in the two dozen films in the Alien franchise.' I'm not sure of the exact number but you might know it from memory.

(3) In the Plot summary, my memory is that the weapons and guns in this film received a good deal of screen time when I watched it. There are the scenes where the Marines are drilling with their M56A2 Smart Guns as if preparing for battle, and doing prepatory weapons drills, etc. Also there is the prominent scene of some extended length featuring the UA 571-C Sentry Guns which takes on the swarm of attacking Aliens. Can these be mentioned or added in some way into the Plot section since they were prominently featured in the film? (One link for the M56 is here [2], and one link for the Sentry Gun in here [3].)

(4) You did give some information about the German origin of the Smart Gun in the next sections, though you do not cover the Sentry Gun. Could this be added? My thoughts are that once you add some of the details about the Smart Gun and the Sentry Gun used in the film, that this would be the better place to link the re-direct of the M56 I mentioned above in my note #1 with an indexed link to this new section, rather than an unindexed link to the article as a whole.

(5) My recollection is that there was a novelization made for this film, separately from the graphic novels which you already mention in this article. Possibly you can find this on one of the book seller websites on the internet with its author and publisher.

Its a short list for now to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the redirect
  • The rest of the franchise is discussed in the last paragraph of the lead since it comes after the film's release,production, etc
  • It looks like just under a dozen films in the franchise; can you state that in the first paragraph. For example, in the Bond franchise it is typical to include the number in the series in the 1st paragraph of the lead section, such as the GA for Diamonds are Forever which was the 'seventh' (and final Eon Productions film) in the franchise. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I read in the franchise article on Wikipedia is that there were 4 films in the original series: I, II, III and Resurrection. Could you change the wording in the lead paragraph of the lead section to state: "...the second of four films in the original Alien franchise." Or, something like that.
  • It wouldn't really be appropriate to specifically mention the weapons in the plot as there is a strict limit on how long plot sections can be, and mentioning the guns by name would not add to the understanding of the plot.
  • I linked the M56 to that section discussing the smart gun. There is no info about the sentry guns but that's because they were just kind of basic creations and there isn't much information about them. Because of the existing length of the article they're currently beyond its scope, but if I am ever able to obtain some of the more detailed design background literature, I might be able to split the special effects section off and make it larger.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added info about the novel

Adding 6 & 7 below:

(6) The 4th paragraph of the lead section uses the phrase: "and both one of the best science fiction and action films and..". The conjunctions in one sentence does not look encyclopedia in presentation, can the sentence be tweaked.

(7) The next film in the franchise currently under way is to be directed by Fede Álvarez and to be produced by Ridley Scott, is this worth a mention in your Sequels section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good writing in the article as a whole, let me know about the opening sentences in the lead section about it being the second of four films. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support this well-written article about this film. I've also recently listed a FAC nomination for the popular culture figure Yuzuru Hanyu on the FAC page in case you might have any time for support/oppose comments. (From your other edits elsewhere, I've read the BFI book on Seven and you could ping me if you'd like a co-editor or co-nominator to improve that article.) ErnestKrause (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ErnestKrause, I forgot to reply to this, I will take a look at your FA nomination if its still up and I might take you up on the BFI Seven book offer. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still keeping this as an offer to refine and expand on edits as needed. The Richard Dyer book on Seven from BFI is short and well-written [4]; if you have a copy available in your local library then it could likely be read over a single week-end. If you create a things-to-do list for editing the Seven article, I'll try to response with positive edits or comments; just ping me when you are ready to move forward with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Aliens_poster.jpg: image description should include info on the copyright holder
  • File:Pinewood_Studios_gateway.jpg: the license at the source is BY not BY-SA - however the larger issue is that the license there applies to "original content", which this does not appear to be. The source is dated December 2016 but the image was available online elsewhere before that - eg this site from October 2016.
  • File:Syd_Mead_LF.JPG: source link is dead
  • File:Alien_(1986)_-_Alien_queen.jpg could use an expanded explanation of purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comment from Lankyant 2

[edit]
  • In Sets and Technology "constructed from German MG 42 anti-aircraft machine guns", the MG 42 was a general purpose machine gun, seems weird to specify it was anti-aircraft or does the source say that and what makes it anti aircraft compared to normal MG 42? "constructed from German MG 42 machine guns" would work just as well.
  • In Critical response "cover of Time magazine (July 1986)" I would specify that it was July 28 1986 as the source show there were 4 different magazines in July 1986.
  • In other media: "Since its release, Aliens' has appeared across". Is that a rogue apostrophe because I can't see that it's possessive.
  • I would also mention, as stated by ErnestKrause about the tie in novelisation by Alan Dean Foster. reference here: Aliens : novelization. Library of Congress. 1986. ISBN 9780446301398. Archived from the original on March 29, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2019.

I will take another look through this article but I am happy to support. Brilliant work and a very good and informative read. Lankyant (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lankyant, all doneDarkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • "She accuses Burke of releasing the facehuggers to impregnate her and Newt" Impregnate sounds a bit weird, perhaps "use as hosts" instead?
Changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still seems like an odd oversight that there is no mention of Ripley's initial suspicion of Bishop due to her experience with the android in the first film, and his later redemption, as this is an important theme that runs throughout the films. I'm sure some sources cover this? Perhaps mention it under "War and trauma", as this is about Ripley's trauma from the first film.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "Ricco Ross as Frost: A private in the Colonial Marines" listed among the main cast, when this is a very minor role compared to Vasquez, who is only mentioned in passing along with the more obscure marines?
To take bias out of it I just went off the cast credited in the film's opening. Based on the casting section regarding Ross, I get the impression he may have originally had a larger role given he chose this over Full Metal Jacket, and so he got a bigger credit that carried over. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carl Toop portrays an alien warrior.[1]" Seems a very arbitrary mention considering how many aliens are seen on screen simultaneously.
He's credit as alien warrior but he portrays all the alien warriors or at least the more prominent on-screen ones Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names in captions don't have to be linked past the first caption they're linked in.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full names don't need to be given in captions after first mention either.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sylvester Stallone should be linked in his caption.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes need citations too if possible.
The conversion figures are just done automatically with the Wikipedia template Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth noting Alien 2: On Earth at least as a foot note, or in discussion of a sequel under "Early development". At least it shows that others were willing to capitalise on the success of the original before the studio itself.
  • Perhaps worth noting that Galaxy of Terror is at least a visual precursor to Aliens in many ways, as Cameron carried over much of the look.
So I've researched both these things and I gotta be honest, I don't think they belong in the article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Alien 2: On EArth was released 6 years before Aliens and seems more relevant to the article on Alien. The sources I can find for Galaxy of Terror suggest it shares some visual similarties to Aliens but there is no information saying Cameron took any particular influence from it more than it just being his design style for science fiction settings. Maybe I am missing something. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Caucasian Goldstein wore dark contact lenses and underwent an hour of makeup to cover her freckles and darken her skin to appear more Latina" This is a bit odd terminology, you can be Latin and "Caucasian", and "Caucasian" itself is an iffy term. How does the source put it? If kept, at least Caucasian race should be linked for context, as it is not really used this way outside the US. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this a bit and removed Caucasian, I just thought that was the proper term from watching the COPS tv show. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your solution works, could also have been swapped with "white". FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Horner's militaristic score became clichéd with re-use and imitation" Captions shouldn't really have unique, important info not found in the article body. Should be repeated and perhaps elaborated. I see there is "The same is true of Horner's influential (and often imitated) score,[62][84] which regularly appeared in action-film trailers for the following decade", but it could be a bit closer.
Changed the info Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horner's "alien sting" sound was initially only used once" Not sure what this is, could it be elaborated?
I couldn't find further info that could describe the particular alien sting in more detail, it is at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Koxkg7C216c about 1 minute here NSFW obviously), but I've added a link to the article about what a sting is. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The alien derelict spacecraft, originally used in Alien, had been in historian Bob Burns III's driveway since the first film was made." This doesn't really clarify whether the model was used in this film or not.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could easily slide off of Weaver's foot" Is the "of" necessary?
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems quite important to note that the designs of the regular aliens were changed quite a bit from the original Alien film (the rigged look instead of the dome). Not mentioning it seems like an oversight. Especially since you go into quite some detail about the minor difference to the chestburster.
  • I think there could be some more on the queen's design itself (how it differs from the regular aliens), perhaps even show an image of a queen termite[6] as the obvious inspiration.
  • There could be discussion of the elaborate facehugger mechanics too, this is the first time they're showing walking. Certainly seems as important if not more than the minor detail of the chestburster having arms.
Regarding the three above, because there is a main article for the alien creatures and their lifecycle, I've covered the basics but tried not to go into too much detail because of this as it helped keep the word count down. Let me know what you think Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As hinted below, I think something like this is much more relevant and interesting here (can be kept short) than tangential info about the entire franchise. Particularly the info about the change of the "drones" is a must, even if you don't add anything else. Because the way it is written now ("but was not as concerned with the warrior aliens because they were onscreen only briefly") indicates they were kept as they were in the first film, when they were actually changed on his request. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done though I didn't find any reference to queen termites. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had not been allowed to see film pre-release" The film's? Seems ungrammatical
Removed it Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence was fine, it was just oddly worded. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The National Entertainment Collectibles Association (NECA) released figures based on the film, including Newt,[16] Burke, and Cameron dressed as a Colonial Marine." State when, so it's clear it's long after the film's release.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dark Horse published a crossover of the titular aliens and those of the Predator franchise by 1990, creating a derivative Alien vs. Predator franchise with its own films, video games and comic books;[157][158][159][160] this led to additional crossovers with Superman,[161] Batman,[162] Green Lantern,[163] Judge Dredd,[164] Wildcats,[165] and the Terminator franchise." Why is this relevant here, considering this is about the Alien franchise overall? It has little to nothing to do with the 1986 film itself.
So I included these here because they exist because of Aliens and the expansion of the universe in this film Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps condense it to a shorter sentence (all we need to know is there were more spinoffs in various media, not that there was specifically a crossover of aliens and Superman etc.)? Especially since you already say all you need to say with "It also expanded the Alien series into a franchise, spanning video games, comic books, and toys". It seems like way too much detail in a very tangential area, especially since you express a desire to keep the article slimmed down. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now this sentence hangs alone, could be part of the same paragraph as before: "A novelization by Alan Dean Foster was released alongside the film.[163][164]" FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I will have separated it out while I worked and forgot to put it back! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Author J. W. Rinzler published The Making of Aliens" As he is already mentioned earlier, you could just use his last name.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in August 2020" Why is the month needed?
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention that McFarlane Toys made detailed toys based on the film long before NECA.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newt's capture by the aliens forces Ripley to realize she is willing to die to save her. This demonstrates a selfless motherhood, unlike the queen's selfish motherhood." According to who? Such subjective statements need attribution.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this can be seen in the Caucasian single mother " Likewise, could be linked, if not substituted with white. What term does the source use?
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting the alien queen demonizes motherhood and make it less attractive" Makes?
DOne Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asked why he thought Aliens' popularity had endured, Cameron said: I have to take my filmmaker hat off and look at it as a fan and think, "Well, I really like those characters ..." There's certain lines, moments, you remember moments. It's satisfying, it ends in a satisfying way ... But I actually think it's those characters. We can all relate to Hudson running around "What the hell are we gonna do now man? What the fuck we gonna do?" We all know that guy." Why is one quote inset and the other not?
Done, I'd not noticed tbh. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a white, Jewish actress of Russian, Moroccan, and Brazilian descent" The source doesn't mention "white", and again, Latin and white are not mutually exclusive terms, so "white" should be left out. To complicate matters further, the source says Hispanic, not Latin. If she has Brazilian descent, she technically has "Latin" descent", but not Hispanic, so it's better to stick to the wording of the source.
Done, this is ignorance on my part, even reading up on it I'm not 100% the difference between Latin and Hispanic, but I've changed it. It's confusing because the casting part says she was attempting to draw oin Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These terms are a minefield, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Aliens, this can be seen in the Caucasian single mother (Ripley) confronting the dark-skinned alien queen with an endless brood." Seems a bit of a reach, how exactly does the source put it?
"In Aliens (1986), for example, Berg points out that the viewer is confronted with opposing images of motherhood: the restricted brood—one adopted child—of Caucasian Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the indiscriminate procreation of the dark Alien Queen Mother."Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ridley Scott returned to the series for Prometheus (2012) (a prequel to Alien) and its sequel, Alien: Covenant (2017).[261][262]" These ignore the events of Aliens, and Ridley Scott apparently didn't like the mode of reproduction tied to the alien queen, so I wonder if this needs some modification.
I can't find any reference to this? Just an interview saying he liked the film. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find it anymore anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Funk! Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

Starting to look, but seeing "The series also has prequels to Alien, Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017), as well as a standalone film is in development as of 2022." in the lead paragraph is not filling me with hope. If it's full of sentences like this it won't be suitable. John (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the whole article, I don't think I can yet support. Purely based on the standard of prose, it is not there yet. Some sample issues:

  • "A number of" is a rather lazy and vacuous phrase on an encyclopedia article. It's used four times. On each occasion, it would be better to state the actual number, if known, or to say "several" or "some". Zero, pi and minus eleven are all perfectly respectable numbers. We don't mean those numbers, but the reader is left wondering what numbers we do mean.
  • "Although he suggested distinctive eye pupils for Bishop when the character was alerted and had lenses mocked up, Cameron felt they made Bishop look more frightening than the aliens." There are so many problems here! "Eye pupils" doesn't sound right, what does it mean when the character is "alerted", by "lenses" I take it we mean contact lenses, and what does "although" relate to?
  • "She gained an additional 10 pounds (4.5 kg) at Cameron's request." See how "gained" and "additional" are saying the same thing twice? Once is enough.
  • "The alien nest was filmed in the decommissioned Acton Lane Power Station in London, and the set was left in place until the filming of the 1989 superhero film Batman." I think most of our readers will know that Batman is a superhero, and that the film was not about the Turkish city.
  • "Cameron first heard the score while it was being recorded by the orchestra and did not like it; however, it was too late to make changes." This could be better done using "but" and definitely doesn't need a "however".

I stress that these are sample sentences; I think the entire article would need to be copyedited before I could support. John (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes. I will have a re-read through it, it has been copyedited in December 2020 though by Miniapolis. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Darkwarriorblake. I consider myself a halfway-decent copyeditor, but I took a look at the history and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in almost two years. That was a demanding copyedit, and I'll leave it to another set of eyes. All the best, Miniapolis 18:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it and tidied it up some more John Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, did you want to revisit? If you don't have time I might recuse and run through myself but you get first refusal... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ian Rose, I took an initial hack at it. I think it needs quite a bit more; probably nothing that can't be fixed, but I am getting bonked for tonight, and you are welcome to take a shot if you're in a hurry. John (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by "Cameron recalled the audience reactions while seeing Alien in the theater while working as a truck driver and believed it would be difficult to recreate the emotion and novelty of the original." Wouldn't it be dangerous to view a movie while driving? John (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I wrote this all initially but I think I wanted to emphasize this guy was a truck driver like only two films ago and had churned out The Terminator and Aliens at the start of his career. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 17:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Tetrachloride is a disambiguation page. Which meaning is intended? John (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking care of the truck driver sentence. Here is a cumulative diff showing my (and your) copyedits. Other than the tetrachloride question, I wonder if we could slightly slim down some of the quotes in the Reception section by summarising? Other than that I think it is looking good. Over to you, Ian. John (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you John, I've also trimmed the larger quotes on the reception section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheJoebro64

[edit]

Marking my spot. Always loved this film (and its predecessor). JOEBRO64 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should start my review later today, sorry for the wait JOEBRO64 12:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "A standalone film in the Alien series is in development as of 2022." I don't think this is needed—it pertains more to the Alien franchise than Aliens in particular. Obviously it should still be noted in prose but I don't think it's terribly important for the lede.
  • "In his book The Making of Aliens, J. W. Rinzler described Cameron coming onto the set as George Lucas had before him for Star Wars (1977), but Cameron was aggressive and certain of what he wanted, which irked the crew." I think Rinzler's analogy will confuse readers who aren't familiar with the production of Star Wars. I get that it's trying to say that Cameron was more controlling and focused than Lucas was when they were making Star Wars at Pinewood, but that's only because I'm somewhat familiar with the story behind Star Wars. I'd suggest reworking it to make this clearer, or just cutting the Lucas part entirely ("In his book The Making of Aliens, J. W. Rinzler described Cameron as aggressive and certain of what he wanted, which irked the crew.")
  • "Cameron (a designer) also contributed to designs..." This stood out to me as a little tautological. If the reader's told that Cameron is contributing to designs, then they don't really need to be told Cameron is also a designer.
  • "A cinematic touchstone with an enduring legacy... Now this is more of a personal observation than anything else, but the word "touchstone" strikes me as a little WP:IDIOMatic. It might be better to attribute "touchstone" to a specific source.
  • Just as a general comment, I'd be careful about using semicolons; I don't think it's much of an issue (and if you don't feel it is either, it won't affect my support), but they're easy to misuse and I spotted a lot of them throughout my read. Again, I don't think it's an issue currently but someone else might think differently.

Loved the article. Nice to see this '80s classic get the Wikipedia treatment it deserves. Good work. JOEBRO64 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and copy editing Joe. Is benchmark better than touchstone or is that still considered an Idiom? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: I actually did some looking and it doesn't look like dictionaries consider "touchstone" idiomatic (they usually specify if you do) so I guess it's fine to stay; I just wasn't sure. I guess you can consider this my declaration of support. JOEBRO64 00:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

[edit]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

At first glance the prose looks pretty good and I'm hoping this will be a quick review with not too many comments as I work through a more thorough read here.

  • "Cameron said associates failed to convince him not to take the job, believing anything good about the film would be attributed to Alien director Ridley Scott and anything negative to Cameron, but he was determined to direct." This is confusingly written. It's the associates who argued that taking the job would be bad for Cameron, right? From the way the sentence is written, it sort of sounds like Cameron was arguing that. Moisejp (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cameron recalled the audience reactions while seeing Alien in the theater while working as a truck driver, and did not see the need for a sequel, believing it would be difficult to recreate the emotion and novelty of the original." The part "did not see the need for a sequel" sounds confusing after all the talk of his determination to direct and all the work he did on his treatment and script. Could this bit be tweaked to make it sound less contradictory with what comes before? Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weaver gave a bouquet of flowers to each actor on the day their death scene was filmed and gave Reiser a bouquet of dead flowers." Was this meant as a joke (or a lighthearted reference to the fact Weaver's and Reiser's characters had a bad relationship)? It didn't mean the actors themselves had a bad relationship, did it? It would be nice if more context could be added if it's available. Moisejp (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moisejp, I've tried addressing the first two concerns. The third, unfortunately there isn't much more information about it, it seems to be taken from a long lost MovieFone interview and when other publications discuss it, they do so in a context that seems to imply we're meant to understand she gave him dead flowers because Burke is the villain, but none I've found mention the context behind it. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was me I would consider taking out the flowers information altogether, as it seems to possibly raise more questions than the information it adds. But if you disagree, I won't insist. :-)
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dennis Fischer wrote for The Hollywood Reporter, however, the unrelenting scenes of action and suspense worked for Aliens as they had in The Terminator; tension was created by placing the characters in successive, increasingly-difficult situations. According to Fischer, though, Cameron mistakenly thought over-long scenes created suspense." I wasn't sure what Fischer was trying to say based on this description. On one hand he said the scenes "worked" and on the other, Cameron's approach was "mistaken". Is it possible to tweak this bit to clarify it more? Moisejp (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Critical reassessment section feels a bit random and jumping all over the place. It also mentions at the start of both the first and second paragraphs that the film is considered one of the best science-fiction and action movies. But besides that the first paragraph talks about it being one of the greatest movies, then goes onto say Ripley's one of the greatest characters, then goes back to talking about it being one of the greatest movies. The end of the second paragraph also gives a ranking on another list of the greatest movies. I'd say spend of bit of time going through each point in this section and deciding what group of ideas it belongs to. I also feel the point about Vasquez feels out of place—maybe it can be moved to an earlier section in the article? If you really want to keep it in this section, I'd suggest at least putting it in its own paragraph. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To do Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started my second read-through. I hope to finish within the next couple of days and will check your above changes during this read-through, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I really enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Moisejp, sorry I didn't see you had replied after saying you were starting your second read-through. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Christie, I think that's everything? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 18:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like two nitpicks left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties mainly to copyedit, I think following everyone's efforts so far the article is in pretty good shape. Going to pause before hitting Analysis and beyond... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay I've had my go at the prose and although a couple of statements threw me at first I think it's pretty well good to go now -- let me know any concerns.
  • FWIW I think we might have gone into a bit more detail than necessary in places but not too bad and I'd be loathe to cull stuff as it seems pretty well balanced over all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed hte title case. I've googled improvisation vs improvization and noone really seems to endorse improvization? It's an alternative spelling but improvisation seems to be the accepted US spelling as well according to sites such as The Free Dictionary Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2022 [7].

Duckport Canal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take two on this one. Last time couldn't attract many reviews; maybe it'll be of more interest this time around. Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Formal criteria passed (licenses fine, alt descriptions already there). My only issue is that on the map, the canal isn't highlighted, and I'd expect it to be so in some way if the article is about the canal. Also, the map could benefit from vectorisation, but that's not a pressing issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • No location map(s)?
  • "Trees ... hampered the use of the canal". ?
    • I've added in the lead that this canal utilized existing bayous, and that the trees had grown up in the bayous
  • "cut the Confederacy into two halves". Suggest 'cut the Confederacy in two'.
    • Done
  • "moved upriver to Vicksburg, Mississippi." Inserting 'Confederate-held' may aid comprehension in the non-specialist.
    • Done
  • "it had also seen difficulties with trees blocking the channel." Were these fallen and/or uprooted trees which were washed into the channel? If so, perhaps say so; if not, what were they?
    • Clarified - these were trees that had grown up in the bayous that the canal ran through
  • "creating a path to New Carthage, Louisiana". I think "path" is an unfortunate choice of word. :-)
    • Went with a different word choice
  • "Grant ordered troops to march down the Louisiana side of the Mississippi River". For those of us not over familiar with mid-western local geography, which side would that be?
    • Clarified
  • "between the entrance to the canal cut and the ending point". The ending point of the cut?
    • Rephrased, hopefully this is clearer
  • "she was unable to do so due to low water and trees". Again, many readers will wonder why there were trees in a canal.
    • should be cleared up now
  • "Grant himself inspected the canal". Suggest deleting "himself". Who else would he be?
    • Done
  • "via the cut at the upper end of the canal." Does "upper" mean 'north'?
    • Clarified
  • "Clearing continued through April 23". Clearing what? You haven't mentioned it starting.
    • Rephrased a bit, so that it ties back to "and additional soldiers worked to clear stumps and trees" more directly
  • "the knowledge that enough additional boats would become available to Grant to make a general supply line". I fail to see how - in the absence of a canal - this helps, if he couldn't run the boats past the guns of Vicksburg. (Although you haven't mentioned that anywhere, so do I have it wrong? You are aware that you haven't actually stated why any of these canals were necessary? And were they boats, not ships?
    • I've removed the sentence in question; it doesn't really make sense in the overall source, either. I suspect that the canal was necessary because running boats past Vicksburg was riskier, but none of the sources say this outright. I've got one more hope to get this cleared up - I was able to get a deal of a lifetime on Volumes II and III of Ed Bearss's Vicksburg trilogy, and they should be arriving later this week. I don't know what all Bearss has to say about Duckport, or if Duckport is actually in Volume I which I don't have access to, but maybe there will be something there. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing Grant to use it in larger scale to bring ..." Is this a USEng thing? I would write 'allowing Grant to use it on a larger scale to bring ...'
    • Switched over. I don't know if that's actually a USEng thing or just how we talked growing up on the farm
Please, please write an article in the style of how you talked on the farm.
  • "below the city". Would that be south of the city? If so, how far? Or on the river bank, below the city on the bluff?
    • I've clarified that this is downriver
  • "although it was commemorated by". Past tense. What happened to the marker?
    • "Little is left of the path of the Duckport Canal. As of 2016, it was commemorated by a historic marker in Madison Parish, Louisiana" - is that better? The reliable source discussing the marker is from 2016, so I can't really put it in the present tense while still giving the as of statement. (I'm unaware of any RS that regularly report on the existence of these markers).

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been open 48 hours yet. Absolutely no rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I haven't addressed clearly enough in the article that chunks of the path of these canals were going through existing swamps/bayous that of course had obnoxious vegetation in them. I'll get that cleared up when I get back into the sources in a couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Bearss arrived and I've added some material from his work; hopefully things are a little clearer now. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background: Have you got a source which would permit you to insert something like 'This was the last Confederate-held fortification on the Mississippi preventing the Union making free use of the river for both military and commercial purposes' or similar immediately before "Union vessels bombarded the city in late May"? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I forgot that. Good. I think that will bring the canal into context. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added mention of both Vicksburg being the last point for awhile in 1862 and the later fortification of Port Hudson. I also took the time to recite the last bit of American Battlefield Trust referencing, as I felt that was an example of lazy referencing. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

[edit]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • Not the Duckport Canal?
    • Added
  • I was surprised that the opening sentence didn't tell me what it was. I know Wikipedia articles tend to fall into the trap of stating the obvious ("the canal was a canal") but I think this leaves something to be desired.
    • Going with "The Duckport Canal was an unsuccessful logistical waterway built by" for now, but "unsuccessful logistical waterway" is mumbo-jumbo in itself. I'm open to anything better for this
      • Unsuccessful military waterway, perhaps?
        • Done
  • During the opening days of the American Civil War, Dates for the war might be good here.
    • I've added the year the war began
  • A brief explanatory gloss on bayou might be helpful.
    • Are you okay with this being a footnote just cited to the dictionary? Bayou is a pretty common word/concept in the US, so American sources just never define it.
      • It's essentially a marsh or swamp isn't it? Couldn't you say something along those lines and leave the link for anyone who wants to know more?
        • I've prefaced the two links to bayou with "swampy" to give the general impression of what it was
  • Interesting that you use The Duckport Canal in the aftermath section.
    • I've added "the" in the places it wasn't before
  • It had also been determined [by whom?]
    • Clarified
      • Now we have a subject, can we use the active voice? :)
        • Done
  • could pass the Vicksburg batteries relatively safely Relative to what?
    • Reworded a bit and clarified
  • Little is left of the path Any idea how much? And any possibility of a photo, even if it's just of a patch of grass where a canal used to be?
    • I'm not finding much. The source this is pulled from says little remains, but doesn't go into details. There's a couple photos of the marker online, but nothing that I think could be usable for copyright purposes. I'm probably going to be in the Vicksburg area in late November, but the marker site appears to be in a rather isolated spot that probably isn't the greatest place to try to go. You go too far out there, and it turns into Southern Comfort (1981 film)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support by Wehwalt

[edit]

Support The only thing I see to quibble about is the three events that took place on April 18, the dates seem to be a bit awkward. Can they be consolidated a bit?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm smoothed the phrasing out here. Hog Farm Talk 13:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2022 [8].

HMS Aigle (1801)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fifth-rate sailing frigate that served in the Royal Navy at the tail end of the French Revolutionary wars and throughout the Napoleonic war. She took part in some notable actions and campaigns, including the controversial Battle of Basque Roads and the disastrous Walcheren campaign. As can be seen from the edit history, I have done a not inconsiderable amount of work to the article since it became a Good Article in 2016. I have looked at the criteria for featured article and humbly believe it meets them. I am sure, however, that it can be improved and look forward to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Ping me if I haven't started by Thursday. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the action off Groix; will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I am away this weekend and may not be able to attend to this promptly but will as soon as I return. Thanks for taking the trouble to review.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

Lead

  • "HMS Aigle was a 36-gun, fifth-rate frigate of the Royal Navy." 'British' needs to be in there somewhere; there were several navies which were royal.
    Added, although it seems unnecessary as other royal navies aren't called Royal Navy. I wouldn't expect to see Nederlands added to Koninklijke Marine, which by logical extension should be the case. Also, strictly speaking, the Royal Navy isn't British, it belongs to the Crown.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in April 1803 to press recruits." What is your basis for using "press" as a verb?
    It's both a noun and a verb, [[10]] and routinely used as such in sources: "...to deliberately press men" [[11]], "...to press any Englishman" [[12]], "...to press the people" [[13]] --Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "patrolling the English Channel for enemy warships and merchant vessels." "for" seems a bit unclear; at first reading it suggests 'on behalf of'. Possibly state what Aigle was actually doing?
    Done. Changed to "trying to keep the English Channel free of enemy warships and merchant vessels". --Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing the other ashore." into a harbour or wrecking it?
    It usually means to force aground but yeah, I get it sounds ambiguous. Changed to 'forcing the other onto the shore'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aigle fought the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809" → 'Aigle fought at the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809'.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809". Is the precise date known?
    It was a series of actions which occurred between 11–24 April. Added April. --Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the fireships". Usually "the" is only used about something which has already been properly introduced. Also, the current phrasing conveys little or no information to a reader. Consider either deleting or expanding.
    Added a bit more. [[14]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then forcing the surrender of the stranded French ships, Varsovie and Aquilon." It may be me, but that comma looks odd.
    I don't think it's wrong in British English but may be a little old fashioned.--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. On reflection, I'm not sure that is correct usage. --Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads and the Walcheren Campaign: perhaps mention where, geographically, each took place? Maybe mention that one was naval battle and the other a land campaign. Maybe mention who won the former, as you do the latter?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and the other a land campaign" ?
I've used the term amphibious to indicate this was both a land and sea operation (the bombardment of Flushing for example). --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British forces withdrew in September". This only really makes sense if a reader has already been informed that it was an amphibious operation.
    Not sure I agree; one can withdraw from land and naval battles. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. But in this case it refers to a land force.
I think this has been settled by my answer above but let me know if you disagree. --Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That reads "where she was converted to a coal hulk and receiving ship". Ie simultaneously, not sequentially. I admit that the former seems a bit improbable, but I am AGF that it reflects the source.
Ah, I see. She was dual purpose. I've clarified in the main body and altered the lead to agree. --Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before being used as a target for torpedoes". The main article mentions a singular torpedo.
    It didn't when the lead was written. I've rewritten the corresponding article text. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this thus far. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are you still intending to add to this? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have responded to all of my comments I will go through your responses, which may or may not lead to further comments from me. Once we have settled those I will do another read through which again may or may not lead to further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body

  • "Aigle was the first of two Aigle-class frigates". Any chance of an in line explanation of what a frigate is, per MOS:NOFORCELINK? ("as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
    There already is a description in the section, which I've now moved nearer the start. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Battle of Lagos I describe them as "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding, reconnaissance and messaging"; would something similar be possible?
Added. --Ykraps (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
Neat.
I usually footnote this as "A ship's "colours", a national flag or battle ensign, are hauled down from her mast, or "struck", to indicate that the ship has surrendered. (Wilhelm, 1881, p. 148)"
Okay, I've stolen your footnote but used my own reference to save adding more sources. --Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to repeat "prize", but up to you.
Okay, changed. --Ykraps (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were ... After driving the 20-strong convoy ashore". Four plus 15 ≠ 20.
    "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were captured". One was not captured. "The remaining vessels could not be taken off, having been scuttled by their crews, and so were destroyed". --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In accordance with Surveyor of the Navy, Robert Seppings". Why the comma?
    Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only went to sea after as armée en flute or store-ship". I am not entirely sure that I follow this. Also it seems to suggest that armée en flute is the same thing as a store-ship.
    James does not expand on his theory but presumably he is assuming that she was so badly damaged, she was of no further use as a warship. My reasons for including the footnote were that it was quite interesting and also, possibly, stops readers questioning which ship was which. But I’m quite happy to remove it as it’s not entirely necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the footnote, is "after" a typo for 'either'? And link en flûte.
Ah, gotcha. No, after in this case refers to post engagement. I've rewritten to incorporate 'either' so as to reinforce that this was an either/or thing and not that they were one and the same. --Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Does not include shares for property captured during the Walcheren Campaign." What are shares in this context?
    Shares of the prize money for the capture of property during the campaign. Aigle had no direct involvement in these captures but was entitled to a share simply by being part of the campaign. I've tried to clarify this in the footnote but if you think it's too confusing, I can simply remove. --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it for a first pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks pretty good. A few further comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe support

[edit]
You've done what I was hoping for. I would, by the way, consider the NC a book. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back later to add more. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several examples of unnecessary repetition of the year in dates throughout
    Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide how you're going to introduce ships, e.g. for RN vessels you sometimes include HMS and sometime don't, and sometimes include the guns on a ship and sometime don't
    I've added the number of guns and the prefix in the first instance only. The MOS says that the prefix should be used on the first mention but omitted thereafter. Where there is a list it is not necessary repeat the prefix because HMS in that case stand for His Majesty's Ships. It is also (I think) the convention to use the ship type on first mention but this is only written in the MOS in reference to article naming. [[16]] [[17]] Nor is it clear how the ships should be described. I use gun numbers because I consider them the most useful but I'm happy to describe Aigle, for example, as a frigate, a fifth rate or of 36 guns. --Ykraps (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just copy and paste that in as it is. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfe's biography here. The description is similar but worded differently; I'll leave it up to you what sources you choose to use. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add that Aigle only goes to the Mediterranean on 20 November
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that Winfield has Aigle paid off in 1813?
    Yeah, I found it difficult to reconcile that with other sources so left it out. I think it unlikely that she returned home, paid off and was then recommissioned under the same captain and returned to the Med. Possibly a typo for 1815? --Ykraps (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's the correct form. In a nutshell, Clarence is the younger son of a marquess. His older brother, the heir, gets a subsidiary title and in this case was Lord Paget and then Lord Uxbridge. Clarence, and his other lesser siblings, have the honorary title Lord/Lady before their names, but have no title to hand down to their children. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gardiner (Heavy Frigate p. 89) has Aigle's draught forward as 17 ft and aft 19 ft 4 in. Sailing reports were also make on her on 15 August 1815, which describe her as "Generally similar to Apollo, being fast and weatherly, manoeuvrable and a good sea-boat. Recorded 10kts close-hauled in a topgallant gale and had gone faster (10 1/2 kts) in a stronger whole topsail wind; 12kts with the wind a point abaft the beam was best regular performance. Very roomy but no information on how they stowed 6 months' victuals" (tests having been done with 4 months).
    I assume you'd like some of this added but before I do so, can you clarify whether the quoted text is from Gardiner's own mouth or the author of the sailing report? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe that it's a summary of a sailing report written up in Gardiner's own words. You don't have to discuss it all, some might work better in a class article, but at least a mention of her characteristics/speed would be good. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have one eye toward an Aigle-class article but have added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Franchise captured by Aigle is Franchise, but our article paints her capture a little differently which might be worth looking into
    Several of the sources say the fleet was "in company". Being in sight was considered being actively involved because it was believed to effect the behaviour of a chase and it was perfectly normal for the prize money to be shared under these circumstances. Whereas it is possible that the fleet had an agreement to share prizes, (this was sometimes done because some vessels had more opportunities than others) I don’t think it was the case here. In addition to the already mentioned "in company", several captures made in the same month by other members of the fleet, do not appear to have been shared. Erring on the side of caution, I have added "Continuing to patrol in home waters with the Channel Fleet, Aigle shared in the prize money for..." --Ykraps (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first run through complete. Might have more once you've finished with these. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Just a few points I need clarifying before I can proceed. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ykraps: Have replied above, nudge me if I've missed any queries. Re the confusing Winfield dates/numbers, it might be worth asking him on his talk page. I agree that it might be unwise to include them while there's some uncertainty. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have provided the answers I needed and I've added to the article accordingly. I have sent Rif Winfield an email. Hopefully he can shed some light on those figures and I can add those bits too. --Ykraps (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: I have spoken to Rif and he is certain that Aigle paid off in 1813. He isn't sure of when exactly but, in light of the info in the Gazette, thinks it must have been in the latter half of the year. The figure of 990 is also correct. Aigle was not cut down, only her quarter deck and fo'c'sle were removed so would not affect the measurements used to calculate her tonnage. The slight increase in size, he thinks, is due to her sides bulging through settlement. I have added these bits of information to the article. Rif also gave some extra information which because of referencing issues, can't currently be used. If we can find a way to source it correctly, it can be added at a later date but unfortuneatly that can't be done in time for this review. --Ykraps (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Alright. Some final quibbles from me:
  • Link Cochrane's rank in the lede
  • Remove the trailing zero in the depth of hold figures
  • "upper gun deck" - this suggests Aigle had more than one gun deck, which she didn't
  • Gundeck or dun deck? Differs between text and infobox
  • Bow draught doesn't need an inches figure
  • at the stern
  • Remove italics from quotation
  • Link Franchise in main text, and can note as a 40-gun frigate
  • Still some issues with ship descriptions, e.g. Magnificent doesn't get anything, Gertrude gets "12-gun HM hired armed schooner", and Naiad just gets "36-gun"
  • Okay, I've made a few fixes including Magnificent and Naiad, although I would humbly suggest the latter's RN status could be inferred and therefore, the prefix isn't necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you sometimes drop the "HMS" when listing RN ships?
  • The guidelines say that the prefix should be used on the first use only and omitted thereafter. However, "The prefix need not be given if it is obvious from context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS")". In addition, an HMS at the front of a list could stand for His Majesty's ships (plural). I also try to avoid using HMS when the vessel in question isn't a fully-rigged-ship as that would technically be incorrect usage. I do, of course, make mistakes so if I've missed anything else, please let me know. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capturing one gun boat" one non-hyphened gun-boat has slipped through
  • Main text doesn't have anything for 1806, suggest adding the detention of Jonge Brouwer
  • I'm not sure what I could write other than she was detained. It appears that Aigle's crew got some prize money so perhaps some contraband was confiscated but this isn't obvious from the source. --Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the 28 June"
  • "74-gun HMS Pembroke and the 44-gun Alcmene,"
  • You use both Ville de Varsovie and Varsovie, better to stick to one or the other
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good to me. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why you treat Clarke (1809) as an 1809 publication, with the fact that it's a reprint noted in the edition field, but for Clowes give the reprint date as the publication date, and use orig-year to indicate that it's a reprint? There are a couple of other examples of one or other of these approaches in the list of references. Is there any reason not to make these consistent?
    No. Just a bit of sloppy copy and paste rather than writing them out again. Done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing publisher location for Demerliac (2004).
    Done. Added Nice, France. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the publisher locations that are not widely known (i.e. London & Oxford are well-known but Barnsley is not) suggest giving the country as part of the location field.
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry (2004) and Henderson(2011) are out of alphabetical order.
    Good spot, done. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you comment on the use of the older sources? I'm aware that naval history does sometimes use older material, but can you confirm the reliability (in the eyes of modern naval historians) of Clarke, Clowes, James, Marshall, Morgan, and O'Byrne?
    They are, per Wikipedia, reliable secondary and tertiary sources, and are routinely commented on by more modern historians such as Lambert, Hore and Gardiner. And, I believe, Lambert wrote the forward to many of the reprints. In addition, they are used to support facts only, not to bolster an opinion or a point of view. Fairly sure they are standard reference for articles on this subject, including some featured ones. --Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes and replies all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi although I know the interests of the three MilHist reviewers are pretty diverse, I'd feel more comfortable if someone outside the MilHist fraternity could give this the once-over to help ensure accessibility to the wider audience. Mike or Tim, would either of you have a bit of time for this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't get to it for at least three or four days, so I'll defer to Tim if he's available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although I write in the MilHist community, you are the only editor here that I know. I have the standard American ignorance of European history; I do not recognize a single one of the campaigns noted. My knowledge of sailing vessels is pretty much limited to info gained from the Hornblower novels. So, do I satisfy your want ad for a "naive" volunteer reviewer?Georgejdorner (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George, pls go for it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT from Georgejdorner

[edit]

At times, I may comment on an item not realizing it is acceptable British usage. A reply of "British English" will suffice for me to strike the comment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and armament

No infelicities found.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service

Para 3 - What type of ships were Charente and Joie?
Charente was a fully-rigged-ship and joie, a brig. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean, were they warxhips or merchant ships? --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are obviously warships. Additions appreciated.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action off Groix

Para 2 - Mentioning the French frigates' names will enhance the readability of the para. The reader also needs the nationality or identity of the grounding frigate to clarify the action.
The names, Italienne and Sirene, and nationality are given in the opening sentence. Was that missed or do you want them repeated somewhere? The identity of the grounded frigate isn't known and this is explained in a footnote but I could weave that into the text if necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The names are indeed mentioned in the opening sentence of para 1. However, I find para 2 vague and ambiguous.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Basque Roads

Para 2, 2nd sentence - It is my understanding that a ship would be anchored on springs to allow it a greater field of fire. Did that advantage come into play in this battle? Is that why the British ships anchored in a crescent?Georgejdorner (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that the French ships grounded side on, hence the need for springs. Without them, the tide would have held the British ships bow on to their targets, unable to present their broadside. Unfortunately the sources go into such detail and the precise reason isn't given. --Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. See what you think. --Ykraps (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not in sources, then that's the end of it.
However, common sense dictates the ability to shift the direction of gunnery fire as an obvious advantage.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walcheren Campaign

Para 2, 4th sentence - Something's missing here. What is the significance of the 5,700 French troops?Georgejdorner (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was under French control. Now added. --Ykraps (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, reinforcements. I see now.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice Wikipedia's Napoleonic wars article lists Nederlands as a British ally, which may have been true of the government in exile but not the Dutch people, who, in the main, were on the side of the French. --Ykraps (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which facts were previously known to me, ignorant Yankee that I am.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - Is the Phoenix a privateer then? Or is she a seaborne mercenary?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a mercenary is paid irrespective whereas a privateer takes a share of the spoils if there are any. Is she described as a mercenary? --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upon re-reading, I came upon mention of the letter of marque, which means she was a privateer. Comment struck.

Mediterranean Service

First para - Are the types known for the scuttled ships?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Again, sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war and fate
Postwar fate?

The hyphen is an Engvar thing. I like the post-war fate suggestion but the style seems to be to have a section about the ship's fate. I've changed to post-war service and ... --Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Engvar is obviously correct here. However, it's the 'and' that I was questioning as superfluous. Your change makes this moot.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1, sentences 3 & 4 - Is there any connection behind this shipyard renovation and the frigate's earlier battle damage in the same location?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's more likely to be wear and tear caused by the length of time at sea but sources don't say. --Ykraps (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no source, no fact(s).Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last para - How can a sunken ship be sold off and scrapped?Georgejdorner (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She would have been recovered first. I believe the waters to have been shallow enough to make this worthwhile. Added as much as I can without straying into OR territory. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, she had to be salvaged. I just thought that might be more info lurking in your sources.Georgejdorner (talk)

Prizes

Is it possible to differentiate between full or partial prizes?
Table is very nicely done.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because sources aren't always terribly clear on that point, there is a danger of accidentally entering into OR. --Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can only go as far as your sources take you.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Para 2, sentence 2 - Should more accurately read, "...Aigle went on to help force the surrender of the stranded ships-of-the-line..." if the description in the main text is to be believed.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: A very informative article, one containing a great depth of fact without becoming overwhelming. I found little to comment upon, and to even pick those nits I really had to chase the dog.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgejdorner: Thanks for doing this. I have answered your queries but there are a couple of points you may want to discuss further. --Ykraps (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was quite satisfied by your answers. I'm voting Support.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [19].

Galton Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As my long-suffering wife would say, "it's a bridge". It is, indeed, a bridge. Not an ancient bridge like my previous bridge FA but still nearly 200 years old. An elegant single span in cast iron (then still a novel material) and built by one of the most famous engineers of the 19th century. Both the road it carries and the canal it crosses are vestiges of a transport network that was once Britain's lifeblood.

Until recently, this article was a stub, containing just six sentences (one of them about a different bridge!). It's still not a long article (just under 1500 words), but I think the bibliography shows that I've searched far and wide for information. As always, I'm eager to hear any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Putting this here as a placeholder as I will definitely review this one. I know this bridge pretty well as I live not a million miles away...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link (even if only to wiktionary) for "abutments"? Not convinced this is a word that every reader would necessarily know
  • "the nearby Horseley Ironworks, which includes X-shaped bracing" - presume it isn't the Ironworks that includes this bracing?
  • "The structure was named for Samuel Tertius Galton" - in UK English the more common expression is "named after" rather than "named for"
  • "The bridge is single span" => "The bridge is a single span"....?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of a fresh pair of eyes, and a local at that! All addressed I believe. Thank you very much for having a look, Chris. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • For the drawing of the Galton Bridge (File:Galton Bridge Smethwick Drawing.JPG), please include a PD-US-expired tag to show the image is public domain in the United States.
  • Please include an alt description for the last image. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Thank you, Szmenderowiecki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Almost in my back yard.

  • The lead seems long in proportion to the main article; 313 words to 1,127 or 28%.
    • I always struggle with the lead! Trimmed by 50-odd words.
  • Link abutment.
    • Seems to be a consensus. Done.
  • Excellent use of "spandrel". :-)
    • It is the proper term, but not one we get to use very often!
  • "it was repainted from its original black into a colour scheme that enhanced its features." "enhanced" seems a little nebulous to state as a Wikipedia fact.
    • Fair point. Qualified.
  • "By the 1820s, traffic had grown enormously". Is this quantifiable?
    • It certainly can; there are plenty of stats in the canal history books (the BCN kept good records which are preserved for posterity thanks to post-WWII nationalisation), but it seems a little tangential to the bridge.
It doesn't seem tangential to me; it's the base reason for the bridge's existence. If it is that off the point, why is it currently mentioned?
It just seemed a step too remote to me. The bridge exists because the cutting exists, the cutting exists to carry the canal, and it's the canal that experienced the increase in traffic, which ideally should be covered in the article on the canal (the two main lines should probably have separate article and Smethwick Cutting might be worthy of its own). But I can track down some stats.
Ok, I now see where you are coming from, but I disagree. The reason why the bridge was necessary at all seems crucial to me. If you could add a stat based couple of sentences, that would be good.
  • "The structure was named for". Can a valley be a "structure"?
    • I don't see why a man-made one can't, but it was intended to refer to the bridge. "Galton Valley" is a modern name and I suspect taken from the bridge
  • "replaced with more traditional masonry bridges". More traditional than what? This is the first mention of bridges.
    • Removed "more".
  • Link tension and compression.
    • Done.
  • "All the iron work was cast by". I think that should be 'ironwork'.
    • Wasn't sure about this. Done.
  • "a partial infill of the cutting built for". Can an infill be "built"?
Perhaps something like 'and a now partially infilled cutting originally built for a ...'?
I reworded it slightly. See what you think.
Looks fine.

And that trivia is all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the stats bit left from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I'm having more trouble with this than I anticipated. There are a lot of stats in the books but mostly about shareholder dividends and amalgamations of various canal companies rather than traffic volumes. They talk at some length about the queues that formed at the locks but there's no statistic for how much traffic had grown, even less so on this one canal as the owning company was constantly building and acquiring new bits of canal. It turns out, though, that the immediate impetus for the development was the imminent threat of railway competition, which I've added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

A pleasing article. A few minor drafting points:

  • "The metalwork … includes X-shaped bracing in the spandrels and decorative lamp posts" – ambiguous: is the bracing in both the spandrels and the posts or do you mean the metalwork includes decorative lamp posts and X-shaped bracing in the spandrels?
  • The OED hyphenates "lamp-post".
  • "the ground conditions were not suitable so the canal was carried over the hill by a flight of locks" – I take the traditional view that in formal English "so" is not used as a conjunction. See the current (2015) edition of Fowler, p. 757. Either an "and", "and so" or simply a semicolon would be preferable here.
  • "Telford felt a lighter structure was necessary" – do engineers go by such subjective things as feelings? Something a bit less airy-fairy such as thought or considered might be kinder to Telford.
  • "strong under compression, so, in bridge construction, tended to be used" – another dubious "so".
  • "Instead of constructing a new bridge, the canal cutting was partially infilled" − two things here: first, it's a clunky dangling modifier − grammatically the present text says that the canal did not construct a new bridge, which is hardly surprising. You need something on the lines of "Instead of the construction of a new bridge". Secondly, "partially" when you mean "partly" seems woolly and would be better in the concise form. (And would it be too much to suggest that "infilled" might be a plain "filled in" (though I shall not upstand and outflounce if you disagree)?)
  • "was repainted in colour to enhance its features" – might be good to say what the colours are. One can't be entirely sure from the photos, and this info should probably be in the text in any case.

That's my lot. Nothing to frighten the horses (if, that is, horses are allowed over the bridge nowadays). – Tim riley talk 14:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I pride myself on writing to a high standard but I learn something new about the English language every time every time you review one of my FACs! Though I'm surprised to see you popping up in the Black Country! Fear not, my likely next FAC is inside the M25! ;) I think I've addressed all but the last of your comments. Would you believe that none of the sources deem it important to mention what colour the bridge was painted? It looks largely black to me, but with redish-brown highlights, but that's veering dangerously close to original research. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How nice! Thank you, Harry. (My mother taught English and some of it rubbed off on me.) I am perfectly prepared to venture outside the M25 – armed with a stout stick, of course – but I look forward to your next FAC nearer home. As to this one, it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria: comprehensive, as far as I can see, well and widely sourced, nicely illustrated and an excellent read. Keep 'em coming, I say. – Tim riley talk 12:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Thanks for enhancing this article on a bridge that is both pretty and handsome. I only have a few questions and suggestions...

  • By the 1820s, traffic had grown enormously and the narrowness of the canal caused congestion. - this threw me as I assumed it was referring to road traffic. Could be reworded? Eg By the 1820s, traffic on the canal had grown enormously and its narrow width caused congestion.
    • Reworded.
  • fights often broke out among boat crews - do refs say whether physical or quarrels?
    • Yes, physical.
  • a railway bridge was built from one of the abutments - not being familiar with engineering, I don't quite understand this. Was Telford's abutment large and strong enough to anchor another bridge?
    • As far as I can tell, the railway company hacked or blasted out the rock on the other side of the abutment and built their own bridge from there.
  • until it was bypassed by a new road - and bridge?
    • No. This is elaborated on in the body.
  • designed a new, straighter, route - not sure second comma needed?
  • deck plate - wlink Deck (bridge)
    • I think most people understand what a deck is.
  • added a decorative parapet - link parapet again? (beyond lede)

Consistencies

  • tense: - "Telford wrote in his memoirs", "Telford wrote that the" v "In his memoirs, published posthumously, Telford describes", "He explains"
  • compass: north-eastern Scotland v north east Wales

Refs

Possible categories

  • Category:Deck arch bridges or its subcat Category:Open-spandrel deck arch bridges
  • Category:Cast-iron arch bridges in England
  • Category:1829 establishments in England
  • Category:Pedestrian bridges in England
    • Added those that are defining and not already covered.

Clarification?

  • Maybe add something to Samuel Tertius Galton - his father's article Samuel Galton Jr. (Samuel "John" Galton) says the bridge was named in his honour.
    • I removed the (unsourced) claim from the father's article.

That's all from me. JennyOz (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JennyOz, a few replies above but otherwise all addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Brown or Browne?
  • Be consistent in how you format edition statements
  • Ranges should use endashes, including in titles
  • The Proceedings refs include ISSN in one but not the other - why?
  • David & Charles appears to focus on crafting titles - what makes Broadbridge a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be the focus of D&C these days (according to the relatively recent rewrite of its article by one of its employees) but in the 70s and 80s it was a well-regarded publisher on transport topics, mostly canal and railway history. Everything else addressed I believe. Thanks, Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2022 [20].

Eunice Newton Foote

[edit]
Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first known scientist to link warming CO2 with climate change. She was also one of the signers of the Declaration of Sentiments at the first conference ever held (1848) to solely focus on women's rights. Her story was lost until uncovered by women academics who initiated women's studies programs and then ignored again until a retired geologist rediscovered her scientific contributions in 2011 in the digital age. Much controversy surrounded substantiating her contributions to science because scientific historians believed that John Tyndall had been the first to note the phenomena of global warming. Her 200th birthday in 2019 sparked massive media coverage about her and last week the BBC did a feature podcast about her.

Notes on sourcing: Primary does not equate to bad or unreliable. Because it was impossible to know if the information contained in modern sources was repeating mistakes of other press, I verified in primary records contemporaneous to her life, all details regarding her biography given in sourcing. The links that appear as red highlights (if you have that gadget installed) with one exception meet our criteria for limited use of primary sourcing, i.e. anyone can verify without original research or conclusion that they state simple facts and were created by government entities who were not likely to be promoting or misstating information. The one exception is an article written by Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and posted on Facebook. It meets our criteria (WP:selfpub) for inclusion because she has published elsewhere and is a noted expert on climate. For the science, because it is outside my area of expertise, and because it wasn't well understood in her day, I used modern analysis to confirm her contributions and sought assistance from @XOR'easter and Ipigott: to confirm that it was represented correctly. Further improvements were made through the suggestions of Gog the Mild during the GA review. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • No link for "women's rights campaigners"?
  • linked.
  • "During Newton's tenure". Is "tenure" the best word?
  • changed to attendance.
  • "Girls attending the school could study astronomy, chemistry, geography, and meteorology." Just checking: but not physics?
  • Not physics, but natural philosophy.
  • "Elisha was born in Lee, Massachusetts ..." Is it known when he was born?
  • added his dates
  • "demanded social and legal rights equal to men". Perhaps 'demanded social and legal rights equal to those of men'?
  • done
  • "than the others with exposure to sunlight". Optional: → 'than the others when exposed to sunlight'?
  • done
  • "For reasons that are unclear, Foote did not read her paper to those present[4][72] — women were in principle allowed to speak publicly at the conference —[6][7][Notes 5]". In one case the cites are before the dash, in the other after.
  • Yes, I get that but the bit between the two dashes are explanatory and though they give important information are not digress from the subject of the sentence. I totally get that our MOS says citations after punctuation, but in this case, it would be silly, as none of the information between the two dashes is verified in 4 and 72. IMO, placing the citations after the first dash would indicate that it is part of the digression, which it is not, but I'm happy to follow your direction on it.
I would have expected both sets to be before the dash, in a similar way to cites and parentheses. But I wasn't so concerned as to which way you handled it as with the apparent inconsistency.
I still find it totally bizarre to cite a reference before the text in which it is verifying. I have moved the initial cites to follow the punctuation after unclear, as the citations after the dash verify that she didn't read her own paper. Does that work?
  • "Foote began conducting experiments on static electricity". Is it known when this happened?
  • No clue. She could have been studying it for years. But, since she published it in 1857, I changed it to read "By 1857, she was conducting..."
  • "She was working from an assumption". A hypothesis?
  • done
  • "which were made as similarly as possible." "similarly" → 'similar'?
  • I believe similarly is correct. It's the adverb which is modifying the verb made, not an adjective modifying a noun. My test is always to write it as a comparison, i.e. Similar vessels were similarly made.
  • "Her experimental design repeated pairing". Is there a typo or missing word here?
  • no she used a pair of vessels and then repeated testing them in paired situations sunlight/shadow, etc. I added "for each vessel" to the end. Better?
  • "Rediscovery of Foote also sparked ..." Should this not start with a definite article?
  • done

Bravo! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, mi amigo. I am very appreciative of your constant help and encouragement to improve articles. SusunW (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. Well done on another excellent and much needed article. Just the dash and cite issue left, but no reason for that to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought

Thanks Gog. Good observation. She doesn't say in the US, but her analysis "colonial" and "the South" make it obvious that is what she meant. I've changed per your suggestion, but tweaked it a bit with "published in the United States".

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

Lovely to see this at FAC, I've been looking forward to reviewing this. I'll make some copy-edits as I go, please feel free to revert/discuss any of my changes. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So happy to work with you again. Happy to discuss anything that will improve the article and happy to have you make edits directly. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1856 and 1857, she published the only two scientific papers in the field of physics to be written by an American woman prior to 1889. [...] Her 1857 paper was also notable in that it was the first time an American woman's work had been published in the Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the first known publication in physics by a woman in a scientific journal." There's some redundancy here, and I'm not sure every piece of this is lead material...It's also somewhat confusing; if the 1857 paper was the first known physics paper by a woman, then what was her 1856 paper? Let's look for some way to simplify.
  • Good catch. I've tweaked it. Better?
  • Inconsistency resolved, but it still feels like a tad too much detail for me in the lead. There's three different, rather complex "firsts" there. To me, "It was the first known publication in physics by a woman in a scientific journal" is far and away the most important of those claims. I would drop the sentence about publication in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science from the lead. I'd also suggest some reordering, which I did and then self-reverted to show you what I mean; I think that flows more easily. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I've accepted your version.
  • "died when she was two years old" the "she" is ambiguous, Eunice or the sister?
  • sister. Changed wording to "died at two years old".
  • "Girls attending the seminary received credit for following a regimen, or demerits for infractions" like at most schools, surely?
  • Perhaps it is a common boarding/private school experience? Certainly not part of my schooling experience. If you broke the rules in my day, your parents were called to take you home. Morality was taught at home and no student would ever have been allowed to challenge authority, much less their grades. But I've struck the information.
I am sorry to see it go. I think that it would be interesting scene-setting information for many, possibly most, readers. Please consider reinstating it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to this. If we think of it in terms of women's history, not general history that omitted women, do we really think that since this was one of the handful of institutions that allowed women to even attend, that allowing women/girls to challenge their marks (or anything else) was common? I am leaning to putting it back, but will await Vanamonde's reply. SusunW (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw these replies yesterday, but wanted to think on it for a bit...so forgive the lengthy response. There's things about the circumstances Foote grew up in that likely had an impact on her adult life. Some of those things are likely typical for someone in her position; others, less so. Looking at the stuff that was cut, I can see an argument to restore some of it, but I'm reluctant to suggest restoring it all. The sentence about students being able to challenge their marks is actually quite unusual. But students receiving merits and demerits is what I would have expected of any school modelled even remotely on a British public school, and if it must be in there, I suggest placing it in a footnote. Similarly: I think "modeled the school's curricula on his methodology and wrote textbooks encouraging students to study nature" is worth reinstating, but I'm not sure about the list of subjects taught at the school, unless there's information about which ones Foote herself studied, or the suggestion in any of the sources that the opportunity to study any of the unusual ones influenced her in any way. Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss further. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my harping on women's history, but without putting her life in a woman's sphere, one misses how remarkable it was. The point of context is not general education or general history, it's women's education and history, as historically women's experiences were far different and certainly not documented or studied. As for the subjects taught, if girls were permitted to go to school at all they got a finishing school education. Standard curricula was etiquette, French, poetry, music, needlework, and painting. The fact that real educational courses were even offered to women at Troy is astounding. Okay, I found a source and will modify the text for context.[21] (As for what she actually studied, no clue, but having educational choices in and of itself would have been influential to my mind. I wrote to numerous libraries as well as Perlin trying to find out more specific information about her schooling and life. No one provided any information, but as far as I can tell my research uncovered all the points except how Eunice and Elisha met, that he covered in the recent BBC podcast.)
Perhaps then the issue isn't the detail, but that its significance isn't quite communicated. As someone who doesn't really know the history of women's education, it wasn't obvious at all that this was pathbreaking. Unusual, sure, but I didn't consider it may be unusual even for well-to-do progressive women. It still also begs the question if the material isn't better covered at the article about the seminary...I'll look in once you've revised. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, globally, educational curricula fail to give context and general knowledge about women's experiences. It is both frustrating and exhilarating to write about them because context is often missing and must be unburied. It is hard to identify what information I know from years of study, but others do not know for unintentional gaps in their own education. Obviously, it is why collaboration is beneficial.
This looks good to me now. If you wanted to reinstate the sentence about Phelps modelling teaching methods after Eaton's, that would be fine with me also. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A separate point, since it's somewhat unrelated; why "Willard's pupils"? If the school was run by Phelps, shouldn't it be Phelps' students, or the Seminary's students?
  • It's gone with the modification.
  • Similarly, it strikes me that there's a lot of material in that section about the schools, that aren't directly tied to Newton herself. Some of it is likely worth keeping as illuminating context, but you could afford to trim, I think.
  • I've taken a stab at it. If you want to make other changes please feel free, or explain to me in more detail.
  • See comment above.
  • "father of Elizabeth Cady Stanton" that's a pretty distant connection to mention, it's the daughter of the teacher of the husband of the article subject...suggest stopping at the judge, and putting the connection to Stanton in a footnote when the latter is mentioned in her own right.
  • Hmmm. From a US women's history standpoint, Stanton is a major figure. While her father may be notable in his own right, he is primarily known now for being Stanton's father. Omitting their relationship to explain who he was makes him just a judge, who happened to train Elisha. I'm happy to discuss, but removing it to me alters critical context for the article.
  • So, I think I agree with you on the principle. Which is why, to me, it sounds odd the way she's introduced; as if someone were name-dropping. Stanton is important; but as far as I can see, the connection to Elisha is incidental. Which is why I'd suggested leaving her out of the introduction to Elisha...but I see it doesn't work with the information about Stanton house. I've adjusted to fix the run-on sentence, take a look. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Eunice and Elizabeth met during schooling, whether as actual classmates or because Eunice attended with Elizabeth's siblings. Had any definitive information linked the two during schooling, and I would introduced Elizabeth earlier. But, lacking documentation of an earlier relationship, I opted to put that information in a note. I can think of no easy way to introduce the relationship. The entwining of these families is pretty clear from the records, but not specifically stated anywhere, so we are limited in what we can and cannot say. Your version is fine.
  • Similarly; paragraph about Elisha is on the longer side for a person with a standalone article. His land purchases could be trimmed, I think.
  • Similarly, the Stanton House, is part of the Women's Rights National Historical Park, thus his involvement in its acquisition is significant, but it seems abrupt to just say he bought it without context that he was speculating in land. IMO, removing the discussion about the property removes an important part of women's history and its context. See below.
  • I think what you have in this version is fine, and adding that Foote was a speculator is okay; it was the detail about when he was a speculator, and also the multiple purchases and sales, that were bothering me.
  • I wonder if the second paragraph of Marriage and family life would do better as the last?
  • I tried this, but don't like the flow so I've reorganized the entire section. Better?
Much better, thank you!
  • "Foote's paper, Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays" has not been previously mentioned. I'd suggest something like "Foote described her findings in a paper, Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun's Rays, that she submitted to..."
  • done
  • "published Foote's complete paper under her name" upon re-reading, I wonder if we're able to say what this name was? It seems obvious to you and me, I suppose, but I see later the reference to "Mrs. Elisa Foote", and I suppose at the time this would have been considered "her name" as well...
  • I'm confused? The photograph of the publishing in the article shows her name Eunice Foote, but then again, perhaps not everyone can see the photo. (And you are correct, as a married woman, using her own given name would have been highly unusual.) I've modified it and linked given name.
  • "claimed that her findings had been "never heretofore proven"" perhaps it's just my inability to understand 19th century phraseology, but is this criticism (her findings are doubtful and unproven) or praise (her results prove something previously unknown)?
  • Praise. Tweaked.
  • "A skate that she invented" do we know if roller skates or ice skates?
  • No idea. If, as seems likely, it was the one Elisha patented, it was an ice skate.
  • "A skate that she invented, which did not have straps, was reported in The Emporia News in 1868.[93] Elisha filed a patent on a skate attached to the boot with screws in 1864.[94]" So, both of these are cited to primary sources. In and of itself, that's okay, but in combination they do imply Elisha filed a patent on a skate invented by Eunice, and I'm not sure the use of primary sources to do that is okay...I would suggest omitting the patent, and just leaving the sentence cited to Emporia. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused. I already explained that it was typical for him and other husbands to patent her/their wife's inventions, because legally she had no separate identity. If he did patent her invention, it would have been perfectly normal (and certainly not scandalous in any way), but I did not draw that conclusion (no OR), merely stated facts as given in the sources. (For the record, I did a thorough search of patent records and there is nothing that indicates any other patent for a skate filed by either of them.) How is the Emporia News written by a "Washington correspondent of the Missouri Democrat" primary? It isn't an interview and is independent of Foote.
  • Perhaps I phrased it badly...The sentence cited to Emporia is fine. It's about Eunice, it's a secondary source, etc. The sentence cited to the patent is, in isolation, fine, and is supported by its source. But given the earlier context, its inclusion and placement does imply to the reader that the patent was for Eunice's invention. Which seems probable, but I don't think we can imply it. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that I am implying anything. I am stating two facts without analyzing the statements in any way. It could be that they are the same skate, or it could be that they are not. IMO, you are drawing a conclusion based on those two facts. (Obviously I cannot document in independent sources that there is no other filing on a skate by either Foote, nor that I researched patents. There is no source analyzing the fact as they are known, so I don't think we can go beyond stating them, but it is a question that perhaps future researchers can unravel.) It can be moved to a note, if you think that is necessary.
  • moved to a note
  • She was a woman, of course she fell into obscurity. But for a handful of women, they all did until women's studies programs emerged around 1970. But your point is taken. I'll revisit when I revisit the following bullet point.
  • done
  • This comment is going to make some work for you, apologies...In reading the last three section as presently written, I'm struck by the following: first, that "legacy" information, if you will, is spread over three sections; second, that the information in rediscovery is ordered chronologically rather than thematically; and third, there's considerable WP:PROSELINE. I would suggest combining sections, into something like "death, rediscovery, and legacy"; after mentioning her death, say she fell into obscurity, and include the reasons why; then cover the background to rediscovery; and only then any analysis of the science, ordered thematically. I'm seeing a few broad threads there that could be used for sub-sections or paragraphs. 1) Analysis/critique of her experiments. 2) Her role as a pioneering woman scientist. 3) Her role in discovering aspects of the greenhouse effect before anyone else. 4) debates over whether Tyndall knew of her work. Hope this makes sense. I would offer to dig in myself were it not that I'd need to consult the sources, and I don't have the time or capacity for that at the moment. Happy to discuss anything though. I'll return to comb the prose after we've dealt with this. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to give this some thought.
  • I've given it a go. Better?
  • Structurally far better, IMO. You could merge death as a subsection into Marriage and Family Life, to avoid a single-sentence section: or alternatively title the next one "death and rediscovery", and place the death and first paragraph about obscurity at the top...but those are just stylistic preferences, and suggestions only. I've made and self-reverted some edits to show an example of how it could be done. The proseline and topical back-and-forth is fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like moving her death before the discussion of her work and don't really like it in the recovery section either, so I've left it as it is, but made it 2 sentences.
  • "Writer Ermina Leonard described Eunice..." If I understand the footnote correctly, Ermina Leonard is Eunice's sister. Not exactly an independent source...it's okay for the painting anecdote, I think, but the relationship needs mentioning.
  • Leonard is not Eunice's sister (see below). Eunice's sibling were Amanda, Cynthia, Morris, Seymour, Amanda II, Althea, Darius, Silas, Mary, Adeline, (Eunice), and John.
  • See next response.
  • I find footnote 5 dreadfully confusing. "In 1846, Elisha acquired property in Seneca Falls from a woman with the same name as his mother-in-law, Thirza Newton.[4][35] Thirza Newton also sold land in Seneca Falls in 1843 to Charles D. Williams.[44] According to Ermina Leonard, Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea had married a doctor Williams in Seneca Falls." Ermina is the daughter of a different Thirza, no? Who is Charles D. Williams, and why do we care about land transactions between him and someone who shares Foote's mother's name? Who's Althea? Are we implying she married Charles D. Williams, and if so should we do so based on primary sources? I wonder if the entire thing ought to be avoided...
  • I'm not sure how you are making this connection between Ermina Leonard and Eunice Newton. They were extremely distant cousins and it seems highly doubtful that they would have ever even met, since Leonard says she knows nothing of that line of the family beyond what she found doing research on Eunice's grandfather, Isaac Newton Sr.(p 717) Leonard was born in 1846 and grew up in Wisconsin. (p 381) She was possibly a 4th cousin of Eunice?, which to my mind isn't primary. Thirza is a pretty obscure name and the fact that there are records listing a Thirza, much less a Thirza Newton in Seneca Falls seems significant to me. I've tweaked the note and will remove it if you think I must.
  • It was the commas in the footnote..."According to Leonard, Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea..." even in the new version, it's possible to read that as Leonard being Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister. So that's no longer an issue. As to the rest of it, though, I really think it's tangential. It's interesting, but Eunice is playing no part it in. Perhaps move it to Elisha's article? It concerns his land speculation, it's fair game there. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it to read "Thirza's daughter and Eunice's sister, Althea, married a doctor Williams and they lived in Seneca Falls, according to Leonard." Better? (As for leaving it in, writing about women is not straight forward. One cannot as a general rule search for her and find much information. How one uncovers her history is to back in by researching her husband, her children, her siblings and the various associations with which she might have been involved. Thus, to my eye and experience, knowing that her family was likely also in Seneca Falls opens avenues of discovery. If it is my preference, I'd leave it in, in hopes that it is helpful to someone in recovering more of her life story.)
  • Looking through the sources, the familysearch sources appear to only be used for details of land transactions, so I wonder if they're needed? Omitting some dates or names there isn't a big deal, IMO.
  • No, they appear also for census records to confirm where they lived, death records to confirm where she died, and for the passport, which gives the only physical description we have for her. I also don't know how we can omit the sources to show he was speculating in land, without losing context for the purchase/sale of Stanton's house. But, regardless, they all meet our guidelines for limited use of primary for simple facts (not notability) and as I pointed out, they are not likely to be unreliable.
  • Well, let's see what the source review has to say. I suspect it's likely to be the only sticking point, but I don't want you to have to remove information you believe is crucial. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comment above on women's research. The land records don't just identify that Elisha sold property. The jointly are mentioned in some deeds, which in context show that that whole "one flesh" idea was changing.
  • Thanks for that comment, it's a wee light at the end of a tunnel. Article review isn't always a pretty process, but in the end, I think the results are usually improvement. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Women scholars began recovering Foote's role as a nineteenth-century scientist." the "began" is odd without a timeframe, which is supplied in the previous sub-section. I'd suggest appending "in the 1970s" or equivalent.
  • done
  • "in other words visible and invisible radiation." Minor quibble; the sun also emits infrared (and UV, and a lot of other invisible radiation). I think this is trying to say that the sun's radiation and the earth's radiation have differing compositions, important for climate change, but that Foote's apparatus couldn't distinguish them; but the addendum is confusing me, at least. I think you could omit it, and simply stop at "effects of energy emitted from the sun and infrared energy radiated by the Earth".
  • done.

That's it from me. There's two minor prose issues in the restructured section for you to look at, and a suggestion about the restructuring, but this are almost trivial. This is incredible work on a topic that can't have been easy to research. Support. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review and help in improving the article. I cannot even begin to say how hard working on it was. I am still frustrated that we have no sense of who she actually was, but perhaps some day one of the people who claim to be "writing a book about her" will publish and we can learn about her and not just her scientific work. SusunW (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Planning to review the rest of the article soon. Just found one thing that doesn't seem quite right: the Jahresbericht (1856) links to the German Mathematical Society which was founded in 1890, and so did not publish a journal in 1856. Could this be a different Jahresbericht (annual report)? (Happy to help hunting for German sources or even the original if you can give me a little further context). —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I will admit I do not have any idea and to be honest, those links were there when I began working on the article and I apparently missed that. Jackson says, "the summaries on heat were made by either Friedrich Zamminer or Hermann Kopp" and the footnote (27) says the full title was "Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der reinen, pharmaceutischen und technischen Chemie, Physik, Mineralogie und Geologie" (pp 112-113) No en.wp article on de:Friedrich Zamminer, a physicist, and our piece on Hermann Franz Moritz Kopp, a chemist, merely says he edited Jahresbericht. I've removed the link and added the longer title. SusunW (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is correct and now the original text is reasonably easy to find thanks to the full title. Here it is on p. 63 of this 1856 Jahresbericht (edited by Justus von Liebig and Hermann Kopp). This page verifies that the chapter in question was written by Zamminer and Kopp. Don't worry about not noticing this wrong link -- it was just easy for me to see because I both read German and am a member of the German Mathematical Society :) I will try to read more of this interesting article later and comment on what I find. —Kusma (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your correction. As I said above, the science is the hard part for me, so I will appreciate any guidance and/or corrections. Women's history I know, physics, not so much, so I relied heavily on those who have a better grasp on it than I do. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments. Nothing major, on the whole this is an excellent article.

  • Lead: "marrying a patent attorney in 1841": in the body, it seems he only became a patent attorney later. Is the omission of Elisha's name deliberate?
  • Changed it to attorney. Yes, I always leave out names of other notables from the lede unless absolutely necessary (you'll note only Tyndall is mentioned here and only because of the controversy). It is deliberate omission to avoid inherited notability and reinforce that she is notable in her own right. It can be added if you think it necessary.
  • No, that's fine. He doesn't seem particularly relevant to her notability other than perhaps as funder for her experiments.
  • (wink) He may have controlled the money legally, but she earned it. It was her invention of that stove and it's patent infringement lawsuit that earned them "a small fortune" according to Hecht, just saying.
  • I misread the timeline... for some reason I thought the inventions came after the science, possibly because they are ordered that way in the article. In any case, all we need to know is probably that he contributed to her being in a rather privileged position.
  • "her contributions were lost": weren't they forgotten more than lost?
  • "Forgotten", to me, implies that it was somewhat unintentional, i.e. something slipped from memory because the people who knew about it died. With regard to women's history their lives were more truly deliberately omitted, ignored, not studied,[22],[23],[24], etc. primarily because they were not seen as public figures. Pick a field, any at all and sources will exist to show that erasure, but they will also show that social norms, not evil intent drove that situation. Thus, the most neutral word, IMO would be lost. Happy to discuss.
  • I'm not fully convinced that her work was specifically targeted by erasure (none of your examples seems related to her) and more lost/forgotten than that of male American amateur scientists would have been, but we can't test this experimentally. "Lost" would imply to me that the work became mostly inaccessible, but that doesn't seem to be the case as it was published/mentioned in several high quality journals that were present in any good scientific library.
  • I didn't cite sources specifically related to her because they are cited in the article. The sources above were used to illustrate how widespread the problem for women was in every field. Brockell says specifically in her article on Foote, "… the scientific community also has a long history of not crediting the work of women". Brazil says "Eunice Foote, who seems to have suffered the fate of being ignored by her contemporaries". Darby says, "Katharine Hayhoe found Foote's contribution after a colleague asked why there were no women in the history of the discipline". Garrett says "Foote's work clearly preceded Tyndall's, but her contribution to climate science is buried in obscurity"…and illustrative of "…barriers experienced by women at the top of scientific and medical achievement". McNeill "Eunice Foote's career highlights the subtle forms of discrimination that have kept women on the sidelines of science". Plenty more, but thread is obvious. I'm happy to use obscured, to avoid the point you make on "lost", (and have changed the text to that) but the sources clearly indicate lack of knowledge about her/her work had to do with her gender and the way society viewed contributions of women.
  • Fine.
  • Marriage and family life: "just under five feet two inches tall" can you translate that also to metric?
  • I've given a template a go, admittedly I am terrible with them. Is it right or should I take out the words and just leave the numbers?
  • Probably best to go all words or all numbers + abbreviations in both systems instead of the duplication you have right now.
  • Okay, just used the template.
  • Scientific career: say that the Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte... is German, and use {{lang|de|Jahresberichte...}} so screenreaders know what language they need to speak.
  • Again, I am not very technical, so I have tried to do this, but if I didn't do it correctly, please feel free to change it.
  • I think it is ok, although to clarify what the "two European" journals are a few sentences later, you could mention that this one was one of the European ones. For example, you could turn the 1856 into "Giessen, 1856". (Although more precisely it is the annual report for the year 1856, published in 1857, as the title page states).
  • Okay, I think I have fixed it. Included 1856 in the title and the (Giessen, 1857)
  • Good.
  • Gog the Mild will be shocked, but I think I managed to input this correctly. I routinely have trouble with this specific template, but think I did it this time.
  • Didn't check the wikitext, but looks fine.
  • Rediscovery/Background: was Foote forgotten more than the other early feminists? Is her being a scientist a reason to overlook her as a feminist? Or am I misunderstanding this section?
  • Background: The point is virtually none of the early feminists or any other pioneering women in any field were remembered or studied until women's studies programs were founded. Many liberationists papers that I have read said they were convinced that they were the first women to protest their lack of rights, as they knew nothing about the prior feminist movement. They might have vaguely known of Susan B. Anthony or Emmaline Pankhurst, but not that there was an international movement of women pressing for rights. In the 1970s, activist scholars began recovering historic women, not just in their own limited historical spheres, but within the shared history of society. They started with visible women, i.e. those depicted in museum paintings and manuscripts, and activists involved in the suffrage movement, before moving on to study women more generally.[25]
  • Specifically regarding Foote, information on her is extremely hard to come by. No photos, very few personal records, particularly digitized ones. It probably would take someone on the ground in the places she lived, to actually uncover her story, if the records exist. Newspapers, feminist journals, school records, etc. are the likely places to find out about her life, and those who have written about her thus far have not been able to uncover those. (Anecdotally my answer to the first part is yes. I was a women's studies major, and never heard of her, probably because no one was able to find details of her life, until Women in Red chose climate for an year-long initiative.) As for your second question, she obviously rejected the notion that she was confined to a private role in the home and was subsumed into the identity of her husband. In other words, had she not been a feminist, she would likely not have been a scientist. Is there a way I could make this clearer?
  • I think what gives me pause is that you're starting with the 1902 Suzan B. Anthony speech that specifically mentions Foote among others, and immediately after, you single out Foote as falling into obscurity, which seems to imply that the other feminists did not fall into obscurity. You then explain why her scientific contributions were overlooked for a long time. My (perhaps incorrect) impression is that Anthony was interested in Foote as an advocate for women's rights, not as a scientist, so that aspect of her life was already obscure even in 1902. Modern interest in her seems to be very much focused on her discovery of the greenhouse properties of carbon dioxide, and this rightly takes up the majority of the article. (Her non-climate related research and inventions seem to be of very little interest also today. For instance, she isn't mentioned in any of the paper-making books I can access).
  • Okay, my bad. I assumed that the plight of women's obscurity was "general knowledge", but clearly from this FA review, that isn't as well known as I had thought. Vanamonde said that I had omitted saying she fell into obscurity before addressing the why, so I added "but Foote fell into obscurity", which is now causing concern. I've moved the first sentence in "Background" to the next paragraph, added a summary of the above cites on Foote/women scientists and added a source which confirms neglect of scholars for women's history and lack of publishing about the first feminists until the mid-1970s. Is that better/clearer?
  • Much better.
  • Generally, I would actually say we seem to know a reasonable amount about her life; as a 19th century upper class woman she appears to be fairly well documented (I've written about an 18th century inventor and I don't even know when he lived...)
  • Methinks Irving's issue probably has more to do with the fact that his name is fairly common and easily misspelled than a reflection of gender or scientific bias. (Having written about tons of activists, I can only say that what we know about her is appallingly little. I get that scientists are interested in her scientific contributions, but I am far more interested in her social works, and there is surprisingly little known about that considering where she lived. Had she lived in a rural area, on the frontier, or been a woman of color, the lack of info would not be surprising, but for her class, education, and connections, it is very, very sparse.)
  • I see.
  • Yes, but I think it is better placed in recovery, because it was a process. Modern scientists had to verify that she did indeed draw the conclusion about climate before it became her actual legacy for which she could be recognized. I am happy to consider reconfiguring it if you have a suggestion.
  • Don't have a smart suggestion, sorry. So it can probably stay as is.

Thank you so much for reviewing the article. As I said above, to Vanamonde, it is hard for me to know what is general knowledge about women's history and what I know because I have studied it for many decades. Sorry for the lengthy answers. SusunW (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about long replies, I'm guilty of the same :) Just a few more tiny things to do, and perhaps to fully convince me that you don't need to do anything in some other places. Thanks again for the article, which serves as a reminder that we still need to do quite some work on our coverage of women scientists. Maybe I'll get to work on Anna Blackburne some day. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackburn looks interesting, although I admit I have trouble finding UK sources from Mexico, because websites routinely block IP access from here. I think I've addressed your concerns now, but if not, just advise. SusunW (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

[edit]
  • 'Notes 1' - "Amanda, remained at the farm until 1882." - comma unneeded
  • fixed
  • 'Notes 2' starts out by talking about "Elizabeth Cady", but Elizabeth Cady Stanton isn't mentioned in-text until 2 paragraphs after that note is referenced, meaning there's no context for the name by that point in the article
  • To be honest, I am not sure where exactly to introduce Stanton, but it seems likely they encountered each other at the school. I've reworded the first sentence to reflect ties to the school. Is that better?
  • "and wrote text books for the students" - was "textbooks" how it was written at the time? I've never seen it as two words before, and you leave it as textbooks much later in the article.
  • Nope, just a typo. Thanks for catching that
  • "Newton married Elisha Foote Jr., (1809–1883) a lawyer." - I feel like that comma should be after the parenthetical, not before
  • done
  • In Notes 5, you take pains to state that the seller "had the same name" as Elisha's mother-in-law, presumably because you can't prove that it was Newton's mother and you're/the sources are just going off of names and who married who? Except that two sentences later in the note you say that Thirza was the mother of Newton's sister- but I guess you mean the Thirza who was Eunice's mother, not necessarily (though probably) the Thirza who sold the houses, but that's not made clear. I feel like you should be more explicit that the names line up but that it's not proven that there's just the one Thirza, instead of just lining up the statements next to each other- it took me a few times reading the note to get what you were implying even though I knew the relative lack of sourcing you're dealing with here, and having it like "In 1846, Elisha acquired property in Seneca Falls from a Thirza Newton. While it is not certain that this Thirza Newton was the woman of the same name who was Eunice's mother, the seller also sold land in Seneca Falls in 1843 to Charles D. Williams, and Eunice's sister Althea married a doctor Williams and they lived in Seneca Falls, according to Leonard." Or something like that.
  • Good points and yes, that's the issue. I've tweaked it. Is it better?
  • "The couple remained in the county until 1856, when they sold land to Daniel Cady and Henry Stanton." - are you saying that they sold the land the lived on and left in 1856, or are you saying that they still lived the county as least as long as 1856, when they "sold land", and left sometime between 1856 and 1860?
  • The latter. I cannot find any record of them anywhere between 1856 and 1860. I've tweaked it. Better?
  • "On his birthday in 1865" - given that his birthday wasn't mentioned earlier, this seems trivial to specify
  • removed
  • Minor formatting note- in the text, you italicize the "Circumstances" paper and the "Electrical Excitation" paper, though you quote it in the image caption. It seems like it should be quoted throughout? You do quote Elisha's paper instead of italicizing, and the same for other papers, so it's inconsistent.
  • I find the MOS instructions on titles of works very confusing. Obviously these were her major works, but as papers are listed in the guideline as minor works I guess the should be in quotation marks. I've made all of them quotes, or at least I think I did.
  • "But neither of them had recognized" - fragment; "However, neither of them had recognized"
  • fixed
  • "Her failure to name the specific works of the scientists that had influenced her, marked Foote" - comma unneeded
  • deleted
  • "Their printed findings in 2022, contain a description" - comma unneeded
  • deleted
  • "But Jackson also notes"- fragment; "However, Jackson also notes"
  • fixed
PresN Thank you very much for your review. You have noted some of the things that are definitely difficult to address and I have tried to make it clearer. If I have failed to do so, please advise and I will revisit. SusunW (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support. --PresN 20:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • What steps were taken to try to obtain an image of the individual?
  • Hey Nikkimaria, nice to see you here. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, Old Fulton, New York State Historic Newspapers, archive.org, and Hathitrust but found nothing in the usual places I look. There was a photograph in the lede when I started working on it, but I proved that was not her, rather her daughter. Sources, such as Brazil say no definitive photograph or drawing of her has been found. Jacobs says there is no known photograph, as does Schwartz who reports that relatives were contacted in an attempt to find one. I also found a web page posted when the 2018 symposium was held asking for people to try to find one. I also looked for, the original of the Declaration of Sentiments but it is also lost.
  • Sorry, I thought I checked all of these when I added alt text, but I missed that signature. It was published on a patent application in 1860, so have updated the license to show {{PD-1923}}. It's a wee bit confusing to me because it is a federal document, but as it was an application I assume she filled it out and signed it and they merely published it, so I didn't tag it as created by government employee. I hope I did that correctly. SusunW (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
  • "rising CO2 levels [first para] … carbon dioxide (CO2) [second para]" – better to have the fuller form at first mention, I think.
  • Good catch. Thanks and fixed.
  • Childhood and education
  • "amassing wealth and losing money through speculation" – slightly odd phrasing. It's wealth when you amass it but money when you lose it?
  • changed to Amassing wealth and losing it.
  • "the vice principal of the Seminary" – I don't know about AmE, but to an English eye "vice-principal" needs a hyphen, unless it's the principal in charge of vice. And "the Seminary" surely doesn't want capitalising here?
  • I have never seen the term with a hyphen. Googling it, the references turn up with a hyphen in BE. Searching for a grammatical reference, I find none on vice principal, but grammarist.com says "Outside the U.S., vice-president is usually hyphenated in all its uses. In U.S. publications, it usually lacks the hyphen." But, to avoid confusion, I've changed to assistant principal.
  • Scientific career
  • "Foote did not read her paper to those present — women were in principle allowed to speak" – careful with your dashes. The Manual of Style requires either unspaced en-dashes – like this, or unspaced em-dashes—like this.
  • Went with spaced en-dashes, which is what I think you meant.
  • Inventions
  • "vulcanised rubber" – wouldn't "vulcanized" be the usual AmE form?
  • Good catch. Missed that.
  • Recovery
  • "John Perlin, author of two definitive histories on solar energy" – definitive? Who says so?
  • Added Nick Welsh
  • Evaluating Foote's experiments
  • Careful with your inverted commas: "Sun’s rays?; and Can the effect of different gases on the warming response of the Sun’s rays be ranked?" – the MoS requires straight, not curly, inverted commas.
  • Fixed. (Did you know that you can search curly commas or quote marks and the search doesn't differentiate between straight and curly. I did try to do all of these, but it's a manual process and I appreciate your extra eyes finding this.)

I hope these few comments are of use. Tim riley talk 17:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was quick! I was surprised, informed, and delighted by this article, and I take my hat off to Foote (and to SusunW). Very happy to support FA status: in my view it meets all the criteria. Tim riley talk 19:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Stanton (1898) is too early for an ISBN. I assume you used a reprint/facsimile edition? Suggest using the modern date plus the orig-date parameter.
    • Actually, I am positive that I did not put an ISBN number in. I manually format refs and always run ISBNs through a converter so that they are segmented properly. I used the original 1898 version, which has no such number. I've removed the ISBN, but that is not to say that some bot/person won't reinsert it.
      It happens. Just undo the edit. If you see a bot do it, that's an issue; bots ought not to be making edits like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the publisher for Mitchell (2018), but not for any other uses of "cite news"; suggest removing this for consistency.
    • done
  • In FN 27, 107 and 145 you give the domain name instead of the work or publisher. Also "Biographical Sketches of the Commissioners of Patents: Elisha Foote (1868–1869)" has uspto.gov instead of "United States Patent and Trademark Office".
    • I am not sure that I understand the difference between a domain name and a website. Our MOS says "title or domain name of the website" should be given. It seems to me as if you are saying I should not use the domain, but rather the "page name", so I have done that. If that is incorrect, please advise.
      The domain name is whatever you see in the URL -- it usually has a .com, .edu, .org, .gov or something similar at the end. The website is the name of the website -- it's often the same as the publisher, but not always. For example, for the OED, oed.com is the domain name; "Oxford English Dictionary" is the website name, and "Oxford University Press" is the publisher. When people say page name they usually mean the title of a specific page, so for the OED's How to use the OED page, the title or page name is "How to use the OED", but the website is still "Oxford English Dictionary". Does that clarify it? Your changes to 27 and 107 and to the USPTO.gov sources look good. For 145 you've put "Eunice Newton Foote Medal for Earth-Life Science", but since it's all part of the AGU website I would say this should be "American Geophysical Union". This duplicates the publisher, and it's also OK to have a rule that publishers on websites are omitted from the citation if they duplicate or are obvious from the website name (the New York Times is another example). So you could also choose to go through your web citations and remove publishers that are obvious from the website. Either way is fine; in fact any logical rule for how you format them is fine, so long as you're consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, I've changed the website in the last one to the AGU.
  • In FN 105, why is EnergieWinde in lower case?
    • The truthful answer is that is how it copy/pastes. Fixed.
  • You have " New York, New york" for the "Electrical Excitation" source.
    • Fixed

That's it for formatting. Will take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability:

  • I was initially alarmed to read this in the introduction to Leonard (1915): "Following the example of many town historians, I have used my imagination to "suppose" and "perhaps," in several cases", but fortunately she followed this up by making it clear that these suppositions are always presented in brackets to distinguish them from the results of research. Noting it here in case a question comes up about the use of the source.
    • Yes, I noted the same and did a "spot check" of her material on the Newtons/Footes, for example Leonard says "At an early period of his married life Mr. Newton removed from Goshen to East Bloomfield, N.Y." Checking the census records, there is only one Isaac Newton in East Bloomfield, and he first appears in 1820 with 14 family members. She states that Amanda was born in 1800 and died in 1882 and that Eunice died in Lenox, Massachusetts in 1890. Amanda's obituary in the local Ontario Repository and Messenger confirms that she died "Nov. 20th, 1882, aged 82 years, 4 months, 16 days". The obituary from the New York Tribune and death certificate for Eunice confirm she died on September 30, 1888 at Lenox, Massachusetts.
  • I see no issues with the secondary sources. For the primary sources, since I can't see the sources themselves as they're paywalled, can you comment on the following?
    • The 1804-1857 Grantee and Grantor indices are the only sources cited for "Elisha began buying property in Seneca County, New York, in 1836 and was active in selling it from 1840". How were you able to confirm that the references to this Elisha are to Eunice's husband?
      This is a long answer, but it's how I do due diligence on any source. The source is a list of grantors/grantees for property and contains names and land identifiers. No data to identify who the names are. We know our Elisha was in western New York by this time and "moonlighting" as a real estate attorney because at minute 11.00 of the BBC podcast (external links in the article), Perlin says he met Eunice when representing her family in a land dispute case. We have lots of records linking Elisha to Seneca Falls from 1841, and land speculation would not be unusual for someone engaged in real estate law, so the question becomes could it be someone else? Reviewing the entirety of the New York census collections for Elisha/Elijah/Elisah Foote/Foot I found an Elisha in Albany in 1820 and 1830, an Elisha A. and Elisha Jr. in Northampton, Montgomery County in 1820, 1830, 1840, and 1850, an Elisha in Otsego in 1820 and 1830, and an Elisha on the 1840 census in NY City.
      Elisha A. in Northampton had 8 family members in 1820 as did Elisha Jr. and in 1830 father had 5 and Jr. had 9. (They are still in Northampton in 1840 and 1850, when our guy is definitively in Seneca Falls and one of them died there in 1855.) Elisha in Otego had 5 family members in 1820 and 7 in 1830 and died in 1842. The Elisha in NYC in 1840 is confusing, and maybe runs a boarding house or school?, as he reported 50 whites and 12 free blacks in his household! None of them match the configurations for our Elisha's family. Elisha's father, also Elisha, lived in Ward 1 of Albany and had 13 children.Goodwin, 158-159 There are 15 persons living in the household of the Albany Elisha in 1830 (after his youngest child was born in 1826). There are 9 persons reported in 1820, leaving open the possibility that Julia Jerusha listed by Goodwin as born on 12 August 1819, was actually born in 1820, since the census was taken on 7 August.
      Since there was no report of an Elisha in Albany in 1840, to confirm that an indexer did not miss an entry, I read all of Ward 1 in the 1840 census and found no Elisha or any Foote.[26] I also checked Seneca County. There is one person named Elijah Fowte living in Seneca Falls on the 1840 census and no other people surnamed Foote/Foot in the county that I could find. He is 30-40 years old, living with 1 male 15-20, 1 female 5-10, 1 female 10-15, and 1 female 30-40.[27] Looks like a husband, wife and children, which we know matches neither our Elisha who wasn't yet married, or his father, who was much older than 40. The 1850 census shows only 1 Elisha Foote in Seneca Falls. We know per Goodwin that Sr. died in 1846 in NYC, so he was alive when many of these transactions were happening. The transactions up to 1846 list Elisha Foot(e) Jr. and from 1851 the name is given simply as Elisha Foote. The only other Jr. that I could identify in New York remained in Northampton. The indices also show transactions with Cady in 1841 and 1856 (though none in 1845?) and with Henry Stanton in 1856. Evaluating the records we have, it seems unlikely to me that the grantor/grantee list could refer to anyone else.
    • How were you able to tell that the Thirza Newton who sold land to Elisha in 1846 was the same Thirza Newton who sold land in 1843? And why is the sale to Charles D. Williams mentioned in the note?
      The difference to me in this case and the case of Elisha above is that the two transactions with Thirza Newton are the only sources linking her to Seneca Falls. While it may be that these were her sons-in-law I want stronger evidence, like maybe being able to review the actual deeds, which typically say this person of this place sells to that person of that place. That said, Thirza is a really uncommon name, even historically.[28][29] If there were only 386 people born between 1880 and 2019 worldwide that had that name (only 47 in the US), it would be crazy odds that there were 3 different Thirza's also with the surname Newton, who were transacting business over time in the same places Elisha was. (I also noted that none of her daughters were named Thirza.) That said, I have no idea how reliable those stats are or what they were based on (i.e. birth registrations? census records?) I also cannot prove she is Elisha's mother-in-law nor that she is Charles Williams' mother-in-law, or that the Thirza in both transactions was the same, which is why there is a disclaimer. Maybe I need to reword it for clarity, but I'm not sure how.
      For this and the previous issue, I think you're running afoul of WP:SYNTH. What you're doing is perfectly reasonable for someone trying to determine the truth of the matter, and I wouldn't be surprised to see your reasoning reproduced exactly in a secondary source that you could then cite, but for Wikipedia I think it goes beyond what we should be doing. I don't think the problem is because these are primary sources -- that is, WP:NOR says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and I think you're OK there -- the conclusions you're drawing are simple statements of fact, and you're using logic and common sense to make the deduction. However, WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. [...] If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." I think that's what you're doing here. It doesn't seem this material is critical to the article so I would suggest cutting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, done.
    • What data enabled you to connect the census records to the family?
      • See above for 1820. On 1850 family members listed are Elisha (41, Lawyer), Eunice (31), Mary (8), Amanda (6), and Bridget McDaniel (12).
    • Same question for the death registry, and how does that record support "After Elisha's death, Eunice lived partly in Brooklyn and partly in Lenox, Massachusetts"?
      • In the column residence and place of death it states "Lenox & Brooklyn, NY". Since the death was recorded in Lenox and we know from the obit in the New-York Tribune that she did not die in New York, it did not seem that it was listing residence first and place of death second, but rather that she had lived in both places.
    • Same question for the passport application.
    • Not sure I am clear on what "same question" means, but assuming you are asking how I know it is our Eunice? It states known information. It was a dual application, for Eunice and her daughter. Information contained shows "Eunice N. Foote, wife of Elisha Foote of Saratoga Springs"…"born in the town of Goshen in the State of Connecticut on or about the 17th day of July 1819"…"Mary N. Foote her daughter was born at Seneca Falls in the State of New York on the 21st day of July 1842".
      Yes, that's what I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the sources. I'll check links next, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike. It got crazy here. The construction workers next door pushed a 2nd story wall down and it fell on our house. o.0 No significant damage, no one was hurt, but lots of Spanish flying and we had to notify the landlady, etc. I'll get back as soon as I can. Sorry. SusunW (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad no one was hurt! No hurry; whenever you’re ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again. It was pretty scary and crazy. Lots of officials here for most of the day, but it's sorted.

One link is broken: Wilson (1857). Everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added wayback link.

I think I have now answered everything, but if not, let me know. Happy to discuss anything, as obviously the goal is to improve the article to a high standard. SusunW (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience with me and your taking time to thoughtfully reply. I think I have cleared the last few items. SusunW (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all looks good. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [30].

Farseer trilogy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93, 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known fantasy series from the 1990s: to place in context, it was published a year before A Game of Thrones. Robin Hobb's style is quite different from GRRM's, and we hope readers find this article interesting. It went through a GAN earlier this year, and after an expansion, a recent PR. We think we've covered the scholarly sources and look forward to feedback. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initiating this. Courtesy pings to @Mike Christe and SandyGeorgia:, who left valuable comments at PR. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) repinging Mike Christie, because of the typo. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am ridiculously swamped so may not be able to participate in the FAC, but I reviewed the article at PR as a person with no prior knowledge of the topic, and am quite satisfied (that is, I count as independent review, and would be a likely support after others have gone through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that others have also been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I participated at the PR and have just read through again, finding only two more minor things to comment on:

  • “Galen proceeds to telepathically torture Fitz and blunt his ability to use the Skill, later revealed to be at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal.” I think the syntax here doesn’t correctly say what it is that is later revealed; it’s Galen’s behaviour but as written it says it’s the Skill. Something like “ Galen proceeds to telepathically torture Fitz and blunt his ability to use the Skill. He is later revealed to have done so at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal.” would work, but perhaps there are smoother ways to phrase this.
    Changed to "his actions are later revealed to have been at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There’s one use of “Six Duchies novels” and several of “Elderlings novels” or related phrases; if they both refer to all five series, I would be consistent about which to use, and make sure the reader is clear that the term applies to all series.
    "Six Duchies" usually refers to 3 of the 5 series, but looking again, it wasn't necessary so I've removed it. The source was The Telegraph, whose review was only about those 3 series, but the specific sentence I've quoted seems to be a broader statement of consensus. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

[edit]

Pass. Sources are reliable, and I can see no formatting issues. Links all work. Parameters in cite templates are used consistently. You might consider adding either archive links or access dates or both for the purely web sources such as FNs 1, 90-91, and perhaps the Tor.com citations, but that's not a requirement for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I don't think you need those citations in the lead as the facts are cited in the body
    I agree they're not strictly needed, but for quotes I've personally always liked to keep them. If it's a big problem for you I would reconsider. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the MoS: "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The Farseer Trilogy". Why the upper case T?
    Which T? The T in "Trilogy" is capitalized by the sources as I recall, I just checked Elliot 2006 [31] for instance. The T in "The" basically is an article title issue that I haven't really considered, if there's a reason to move it to "Farseer Trilogy" I'm not personally opposed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The current article title at least matches the cover in the infobox (see the bottom). If we want to go by the first edition, the title was "The Farseer" (no trilogy) in the US and both "Farseer" and "The Farseer Trilogy" in the UK. I don't think there's a clear choice between those options, as the UK edition was released first in 2 out of the 3 books, and the US in 1/3. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My typo. To clarify: 1. Does a clear consensus of the high-quality reliable sources use an upper case T for "trilogy"? 2. I don't see that the arguments presented so far override MOS:THETITLE.
Yes, I believe there is. I have seen The Farseer Trilogy often, and just Farseer occasionally, but rarely if ever Farseer trilogy. When the former is used, the "the" is always present. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it would be. As no one would refer to, say "The anniversary of Battle of Calais". Yet Battle of Calais is the name of the article, per MOS:THETITLE.
Re T/trilogy, any chance of an actual numerical summary of (just) the high-quality reliable sources? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have been clearer; I mean I saw it as "The Farseer Trilogy", not "the Farseer trilogy. As to a summary: I have for just Farseer 2 (Teitelbaum, Mendlesohn), The Farseer Trilogy 2 (Elliot, Prater), the Farseer trilogy 1 (Melville), The Farseer 3 (Clute, Holliday & Morgan, Young), ambiguous/dodging the matter altogether (Harris-Fain, Flood, Moran, Larsson, Senior). Senior actually uses both Farseer Trilogy and Farseer trilogy. So I guess it's messier than I remembered, but the numerically most common "The Farseer" is only used when the individual works are subsequently listed (as in Clute), I'm not actually sure what to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I added a table on article talk. Perhaps we can continue the discussion there? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to "brand" her Farseer work". I am not sure that the quote marks are necessary.
    Removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "avoiding public readings or signings of the novels for multiple years". Is it known when she first read or signed any Farseer work?
    I haven't been able to find anything in the sources. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leads Chivalry to abdicate". Can an heir abdicate? Perhaps 'relinquish his claim' or similar?
    The primary text uses "abdicate", but I agree it can lead to confusion, so reworded.
  • "without ever meeting Fitz: Chivalry's brother Prince Verity". Is the use of a colon intentional?
    Adjusted slightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their relationship later ends with a conflict over his duties to the throne." I had to read this several times to see what you were driving at. Optionally, perhaps something like 'their relationship later ends when it conflicts with his duties to the throne'?
    Agree the wording is suboptimal, not sure it's fair to say the relationship ends when it conflicts...changed to "but their relationship later as the result of conflict over Fitz's duties", is that better? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "them through a form of zombification, they are rendered emotionless". I think that comma should be a semi colon.
    Adjusted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on a road wrought with the skill". Should that be 'Skill'?
    It should. Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The trilogy is described as drawing from Arthurian legend in its characters and narrative motifs. Shrewd's decline recalls the legend of the Fisher King, while Regal bears similarities to Mordred, and Chade to Merlin." You present these as facts, unlike the rest of the paragraph, where similar issues are labelled as opinions.
    It seems to me the "is described" conveys that it's an opinion. I've added a colon between the two pieces of that, does that help? If not, we could have "Scholar W. A. Senior writes that..." I suppose, but it seems unnecessarily wordy given how we've constructed the other paragraphs there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, tht does it. (Clever.)
  • "English scholar Peter Melville". 'British' might both identify his nationality and avoid an ambiguity.
    Agreed, changed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he's Canadian and a professor of English. I've just removed the "English" (to be consistent with the other scholars). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The secret is eventually one of many of Fitz's "multiple closeted lives" that drives Molly away from him." Perhaps 'The secret is one of many of Fitz's "multiple closeted lives" that eventually drives Molly away from him.'?
    Yes, better. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "worldwide sales of the Elderlings had crossed a million copies as of 2003". Twenty-year-old data! This is meant to be Wikipedia.
    See reply to Lee below: I've struggled to find good sources discussing sales numbers for this book, as with so many others. Would you prefer we just omitted this? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, as presented, yes. Maybe something like 'worldwide the Elderlings sold more than a million copies by 2003, and UK sales alone had exceeded 1.25 million copies by 2017' would at least hand wave over the antiquity of the data?
I like that construction, I've used it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Et fin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some bits and pieces above.

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Could we link it at first mention; could it be linked in the lead; if it is decided not to link it to the author's article, could it be red linked. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good questions; I don't love the optics of a red link in the lead (if nothing else, it means every other editor who's just reading will remove it), so omitted link for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly useful with respect to reviewing for sports, but I'll have a look, I'm trying to do four reviews per nomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I was wondering if you had any responses or further comments, and if not if you can see your way to making a declaration? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'll support. If you have any time, I have some items at my nominations list, otherwise, good job! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor MOS nitpick
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) 27 October 2022 [33].

Al-Muti

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 23rd Abbasid caliph, who ruled as a puppet of the Buyids. His tenure is generally held to represent the nadir of the caliphate's prestige and power, but the very powerlessness of the office allowed it to regain some stability and end the constant infighting of the Abbasid princes for supremacy. I rewrote the article effectively from scratch during 2021, and it passed GA in May 2021. Al-Muti and his time are not well covered in literature, but I am confident the article is the most complete English-language treatment of the subject in existence, and worthy of FA status. I am looking forward for any and all suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX

[edit]

I will review this soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I will finish my review by Sunday hopefully. Apologies for the delay. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "apparently to general astonishment, Mu'izz al-Dawla raised al-Fadl to the caliphate". Why astonishment? The preceding para says that he was already considered a serious rival.
    • That is an excellent question. I have reformulated the section, but the gist of it is: he had been out of the picture for a while, and the sudden deposition of al-Mustakfi, and the reappearance of al-Muti out of nowhere, caught people off guard.
  • "the chief reason was likely simply that Mu'izz al-Dawla wished to have a caliph who was under his full control with no external sources of support." See EI2 Buwayhids (p. 1350) and Kennedy, The Prophet and the age of Caliphates (p. 216).
    • Thanks for the suggestion, added some more details.
  • Other than these minor points, I couldn't find anything needing improvement, and am happy to support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

[edit]

I have next to no knowledge of this subject or the context in which he ruled, so I'll only be able to provide prose/formatting input. I'll do my best to follow the article though and if there's anything that I feel is overly unclear I'll make a mention of it.

  • MOS:SOB in "Abbasid caliph"
    • Changed.
  • Suggest the rewording of the "nadir" phrase, or at least the delinking or linking to the specific section. The link to an article that is not obviously related to the prose at first glance is confusing, imo.
    • Indeed, not a wise choice to link it.
  • Suggest linking rubber stamp
    • Done.
  • rapidly declined during his tenure - While the meaning here is obvious, I think something like "sharply declined during his tenure" is more accurate.
    • Changed.
  • Al-Mustakfi and al-Fadl were said to have hated each other sounds WP:WEASEL-ly.
    • Have rephrased a bit.
  • SOB in "Buyid Mu'izz al-Dawla"
    • Changed.
  • In practice, al-Muti was deprived of any meaningful authority, and served chiefly to provide legitimacy to the upstart Buyid regime in the eyes of the Muslim world, in exchange for being allowed to lead a comfortable and secure life in the vast caliphal palaces, the caliph provided legitimacy to the upstart Buyid regime in the eyes of the Muslim world. - I assume this is a typo?
    • Indeed, fixed.
  • reduced his income to about a fourth - Suggest "reduced his income by 75%", appending "of its former size", or making some other modification to make this clearer gramatically.
    • Changed.
  • the construction a series of pavilions - Missing "of".
    • Fixed.
  • troubled relations between caliph and the Buyids - Is this meant to be "the caliph"? I see this same omission of the definite article later on, but "the caliph" also appears. This feels like it should be consistent unless there's something I'm missing.
    • Missing 'the', fixed.
  • Suggest linking chamberlain
    • Done.
  • Muslim refugees from these cities flooded to Baghdad, and clamoured for protection. - Comma is extraneous to my eyes
    • Removed.

That's all I have. Truly stellar prose, particularly in the lede - I had to check a couple links for definitions to understand the context of everything, but the article itself is excellent. Really well done. AviationFreak💬 21:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time, and for your corrections, AviationFreak. I am glad that despite your unfamiliarity with the topic, you could follow the article. Anything else that might be improved in that area, above and beyond FA criteria? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure! The only other thing I worry a little bit about is readability to a "general public" reader - Evaluating one's own abilities is always difficult, but I feel I have at least an average and likely above-average command of English as native speakers go. Despite this, there were a few terms that I had to Google to be sure of their definitions (e.g., "profligate"). As far as I know there isn't a guideline in the MOS against overly erudite prose and this article is by no means egregious in that respect, but I worry a little that it might be a bit difficult to read comfortably for many English speakers. In any case, this is at most a minor concern that is very much subjective so I am happy to support. AviationFreak💬 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Hi Constantine, Nikkimaria, was this last point resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I had forgotten about this, but I also don't understand what the desired changes are supposed to be. The map does not, to my eyes, convey information only using colour. Indeed, the colours are almost secondary, as the colours only serve to distinguish the Buyids from other Muslim states, and the Muslim states from the Christian ones; the actual labelling of the states does the heavy lifting here. Even in grayscale, I can therefore read the map and distinguish the Buyid domains from the other states. Is the problem distinguishing the colours used in the map for colourblind people? In that case I will start a WP:MAPREQ, but I don't know what exactly to ask. Constantine ✍ 18:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Ian Rose, if this is the last remaining issue, would it be OK for me to proceed to my next nomination? Constantine ✍ 18:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from A. Parrot

[edit]

Ten citations spot-checked; no verification faults found.

Citations 18 and 19 look like they could be consolidated.

Most sources look unimpeachable—academic presses, et cetera. A couple (Bowen and Le Strange) are very old, but they're used in contexts that don't seem controversial or where the scholarship is likely to change. The one I'm not entirely sure about is Güner 2006, simply because I don't know what the Diyanet's reputation as a historical source is like. I'd be interested to know.

The ISBNs are inconsistent. Some have hyphens and some don't, some have ten digits and some have thirteen. Fortunately, you can convert them all to your preferred format using a page like this one.

This isn't citation-related, but articles shouldn't give instructions to the reader such as "(see below)". A. Parrot (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and the suggestions, A. Parrot. Consolidated refs #18 and #19 as suggested, the '(see below)' has been removed.
On the sources, Bowen and (more so) Le Strange continue to be very good resources and are still cited by modern authors; they summarize the information provided by the medieval sources quite well, and nothing much has been added to that since except through ancillary studies (numismarics, archaeology, etc).
The Diyanet is, especially under Erdogan, a highly political organization and not in what I'd call a positive way, but the Islam Ansiklopedisi is an academic work, and the people contributing articles there are academics. The IA is often cited by English-language works as well, and should definitely considered a solid tertiary source.
On the ISBNs, I always use the ISBN type (10 or 13-digit) the work itself provides. Retroactive standardization is rather pointless. I have however edited the IA template to add dashes to the ISBNs produced by it.
Thanks again :) Constantine ✍ 19:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. A. Parrot (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of WP:duplinks, which you can highlight with this[34] script.
    • Fixed. There are a few that are duplinks because they are also in the quote box, but I don't consider them as 'real' duplinks; they should be treated like links in image captions.
  • Link Samanid in the first caption.
    • Done.
  • Al-Ta'i is linked twice in the infobox.
    • Hmmm, is that a requirement per MOS? I haven't encountered this one before.
There is no need for two links to the same article in so quick succession in the infobox, which is its own separate part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Abbasid Caliphate at first mention in article body. Same with other terms that are now only linked in the intro, there are a few.
    • Done.
  • State on the article body he was born in Baghdad?
    • Done.
  • Considering how the Abbasid caliphs mentioned here were seemingly replaced at will, what was the purpose of even continuing their rule and not just taking over? To have some sort of legitimacy to their puppet?
    • The second paragraphs in 'Rise to the throne' and 'Role and relations with the Buyids' deal with exactly that. In short, "he served to provide legitimacy to the upstart Buyid regime in the eyes of the Muslim world" as the article says.
  • "The domains of the Buyid dynasty and the other states of the Middle East in 970" Perhaps state they had taken over Baghdad for context?
    • Have added a small clarification, but am not sure what exactly you mean... The article makes clear that they had taken over Baghdad and ruled Iraq.
Captions should establish context on their own, so that you understand then without necessarily having read the adjacent main text. But yeah, looking good now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could be stated explicitly that the Buyids were Shia Iranian, contrasting with the Sunni Arab Abbasids?
    • This is already stated: "The Buyids themselves were Shi'a". Ethnicity did not (at this point) come into play.
  • Link Turk.
    • Done.
  • Any reason to use the term Alid instead of Shia here if the same term can be used? Could confuse unfamiliar readers.
    • They do not mean the same thing: Alids were the descendants of Ali, Shia were the supporters of the idea that only an Alid could be the imam of the Muslims.
  • "Over the years, Izz al-Dawla increasingly alienated the Turks under Sabuktakin" Clarify that he was at that point subordinate to the Buyids?
    • Done.
  • "Al-Muti's reign represented the nadir of the Abbasid caliphate's power and authority. During the previous decades, the secular authority of the caliphs had shrunk to Iraq, and even there had been curtailed by powerful warlords; with the Buyid conquest of Baghdad, it was now abolished entirely. Al-Muti was raised to the throne by the Buyids and was effectively reduced to a rubber-stamp figurehead" Much of this wording and evaluation is not specifically repeated in the article body. And while I recognise some of this is paraphrasis, some of the evaluating statements could be more explicitly stated outside the intro with citations.
    • Added some details on this in the text.
Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for taking the time and your suggestions. I have dealt with most of them, and have left remarks elsewhere. Please have another look. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [35].

2021 British Open

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the return of the British Open snooker tournament. This is the second nomination, as the first died due to lack of comments. Let me know what you think, as I look forward to any concerns you may have. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

More comments

[edit]

Image review

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as usual. I'll get on the blower and see what I can get going Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Can't promise that it'll be before Tuesday though. Hog Farm Talk 21:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look okay enough from a reliability standpoint, and the content seems fine. My only cue sports familiarity is a little cutthroat pool in college, but I found it to be comprehensible. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look at these. I've never actually played Cutthroat (pool), but I'll add it to my list to try. Snooker is a much more comprehensive and complicated game played on giant tables with tiny pockets. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

It seems like the article has improved since I previously supported it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 British Open/archive1, but I'll have another look through. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one looking now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [36].

Prince Octavius of Great Britain

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Prince Octavius of Great Britain, the thirteenth child of George III. His death deeply affected the King and Queen, and the former even had hallucinations of the prince in his later years. Despite the article's short length, I believe the prose and citations are good enough to constitute a featured article. Past examples of featured articles about a royal prince who died young are Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "husband of his first cousin twice-removed, for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy" - did the Earl stand proxy for the husband or for the first cousin twice-removed? Wording is ambiguous

Done: now reads: "His godparents were the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (husband of his first cousin twice-removed), for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy; the Duke of Mecklenburg (his first cousin once-removed), for whom the Earl of Ashburnham, Groom of the Stole, stood proxy; and the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (wife of his sixth cousin), for whom Alicia Wyndham, Countess of Egremont and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte, was proxy." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "other events organized" - article is about a British topic so British spelling should be used per WP:TIES and therefore the last word should be "organised"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Another witness wrote George and Charlotte" => "Another witness wrote that George and Charlotte"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and went with her and their siblings, Elizabeth and Edward to" => "and went with her and their siblings, Elizabeth and Edward, to"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Biographer John Watkins added Octavius was" => "Biographer John Watkins added that Octavius was"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically on Queen Charlotte" => "The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically, on Queen Charlotte"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I tag an image? Do I just go over to the Commons page to do so? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just edit the image description page at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that the first of those two has been tagged? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the second image was tagged; I just tagged the lead image. Thank you for the feedback. Do you have anything other suggestions for this nomination? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I would suggest Janice Hadlow's book: A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III as containing useful information about the death of the prince, that I don't see here. Since the article is (necessarily, perhaps) short, could more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte, to the extent that the prince would have experienced them?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your source recommendation. It was flooded with useful tidbits on Octavius's life and the royal court during that time period. I have gone ahead and included such references. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, were you interested in performing a more extensive review? We seem to be on the home stretch with this one so thought I'd check... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few minor things:
  • " nineteen-months-old" I don't see the reason for the hyphens. Similarly "four-years-old".
  • "had their remains transferred to St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820, at around three.[4][35]" Does this mean three in the afternoon? If so, that might be a little bit over specific.
  • "Shortly afterward, King George said "There will be no Heaven for me if Octavius is not there."[11][16][43] " Why does a short quote require three footnotes?
That's it. I'll Support since these are relatively minor.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • I have made some edits. Watch out for false title in British English.
  • He died 6 days after his smallpox innoculation, some 15 years before Jenner introduced the much safer cowpox innoculation. You say "Octavius has the distinction of being the last member of the British royal family to contract smallpox", presumably contracted from the innoculation, but don't give this clearly as the cause of death. Was the innoculation blamed? Did the death have an effect on the popularity of the technique? More on this would be good - the sources must say something, one would think.
  • I agree that "more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte". Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I will try to resolve said issues by tonight. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I have added information and citations regarding the circumstances of Octavius's death. Additionally, I expanded on the techniques George III and Queen Charlotte used to raise their children, including several anecdotes from members of the royal court. I hope this has taken care of everything; hopefully, this article is now ready for FA status. If not, please let me know what else I can do. Thank you! Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I hope you will tackle something more substantial next time. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod Thank you for your support. As a matter of fact, I am currently tackling a FA nomination of Reign of Cleopatra right now, but unfortunately, the process does not seem to being going well. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • You're inconsistent about the use of the publisher location in your sources; e.g. Fraser (2004) and Shephard (1894) include it, but Hadlow (2014) and Hibbert (2000) don't. It doesn't matter which way you do it but it should be consistent.
  • You have an ISBN on Wilson (1907); presumably this is a reprint you're citing? If so, it would be better to cite what you actually consulted. If it's a facsimile you can use the "orig-year" parameter to show the original publication date. The same applies to Papendiek (1887) and Hall (1858).
  • You have three web citations. The Royal Collection Trust and College of St. George citations use publisher=; the British History Online uses website=. Again this should be consistent.
  • There are several old sources used; all seem fine for the minor details they support. However, I would suggest making it "The 19th-century biographer John Watkins..." in order to let the reader know the comment is not from a modern scholarly historian.
  • The link for Cannon (2004) goes to a Marquette University Libraries login; I don't think this is generally useful enough to keep the link.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Thank you. I have gone ahead and addressed all your comments. Would the article be up to FA standard now, or is there something else I can do for you? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Recusing to review.
  • "after the death of his brother Prince Alfred". Suggest adding 'younger'.
  • "Octavius was inoculated with the smallpox virus." One is usually against a virus.
  • "Despite being raised in an environment that discouraged public shows of familial affection, she praised ..." I cannot find anything about how Mrs Delaney was raised in the source.
  • "The king also was kept informed". Upper case K.
  • "was close to his nearest sister Sophia". What does "nearest" mean?
  • "When he was nineteen months old". Hyphen needed.
  • "he again became the youngest surviving child". "again"; had he previously become the youngest surviving child?
  • Per MOS:TIME, do not use "o'clock".
  • "He was four years old". Hyphenate.
  • "ordered their remains transferred to St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820". Is that when George ordered it, or when they were transferred?
  • "broke down and cried in front of everyone,[30] and their parents were likewise visibly touched." The "likewise" would suggest that the parents also broke down and cried. Is that the case?
  • Could "Titles and styles" be rewritten as prose.

Nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild I have taken care of all your comments. I will say though, inoculation was an early form of vaccination and the majority of sources describe people as being inoculated with rather than against a disease. Also, I believe the "Titles and styles" section makes more sense as its own thing, seeing as it does not really flow well in the prose. If you still feel strongly about that, please let me know and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inoculation: what does a consensus of the modern HQ RSs use? Hadlow for example has "Octavius was inoculated against smallpox".
  • A separate "Titles and styles" section is fine by me. But its contents should be written in prose, not as a bullet-pointed one-item list. Eg start it something like 'Octavius's style was His Royal Highness ... and his title was ...' Link style and title. Why is "His Royal Highness" in italics?
  • You missed two comments above, the ones in green.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Whoops. Sorry for the misunderstandings on my part. Could you please take another look? I am fairly certain that all issues have been addressed this time. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

An interesting article but the prose needs work:

  • "King George III had been very fond of his two youngest sons, Alfred and Octavius, and his later bouts of madness would involve hallucinations of his dead sons" – unclear: do the last two words refer solely to Alfred and Octavius or were there other dead sons?
  • "his later bouts of madness" needs a blue link or some other explanation for the benefit of the reader.
  • "Prince Octavius was born on 23 February 1779 at Buckingham House, London, England" – geographical overload − heavy WP:OVERLINK.
  • "the archbishop of Canterbury … the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel" – can we have some consistency in capitalisation of titles?
  • "King George was extremely devoted to Octavius, who was too young to cause the kinds of trouble that his elder brothers did by this time" – says who, and what kinds of trouble? All his elder brothers or just some of them? Brief examples and citations, please.
  • "Somewhat unusually for the period …" – this 55-word sentence could do with splitting.
  • "Octavius was close with Princess Sophia (his closest sister in terms of age)" – "close with"? Odd phrasing. "Close to" perhaps. And close … closest in one sentence is infelicitous.
  • "he was nineteen-months-old" – strange hyphenation.
  • "In 1820, the historian Edward Holt would write of the prince's character" – but earlier we have "the King and Queen" – consistency in capitalisation wanted. And why "would write" rather than a plain "wrote"?
  • "was four-years-old" – more strange hyphenation
  • "the Royal Archives" – why the Capital Letters?
  • "on 11 February 1820, at around three" – at around three what? If 3 p.m., as I'm guessing, do we need to know that?
  • "styled as His Royal Highness" – why the italics?

I hope these points are helpful in getting the article nearer to FA standard. Tim riley talk 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley Thank you for your comments. Here are my responses to each of them:
  • Done.
  • I'm not exactly sure where you would want me to link that too.
  • I think the sentence is alright the way it is; none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
  • Someone went in and made "archbishop" lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • I'm not sure that writing about Octavius's brothers' sexual and financial misconduct is particularly relevant in this article; once again, none of the other FA reviewers said anything about this.
  • Done
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • I'm actually not too sure about the capitalization of "prince" in this situation. Because no one else pointed that out, I'm inclined to say that it's alright. It says "would write" because by this time, Octavius had been dead for quite some time.
  • I made that edit in response to a comment from a FA reviewer.
  • The Wikipedia article Royal Archives is in capital letters, and other sources capitalize it, too.
  • I don't think stating the time is that big of an issue.
  • Other articles, including featured ones, list His/Her Royal Highness and His/Her Majesty in italics. I'm just following precedent here.
Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I hoped my comments might be of some use, but I see not. If my colleagues, above, think the article as it stands is of FA quality I shall not oppose, but I don't support it as it stands. Tim riley talk 19:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Tim riley! @Ian Rose has just brought me up to speed on the FA review process. I deeply apologize if the tone of my reply came across as dismissive or disregarding. I have taken a look at your feedback and revised the article accordingly. If you could spare some time, would you mind taking another look and giving me your thoughts? Once again, I am so sorry about our previous interaction, and thank you so much for helping me navigate my first FA nomination! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- When an editor as experienced as Tim Riley won't actually oppose but cannot in conscience support the nom, it gives me pause. Unlimitedlead, the FAC instructions state that resolution of critical comments outweighs simple declarations of support, and I'd suggest reconsidering how you might resolve some of these comments. I realise that it can be a challenge when one reviewer advises one thing and another advises something else, but this will happen when we have a system utilising several reviewers. Furthermore, just because earlier reviewers don't pick up an issue, it doesn't follow that someone picking it later should be ignored; again, this is why we expect several reviews of an article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out about that. I will try to incorporate some of Tim Riley's feedback, but due to the conflicting nature of some of the comments I've received, I an unable to guarantee that all of them will be honored. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to leave it to my fellow editors to decide if the article is of FA quality. Tim riley talk 17:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa, I had forgotten that this was a first-time nom for which we like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing. I've since performed this myself, checking citations 10, 23a/b/c, 26a/b/c, 30 and 42. My only concern was with 10, in that the referenced page does not mention the king's devotion to Octavius, only the troubles with the other children. Unlimitedlead, although the king's fondness for Octavius is evident and cited elsewhere, this statement should also include a cited source to that effect (perhaps pp. 265-266 from Brooke but up to you) if it's to remain as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato

[edit]
Hey! I feel like the "Titles and styles" section could be incorporated into another; it's currently only one sentence long, so I think it would make the article flow better if that information were to be moved somewhere else. DecafPotato (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @DecafPotato! Thank you for your suggestion. I have actually received the same comment from other users, but I'm still undecisive. On one hand, your argument makes total sense, but on the other hand, many other articles on British royalty have this "Titles and styles" section, so I'd hate to be inconsistent. Do you feel strongly about this? If so, I am willing to make the change, but please do let me know where you think I would place this sentence. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi all, jumping in here, a separate titles and styles section is the practice in royalty articles but, sure, it might also be reasonable to incorporate the single sentence into the main body. That said, this nom has remained open a while and consensus has formed to promote, and I don't think this needs to affect that. By all means discuss on the article talk page after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2022 [37].

2022 Masters (snooker)

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the Masters (snooker). A fantastic event, looking forward to your feedback! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Henni147

[edit]

Followed this tournament closely myself on TV, so I'm familiar with the topic and would like to contribute to this FAC review.

  • Structure: logical and uniform with other tournament articles. Pass.
  • Tournament ladder: properly formatted and sourced. Haven't checked MOS:ACCESS for screenreaders yet, but since it's the same template as in other articles that have passed the FAC review already, it's probably fine.
  • Final table: properly formatted and sourced, and seems to satisfy MOS:DTT as well. Pass.
  • Century break section: properly sourced and formatting uniform with other tournament articles. Pass.
    • Footnote: I wondered if 26 century breaks are a lot or rather average for recent Masters tournaments. If the information is available, it might be useful to add the century record of the event until then, and by how much it was missed in the 2022 edition.
  • Images: copyright status looks fine for all.
  • Referencing: inline citations and sources consistently formatted arcoss the page. Pass.
  • Copyright: quick run with Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no serious violations. Need to check citation of direct quotes, but looks good overall.

Linking:

Content and wording: In general, the prose part is nicely written. Especially the summary section is very informative, rich in variety, and phrased as reader-friendly as a tournament summary can be. Very well done.

  • Lead:
    • Remove The from "The 16 competitors were invited [...]". The players weren't mentioned in the lead previously.
    • "cutoff date" → missing hyphen in "cut-off date" in accordance with Collins Dictionary. Same issue in "Participants" section.
    • "Ding Junhui, who had made 15 consecutive Masters appearances [...]" → This is rather a matter of taste, but I would flip the sub-clauses in order to make them more compact and vary the wording of the paragraph a bit: "Ding Junhui, who dropped to 27th place in the rankings, missed the Masters after 15 consecutive appearances between 2007 and 2021. The only debutant in 2022 was Zhao Xintong, who entered the top 16 for the first time by winning the UK Championship." A similar re-phrasing might brush up the quality of the "Participants" section as well.
      • Yeah, I think I prefer categorising that Ding was previously in the tournament (thus why we should care) and then state why he wasn't competing. I realise we could say that Xintong had entered the first time at the UK was the only debutant, but I feel that "there was just one debutant" is the important part. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview:
  • Participants:
    • "[...] who were ranked highest in the world rankings after the UK Championship in December 2021." → maybe note the exact cut-off date instead of December 2021.
  • First round:

That's it from me so far. I will continue with the QF section, when the article has been updated. The article looks very promising overall, and with the few issues being fixed, I will give my support. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fair. I'll make necessary changes today. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked my way through the above Henni147 - fantastic work, some great suggestions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Great. I agree with your comments above, so feel free to keep those parts as they are. I can take a look at the remaining prose sections now and give some comments about content and linking as above. Henni147 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Henni147:

  • Quarter-finals:
    • According to MOS:EMDASH there should be no spacing around em dashes. Also, MOS:SPARETHEDASH says that there should better be a max of two dashes per sentence to keep the structure clear. My suggestion is: "The quarter-finalists comprised six former champions with O'Sullivan, Williams, Higgins, Robertson, Trump and Selby,[49] and two former runners-up—Hawkins, who lost to O'Sullivan in 2016, [...]"
    • Maybe also add "comprised six former Masters champions" to make clear what kind of champions we're talking about.
    • "Robertson noted the difficulty of competing at the Masters against O'Sullivan, commenting" → add a colon after "commenting".
  • General:
    • This is a matter of taste, but I prefer to call players with their full name at their first mentioning in each round. As a long-time snooker follower I am familiar with the players, but casual readers may not, so it might be helpful to read their full name once per section (especially with family names like Wilson, which multiple players share).
    • According to MOS:LINKONCE, links should ideally be inserted at their first occurance in the article body. So you may remove the links from "red ball" in the QF section as well as "snooker" in the SF section, and link them at their first appearance in the second to last paragraph of the first round: "[...], as Trump required a snooker with one red remaining. However, Allen failed to escape from a snooker and went in-off, [...]"

Yeah, that's actually it. I really liked to read the second part of the prose. The direct quotes were nicely selected and the "Final" section was very informative. Didn't realize that Hawkins had lost all his Triple Crown finals until now. I give my support for FAC now. Great job! Henni147 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - over three weeks in with only a single support. This one's liabile to be archived in a couple days without substantial movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm Talk 21:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Olivaw-Daneel

[edit]

Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All seems very fair. I'll take a better look later. Thanks for the review. I will say I usually try and stay away from talking about things that happen at the event (in terms of victories and such) unless they are particularly notable. I get we can state who the winner defeated to reach the final, but when I've done that it always feels like puff. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes above Olivaw-Daneel - did you have any more thoughts for me? :) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's all I had (+ a note above). And I guess if there's nothing else notable to say about the event, the lead is ok. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Image review

[edit]

File:2022 Cazoo Masters Snooker Tournament Logo.jpg: I have my doubts that a logo this simple would be considered copyrightable in the US, but it's a borderline case. The licence, source and rationale are fine for a non-free logo, though, so it's no big deal. Everything else seems OK. ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thanks for taking a look Nikkimaria, I've taken a look through all of the above and made the changes. Hopefully I didn't miss any of the authors. Let me know if you have any more items for me to look at on this nomination. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered the bits I missed the first time, let me know if there is anything further, Nikkimaria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2022 [38].

Katana Zero

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's the charm, I guess. Since the last FAC unfortunately got virtually no input, I'll repeat what I said last time: One of my favorite video games of the last few years has been this 2019 indie platformer, which blends the tone and themes of neo-noir cinema with fast-paced, insanely difficult side-scrolling gameplay and a killer synthwave soundtrack. Katana Zero was an intense labor of love for its creator Justin Stander, who developed the game almost entirely by himself over the course of six years. It was delayed repeatedly and switched publishers at one point, but was finally released in April 2019 to strong sales and rave reviews.

I've spent a substantial amount of time since last year building this up from a mere stub to a fully comprehensive good article and I believe that it meets the criteria to earn a bronze star. Hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
  • File:Katana Zero cover.png: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would recommend archiving the source link to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death but that is not required for FACs.
  • File:Katana Zero Gameplay.gif: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. The FUR is solid to me and I appreciate the addition of a GIF in this context. As I have already said above, I would recommend archiving the source link, but I am not sure if a GIF can be archived or how that really works.
  • File:Katana Zero Dialogue Tree.jpg: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. As I have already suggested twice above, I'd recommend archiving the source link, but none of this is required for FACs. My primary concern with this image is the size. The image is rather small and the text, which is the purpose for its inclusion, is not clear in the article. When I look at the image in the article, I cannot read the text and it is honestly difficult to make it out. Would there be a way to include a larger picture?

I hope this image review is helpful. Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review, but I thought I should at least help a little. My only concern is the size of the Dialogue Tree screenshot, but everything else checks out to me. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thanks for the review. I've archived all three images. As for the third's size, its primary purpose is to illustrate the dialogue tree system and use of color, rather than the text. I personally think both the dialogue tree and use of color are clear within the image and reading the text itself is not necessary. JOEBRO64 18:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain, but I do appreciate and understand your rationale. This passes my image review. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB

[edit]

First off, it seems to be a thorough and well researched article which is what I like to see. Now for all the complaints I have!

  • "When Zero uses precognition to mock V, he shoots Al-Qasim." Who is the one shooting Al-Qasim?
  • "In the present, Snow informs her superior of V's death, the Dragon contemplates a board of evidence, and Comedy and Tragedy taunt the girl as she cowers in fear." I can see in the plot the Girl disappears and then she is here, so is this saying that the Girl is a prisoner? Because some of the events seem to be hallucinations it's confusing what is going on here.
    • So the game doesn't actually explain where she is or what happened to her—the credits end with a short scene of Comedy and Tragedy taunting her in a dark room. The game heavily implies that the girl actually isn't real and is only a manifestation of Zero's last shreds of innocence, but unfortunately for a Wikipedia plot summary never outright says it (the closest it comes is when the landlady denies she existed) and I didn't come across any reliable sources that mention the implication. JOEBRO64 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any portals to add at the bottom of the article such as 2010s, video games, etc. to interlink with relevant projects?
    • I've added the video games and 2010s portals. I wasn't sure if there were any else that would fit; I almost did the USA one since Stander's American but he spent a substantial amount of the development working in Canada, so I wasn't sure if either would fit. JOEBRO64 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some minor copy editing, if there wasn't a four month wait on the Guild I would say it could maybe use an overall copy edit. The lead for instance seemed quite repetitive about mentioning the time manipulation/precognition so I've tried to make that flow a little better and remove the short sentences.
  • Refs #14, #27, #31, #33, #40, #41, and #42 do not appear to be archived
  • Same for #21, #25, and #44. I know some of these are YouTube but occasionally they can be archived.
  • I prefer text to videos, but I assume for a small indie game it's hard to get all of the information in print.
  • Overall it looks fine, it sounds like an interesting game that I might give a try. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good job JoeBro, good luck with the rest of your nomination. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blue Pumpkin Pie

[edit]
  • Lead

The summarization in the Lead suggests Zero is a Katana-wielding Assassin. But in the Plot, the description is different.

Neither contradicts one another. The fact he's a katana-wielding assassin is established in the Gameplay, the Plot doesn't contradict this—it just adds that he's a war veteran. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot
  • "The psychiatrist supplies him with a drug as treatment, but their relationship becomes strained as Zero deviates from assigned objectives and learns the psychiatrist is lying about the reasoning behind the assassinations." Is this sentence necessary so early in the plot? It seems to make the Plot more awkward because, in the following paragraph, it suggests that the Psychiatrist is still an ally to Zero.
  • Zero continuing to work for the psychiatrist doesn't contradict the fact their relationship is strained. I personally think it's important to establish that the psychiatrist and Zero's relationship becomes strained early—it happens regardless, but when it happens depends on the player's choices. I worded it in a way to make it clear that it doesn't happen immediately. If there's any other problems, just let me know. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At his apartment, the girl gives Zero a videotape that contains a recording of V, a Russian mobster, torturing and killing Zero's neighbors." Is this detail relevant to the Plot?
  • "The next morning, V picks up Zero in his limousine. V seeks to recreate Chronos, a drug the New Mecca government gave to soldiers during the Cromag War, and offers to partner with Zero, who refuses. Zero tracks V to an abandoned film studio but is interrupted by the swordswoman Snow, who threatens Zero and leaves with V." Why does Zero need to track down V if he was just in his limousine? is it even necessary to point out that he's being picked up in a limousine? When Snow leaves with V, was it an escape? Or did they leave peacefully with Zero heeding the warning?
  • "Zero hallucinates Comedy and Tragedy, two men wearing theater masks who taunt him about impending disaster in his future." The placement of this plot point is awkward. Was it at that point that he started to hallucinate about two individuals known as Tragedy and Comedy? Or is this something that is happening throughout the story? '
  • "Zero acquires a tape cassette but is cornered by the police. Comedy and Tragedy ask whether Zero wants to embody life or death. If he chooses life, the police kill Zero; if he chooses death, the police die, and Zero escapes, but Comedy and Tragedy warn that his actions will have consequences for others." Is this relevant to the main story? The current Plot doesn't make any note of it.
  • "A caller directs Zero to a training facility for NULLs, New Mecca's Chronos-enhanced soldiers." Another distractingly vague sentence. Is this caller anonymous? if they are not anonymous, who are they?
  • "Zero discovers his psychiatrist preparing to flee the city and kills him." Is there a reason why he killed him?
  • "He returns to his apartment but finds it burglarized and the girl missing. The landlady tells investigating police that no children lived in the building. When questioned, Zero flees and the police give chase." So are the police searching for the child? the events are confusing here.
  • I think there are too many small details that don't help the overall understandability of the story, and some key events or details seem to be missing. Just did a little digging and it seems like the character "the Dragon" isn't even referred to as the Dragon as much as the Plot implies, and goes by the name "Fifteen". I'm personally not sure it meets 1a. Might need a full rewrite In my opinion.
    • There's nothing missing that's not relevant to the plot—the plot is pretty vague, with a lot of foreshadowing and events left up to interpretation. "Fifteen" is the Dragon's "real" name but that's not relevant to the plot. There's no need for a full rewrite. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development
  • The development has a lot of quotes that I don't think are necessary to explain the development process of the game. I say it borders on failing criteria FAC 1f (compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy). I would reduce the number of quotes to only keeping the most necessary ones. A lot of the quoting structure is odd, I have never seen it the way it's done here, and MOS:QUOTE doesn't make much mention of the quoting style.
  • He worked on multiple projects alongside it to "hedge my bets... [so] I didn't spend the last five years of my life only working on one game that flopped." This reads very awkwardly in my opinion. The sentence mixes first and third-person perspectives with awkward quoting. I'm not sure it's necessary to do a full word-for-word quote.
  • Stander "wanted to make something more narratively-driven, that paid homage to all my favorite storytelling tropes and expanded on them in my own way... That was definitely a big part of [Katana Zero]: I had a story I wanted to tell." Same issue, an awkward mix of perspective writing. And once again, not sure if it's necessary to fully quote him in the prose to understand what he's saying.
  • "Stander focused on attention to detail and said that adding a single mechanic, such as a gun turret, "would mean tinkering with 20 different systems, like lighting and replay, to make it all cohesive". The quote isn't bad, but I would recommend sticking with summarizing the details or quoting Stander properly.
  • Reception
  • I find it odd that the Review prioritizes the order of visuals, audio, writing, and gameplay last. Considering it's a video "game", the gameplay should be highlighted much closer to the top.
  • I personally don't see a problem with it—it's a structure I've used in most of my FAs, including the recently-promoted Donkey Kong Country. I tend to structure reception sections as presentation → gameplay. Presentation is usually the first things reviews focus on, before getting into how the game plays. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer to group sales with release as it's more relevant in the context of its release than whether critics liked it or not. It's similar to how film articles categorize the box office performance in the Release section rather than Reception. Again, I did this at Donkey Kong Country, which was recently promoted to FA. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to all points above. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: So I watched some cutscenes of the story to get a better idea of the pacing of the Plot and made edits to help it flow better. I classified it as bold edits, so it is no problem if they all get reverted. I do have one question about the plot. "Zero is assigned to kill Al-Qasim, a wealthy industrialist, but is captured when he encounters V and his men storming Al-Qasim's mansion." The opening sentence for the third paragraph has no transition or connection from the previous paragraph. Was this the very next assignment Zero has following his hallucinations? Or were there other assignments in between?

I won't push for sales to be in Reception, nor the organization of the Reception having gameplay last.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Yeah, it's the very next assignment, the day after Zero hallucinates. JOEBRO64 15:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: is there anything else? JOEBRO64 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: I made some adjustments to make the Plot easier to understand with some word reorganization. It's still seems like some points aren't as necessary to understand the general plot. I asked for a second opinion but I haven't heard back.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well i mulled it over, and after analyzing the plot, it's at least cohesive to read. So I'm going to put my support now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CR4ZE (Support)

[edit]

Hi Joe—sorry to hear the previous candidacy was unsuccessful due to a lack of interest; I've come close to that before. As such, I'd be glad to offer some commentary here and hope to get something to you over the weekend. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are mainly prose-focused. I normally copy-edit the minutiae as I read through and review, but I didn't do that at all here. Take that as a compliment :) There are queries nonetheless.

Lead
  • Six wikilinks in the second sentence is superfluous. I can see "neo-noir", "bullet time" and "precognition" needing links, but "katana" and "assassin"? (Noted in Gameplay as well).
  • "Began working" and "developed it" mean more or less the same thing; rework if possible. Can the SEAOFBLUE be avoided? (GameMaker/game engine).
  • "He sought to make ... for inspiration". This sentence is a bit off. Could place either a comma or full stop after "cutscenes". "Korean cinema and films" reads weird.
Gameplay
  • What happens if Zero doesn't clear the room of enemies within the time limit?
  • "Certain levels ... alternate player character" can you avoid saying "mission" three times?
  • "frequently compared to Hotline Miami" more than one citation to support this would be good. You could try bundling two to three.
    • I've added the MCV interview, which mentions "the often-cited link to Dennaton Games' Hotline Miami, as both games feature a similar live/die/repeat cycle". I think I'd meant to do this before but it slipped my mind JOEBRO64 13:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A May 2019 update" takes the reader right out of the paragraph's flow. If the date of the update needs to be mentioned at all (which I question), it could be rolled into a footnote.
Plot
Conception
  • "Katana Zero was developed by the indie game creator Justin Stander under the studio name Askiisoft for six years" → "Katana Zero was developed over six years by the indie game creator Justin Stander under the studio name Askiisoft". I think this would be clearer, no?
  • Possibly an ENGVAR, which is fine, but should "The game was a mean of expression" be "means of expression"?
Design
  • Katana Zero mentioned three times in the first paragraph. That's not bad but you could substitute with "the game"/"it", or just recast.
  • "was frequently compared to ... Hotline Miami" again, I'd like at least one more citation to support this.
    • I think the one MCV source is sufficient here—it contains the following passage: "We bring up the often-cited link to Dennaton Games’ Hotline Miami, as both games feature a similar live/die/repeat cycle, but Stander puts that one to rest. 'A lot of people say Hotline Miami, that seems to be the big one...'" JOEBRO64 13:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drawing influence from Eastern culture..." this sentence says three different things but the connection between them is unclear. How did Eastern culture influence Stander's desire to subvert expectations? Or are you trying to say something else?
    • Good catch—I shifted things around a lot and looks like this got caught up in the wrong place. I moved it down to the Writing subsection because he's talking about the cinematic influences in the interview. JOEBRO64 13:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to make the act of killing satisfying" is repeating itself from the section's opening sentence. If the whole point was to link these two together, it took us two paragraphs to get there, which is not ideal.
  • "to the point that there he made little progress for a year" typo?
Music
Release
  • "a teaser trailer was released in December 2015" the year is already stated in the prior sentence, so you can just say "December". Same thing with 2019 throughout the next paragraph.
  • "The Switch version was temporarily banned in Australia" why?
  • "offered free to Xbox Game Pass subscribers" as a long-time Game Pass subscriber, I don't like GP releases being described as "free". The game is no more "free" than Bridgerton is to Netflix subscribers. But good to know I can play this one day with my subscription (if it's still in the line-up)!
Reception
  • "simultaneously focused and experimental" what does this mean?
    • That was my attempt to paraphrase "It's not too often that you hear a soundtrack that's both so focused and so willing to experiment with obscure genres". I've decided to use the quote itself, since it's probably a clearer way of expressing it. JOEBRO64 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree, but I just noticed you're using Nintendo Life twice in successive sentences and introducing them each time... Maybe paraphrase the second quote a little, see if you can combine sentences, work another reviewer in between, something? Up to you. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of paragraph four, is it necessary to list the individual reviewers commenting on the story and the ending? Why can't you just use plural pronouns?
  • Would you disagree that "get the hang of them" is borderline informal?
    • I've changed "get the hang of" to "learn" JOEBRO64
Accolades
  • See WP:VG/AWARDS as well as relevant discussions (1, 2, 3). IGN would need to be cut from the table (but I believe can go in prose?). I need your justification for why NAVGTR is notable, as it looks like a mere listicle to me.
    • Moved IGN to prose. I've seen NAVGTR listed in other articles but I couldn't find any strong justification for keeping it so I binned it. (It was already there when I did the rewrite, so I doubt I would've even added it had it not been there already.) JOEBRO64 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other considerations

That's it from me for now. Pushbacks and difference of opinion are welcomed. This is a really cool sounding game and the article is overall written to an exceptional standard. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments CR4ZE; I should finish responding within the next day or two. It's midterms week so my time on Wikipedia has been somewhat limited but things should peter out and I'll get these finished shortly. JOEBRO64 02:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. Take your time. — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to every point above. If there's anything that still needs work, just let me know. JOEBRO64 12:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tending to my remarks. I've spot-checked your changes and am pleased; note there's a couple of very minute follow-ups noted above. None important enough to delay my full support for this candidacy. Great work putting together a brilliant article! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see my comment about Nintendo Life? — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: perhaps not, so I'll ping you instead ;) — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: ah crap I did in fact not see it, how's it looking now? JOEBRO64 01:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but maybe a touch too "quotey"? You could paraphrase the "show-stealing" bit, and/or combine and summarise with IGN or Destructoid: "There's also a fitting and fantastic retro-electro soundtrack to go along with the action"/ "the audial delight that is Ludowic and Bill Kiley’s soundtrack". — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've paraphrased the "show-stealing" bit and combined it with the Destructoid quote. JOEBRO64 02:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, looking good. Thanks again Joe. Look forward to seeing this well-deserved promotion. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Night Watch

[edit]

I have taken a general look at the article, and it appears to be good. I spot checked a few refs here and there (1-11) and they appear to be fine. Prose is good. I was a little concerned at the long plot section, but it seems understandable enough. I'm happy to support this nomination. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Czar

[edit]
  • Almost all sources are high-quality WP:VG/RS. The lower-quality sources—Gamereactor, Forbes, Bandcamp, TechRaptor, PS4Blog.net, Geeky Grind—are justifiable as WP:SPSAS and are used sparingly, as appropriate. As one place for improvement: Are there no better sources for SxSW, the 2020 IGF, or the Xbox and Luna release dates? E.g., here's [39][40][41] for IGF.
  • Not needed for this review but as an aside, it is continually clunky for video game FAs to dateline a bunch of release dates in prose as its own paragraph—it's exactly the sort of stuff that belongs as a table in a sidebar.
    I was thinking of the second Release paragraph that follows the format of "X release date on Y platform"—the type of repetition that fits better in a table than prose, even if the latter is the norm. czar 03:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "IGN staff" and "MCV staff" should be removed as the generic author per Help:Citation Style 1#Authors and because it's implied when no singular author is specified
  • Harcore => Hardcore
  • The in-line location citations for the podcast are very distracting to read through. A short footnote format, like {{sfn}}, definitely would be a better footnote option there.
  • Did a handful of spotchecks and they all checked out

Nicely done! Source review passed. czar 16:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As one passing prose comment, I wholly agree with BPP about the plot—it has too much granular detail for an element that isn't a focal point of the work. It should be shortened both for due weight and for readability. It introduces so many characters in such a short space as to be unintelligible to a general reader. Realistically, I'd be curious what source coverage justifies needing to go into more depth than a single paragraph on the broad strokes of the topic. Per the VG MOS, if it's only a minor element of the platformer, it should fit within the Gameplay section—it's not like this is a film or narrative game where the point is the plot. czar 16:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree it should be cut to one paragraph and integrated into the Gameplay, but a snip certainly wouldn't hurt. I think paring back to just the key moments and reducing the supporting cast would be enough. I wasn't concerned in my assessment, because it's still shy of the 700 word limit. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Czar: thank you for the source review! I'll take a stab at shortening the plot tonight based on what the sources consider significant. (I started but it's going to take me at least an hour and I don't have time right now.) I think a standalone plot section will probably remain justified—I usually agree that platformer articles do not need stories, but Katana Zero's was a big point for the developer and is talked about in more than passing in reviews. I'll ping you again once I've done some work. JOEBRO64 16:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Czar and CR4ZE: I've given the plot section a big snip and used more independent (non-primary) sources for the details. Let me know what you think—I'm open to any further suggestions. JOEBRO64 21:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much improved, but I still think the reliance on primary sources beyond the first paragraphs indicates that those details were not quite noteworthy to the secondary source writers/reviewers. The reader would benefit from knowing about the Chronos subplot, the arc with V, the arc with the psychologist, and maybe some details of how Zero evolves over the game, but apart from that, the rest still reads as trivia to a general reader: the NULL program, Comedy and Tragedy, the girl, the individual missions, Dragon—all of this doesn't show up in a crucial way in the rest of the article. Even the Reception touches on the story in broad strokes, not delving into aspects of the plot as individually crucial. The full plot summary would be a good addition to an external wiki, but for our general audience I'd still wager that there is a one-paragraph version here based on secondary sources that would suffice. czar 21:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @Czar: integrated the plot into a subsection in Gameplay alongside the dialogue tree info. JOEBRO64 01:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No strong feelings from me. Looks good. — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! czar 03:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I initially supported FA when it was a dedicated Plot section. I'm not against the premise summary style, but there are way too many refs in between sentences that affect readability. And I'm normally not against sentences using em dashes, but they're being used a little too frequently and it definitely affects the flow. In my opinion, em dashes should be used at a minimum if possible and whatever the side-thought the em dashes are being used for, they must be short enough to resume proper flow. Otherwise, they might as well be their own sentence.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie, the mid-sentence refs are needed for WP:TSI. If you're referring to that that second sentence in the first paragraph, it has much less to gain from grouping all the refs at the end of the sentence and making the reader guess which portion came from where. The current sentence is MOS-compliant.
As for the em dashes parentheticals, I don't think they necessarily impede the text but I've recasted them. czar 12:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: MOS-compliant isn't the only thing we look for in an FA. I don't think it meets criteria 1a. The flow of the sentence is broken up too many times by refs and the some sentences are long-winded. Combine the two problems and it's not even readable.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It meets criteria 1a. Every sentence is grammatically correct, there are no run-ons, and the refs are at the end of punctuation to back up the claims, which is how refs work. I really have no idea what the issue is here. JOEBRO64 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was at best a minor gain by recasting the emdashes, but I agree there's no issues otherwise. I tweaked the "child in the hut" bit; perhaps you can all agree it's clearer. Refine as you see fit if not. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) These are my concerns:
  • "Subject Zero,[13] an amnesiac veteran with the ability to predict the future,[14][15] assassinates drug dealers for his psychiatrist,[7] who acts as his handler.[16]"
^^This sentence looks like a run-on to me. This looks like it can be more than one sentence. Considering that the premise/plot section is now integrated back into gameplay, would it be better to describe the story in a more descriptive way rather than a narrative-style? Such as "The story follows Subject Zero, an amnesiac war veteran with the ability to predict the future.[14][15] He assassinates drug dealers for his psychiatrist who acts as his handler.[16]
  • "News media ascribes Zero's killings to a serial killer known as the Dragon. Zero experiences recurring nightmares of a scientist running into a hut to warn a child to hide soon before a soldier enters and shoots the scientist. Zero believes the child is himself.[17] He discusses his nightmares with the psychiatrist, who supplies him with a drug as treatment.[18] Zero also befriends a young girl living next door to his apartment,[6][12] and he becomes attached to her.[15]"
^^This group of sentences don't all flow together. Just facts that seem randomly put side by side. There seems to be a lack of weight to some of these pieces of information. Based on looking into the plot, it would make sense to incorporate some of this information in the following paragraph where it goes into detail on what kind of events happen between episodes/gameplay. But also, I also believe that the plot section before wasn't a bad idea, just needed to be summarized.
  • "After the Dragon, a separate swordsman with clairvoyant abilities similar to Zero's, dismembers and abducts V,[21] Zero learns he was a supersoldier and his abilities come from the drug, Chronos,[22] whose withdrawal effects cause users to become trapped within their minds."
^^is it important to note that V dismembers and abducts V in this point? Or is it the fact that he encounters the real Dragon for the first time?
  • Zero, tired of being manipulated, kills the psychiatrist and the girl goes missing,[24] and the story ends on a cliffhanger.[12][15]
^^One too many ands.

If it were upto me I would've kept the plot section and just summarized it to three paragraphs. First paragraph the initial exposition provided at the start. The middle paragraph summarizing the recurring events, such as zero finding his marks dead before he has a chance to do it himself, recurring nightmares, Interacting with the girl. V interfering. Then the last paragraph summarizes closing events.

At this moment, I'm not able to really give as much detail that I want due to work and only responding during lunch. But I'll give more detailed responses after.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some alterations to the first sentence, but I really don't see the issue with the others. The second set of sentences isn't disjointed. We say Zero kills people, we say who news media ascribes said killings to, and then we note the other key points. The Dragon abducting V bit serves to establish the real Dragon and V's fate. And after thinking, I think merging the plot with the dialogue tree gameplay information was a good call; the two are intrinsically linked, as plot beats differ depending on player choices. I don't see much left to discuss. Three editors have disagreed with you and I feel like this is needlessly protracting a process that's coming to an end. JOEBRO64 17:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well i wouldn't say its complete disagree. It's been an open dialogue of Cr4ze, Czar, and yourself not seeing the flaws initially, And I bring up more detailed concerns. Which does result enough to make modifications.
I thought the story was merged with the gameplay because the level of detail in the story wasnt given too much weight more than it being intrinsically linked to the gameplay. There are other articles that offer dialogue trees that offer more significance to the plot but still have their respected sections.
it's upto you to decide what you want to do. And I don't mind either way if it's merged with the gameplay section or not. I just think merging it created more problems than solving it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think these are minor points. If you think these sentence are better when split, it would have taken a fraction of the effort to just make the edit. I've done so now and you should feel free to edit further. Usually that is a better method than holding up an entire nomination unless there's something about this section that warrants this level of discussion. czar 03:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Czar. As I said at the start of my review above, in almost every PR/GA/FA review I've ever conducted, I copy-edit the minutiae myself so the nominator can focus on the larger points. They'll compare diffs and either tweak to their preference or query if needed on the review page. That should've been the approach here. Not to press the coords, but unless there's more reviewers forthcoming, this one is more than good to go. — CR4ZE (T • C) 05:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue as small as you. I do see more and more improvements. But I still think it has the granular detail. And this is a bigger change that is merged back into gameplay. It's not like we can edit it like a normal plot either.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do want to mention that I do want to make the plot section easier to understand but time has not been on my side. Mobile edits are as much as I can do and with the full Citation in the middle of the the sentences, it can be very easy to make mistakes (or not see the problem). Which is why I normally love them into the reflist.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2022 [42].

1973–74 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the successful promotion of 1963–64, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, here's yet another season from the annals of Gillingham F.C. history. With this one we step back to the sensational seventies and only the second time in club history that Gillingham got promoted from one division of the Football League to another. All feedback, as ever, most gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

File:Gresty Road - geograph.org.uk - 1493956.jpg and File:Priestfield1.jpg are appropriately licensed and have appropriate ALT text. I recommend archiving the source and author links for the first image to avoid any potential future headaches with link rot and death, but that is not a requirement for a FAC/FA. I will assume good faith that the second image was taken by the uploader. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: it absolutely was. I took that picture with the first camera I ever owned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]

Not much to say, the article seems in decent shape. Strange they had own goals two weeks in a row!

  • There are 15 "but"s in the whole article which is arguably too much. There are four in the first paragraph of the lead and that is too many I'd say.

Comments Support from Yolo4A4Lo

[edit]

This look good already.

  • There are tables that still need a caption, based on MOS:TABLECAPTION. You could use Template:Screen reader-only if you find making them visible is redundant.
  • "They remained in the top three and a victory over Colchester United on 20 April" Needs a comma after "three"
  • "Gillingham were again top of the table, however defeat to Peterborough United meant that their opponents overtook them to win the championship of the division." Change "however" to "but". See here
  • "Redevelopment work took place at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, between seasons..." -> Suggestion to change it into "Redevelopment work took place between seasons at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium,..."
  • "due to injuries sustained in pre-season" is pretty long, so it needs a comma.
  • "a Gillingham team" shouldn't it be "the team"?
  • "only the second". Remove "only", it's redundant.
  • "Although Gillingham lost their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County, they remained behind the league leaders only on goal average." -> "Gillingham remained behind the league leaders only on goal average despite losing in their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County." Suggestion to avoid repeating "although"
  • "they were top of the Fourth Division table," I suppose better turn that into full stop to reduce "but" after that.
  • "behind second-placed Gillingham" Remove "second-placed", it's just stated in the previous sentence they closed March in second place.
  • "in the first round, but were beaten" Remove comma.

If you like my comments, could you please take a look at FAC of Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons. You reviewed the sister article List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu last year. I would really appreciate it if you do. Good luck for your FAC! - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
  • Going into their final game of the season on 1 May, Gillingham were again top of the table, but defeat to Peterborough United meant that their opponents overtook them to win the championship of the division - I feel like this could be condensed a bit. Perhaps lay the land that it was between first and second before noting they lost. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gillingham also competed in two knock-out competitions; the team were eliminated in the first round of the FA Cup and the second round of the Football League Cup - I feel like we could say some more details like who they lost too. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:, just wondering if you had had a chance to look at this FAC yet? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I've had a lot on. I'll do some notes now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: - all done apart from the one re: "The management team retained a largely unchanged squad....." - it might be me being thick but I don't follow what you are saying there. Oh, and yes it was still goal average in 1973-74 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake - I read it as "The management team was largely unchanged". I'm a dumbo. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Missing the publisher location on Bradley & Triggs (1994).
  • You include publishers for all web citations except newspapers.com; just checking that this is deliberate?
  • FN 52 is not displaying the original URL link, only the archive link. I think this is because the url-status field says "bot: unknown".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - 1 and 3 addressed. For 2, all the newspapers.com links are to digitised versions of old newspapers, so I have entered the paper as the "work" and I don't believe there is a need for a separate "publisher" parameter, as it would most likely just duplicate the "work". Hope that makes sense.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the first two. For FN 52, the URL still doesn't display -- I think you need to set url-status to whatever is correct in this situation. I'd fix it myself but since you're using sfn I can't edit it with VE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: sorted now, I think......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looks good. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: may I open a new FAC now? I have a doozy ready to go next :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2022 [43].

The Random Years

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a short-lived UPN sitcom that follows three childhood friends as they attempt to navigate life after graduating college and each fall for an attractive, new neighbor. Aired as a mid-season replacement, this show aired for only three weeks in March 2002 before being canceled likely due to its abysmal ratings.

Unsurprisingly, The Random Years has fallen into complete obscurity, but for whatever reason, I do enjoy work on articles about more obscure media and I find UPN's attempts to establish a brand and maintain an audience to be fascinating. This is my ninth nomination for a UPN series and my first since 2019.

I have received a very helpful GAN review from @MaranoFan: and some very helpful comments in the peer review from @SatDis: and @Pseud 14:. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:TheRandomYearsLogo.png: I'm concerned about the sourcing here, since it seems to be linkvio and incorrectly claiming a CC license for this image. I'd also suggest expanded the purpose of use field. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. I have updated the purpose of use field with an explanation used in a recent television show FA, but please let me know if further revisions would be beneficial. As for the source link, would it be better to cite the series directly as the source? I am somewhat uncertain of that option as episodes of the series are not available online although the opening credits are accessible on YouTube (here). What would you suggest as the best course of action? Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SatDis

[edit]
  • I was able to provide comments in within the peer review for this article, and all of my suggestions were addressed. I believe the prose is of a FA quality and the random (pardon the pun!) references I checked all supported the details in the article. Support. Good luck! SatDis (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Although certain actors were praised in reviews, the cast as a whole also received negative feedback" - I don't think the "also" in the second clause works
  • "Alex is a researcher and an assistant to a rock critic for Music Week magazine, but dreams of being a music critic and runs his own website" - this reads a bit oddly (the second bit specifically) as it reads kinda like the website part is also part of what he dreams, but the present tense suggests he is already doing it.....?
  • I have revised this part. According to the sources, Alex already runs his own music website and has dreams of being a music critic. If I had to guess, his dreams are becoming an established music critic through an established publication rather than through his own site. It is also important to remember this all took place in the early 2000s well before music critics were establishing themselves on YouTube and other platforms outside of established publications. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While emphasizing the show's setting in one of New York's most diverse neighborhoods", Deggans" - quote mark is closed but never opened (or vice versa :-))

Support from Pseud 14

[edit]

I PR'd this article and had my comments/points addressed during the process. Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]
  • My comments at the GAN were exhaustive and the article only seems to have gotten better since then. Congrats on the nomination going well so far! :) NØ 02:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid

[edit]

Before I give it a through read, just asking. Is it common practice mentioning the running time of the episodes? For some reason, to me it sounds very essential information, at least the mean average for the entire season if not for each episode separately. Sitcoms generally run for a half hour (if not less) but who knows. Shahid • Talk2me 00:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Shshshsh: That is a fair question. From my experience, television articles do not include running times for each individual episode. Sitcoms traditionally air in 30-minute time slots, which account for commercials, and the episode itself typically lasts 22 minutes. I used the 30-minute option in the infobox as this is the information that I can find supported in a citation and this is the kind of thing that would need to be cited. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shshshsh, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47@Gog the Mild: Just read the entire thing. I support the nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 10:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Czar

[edit]

Where does Levesque criticize the show's lack of diversity? I only see an aside that a different show, As If, gets "bonus points" for including a Black cast member. I'd also clarify in the lede what kind of diversity dearth is being criticized, i.e., lack of ethnic diversity. Altogether, in both sources, it does not present as a prominent criticism, so curious why it warrants mention in the lede? czar 22:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Czar: Thank you for the comment. Levesque starts his review by saying the following: "the search to find the next witty exploration of chumhood in an urban setting where people of color are hard to find". I had interpreted this statement as applicable to The Random Years and As If, but upon further review, it is far too vague. I agree the criticism of racial and ethnic diversity is not prominent enough to warrant a separate paragraph or a mention in the lead. The only critic to explicitly focus on this is Deggans. This paragraph was likely a holdover from my draft when I thought there would be more to this type of criticism after reading Deggans. I ended up removing it from the article entirely. I hope that clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense—thanks! czar 00:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, just checking if there will be more to come from you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just passing through. Happy to help if spot checks are needed. czar 04:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Thank you. I appreciate the source review and the question. I can understand how the Harvard citation style can be confusing (particularly in cases like this one) and why some editors dislike it but I personally enjoy it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for pinging you. I was just curious of the status of the nomination. Is it being kept active until the standard three-week time period? I was wondering because activity on this nomination has dropped off for some time and the nomination is continually moving down the list. I just wanted to make sure there was not something I was missing or could do to help with the nomination. Thank you in advance. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look through this tonight (or more likely, tomorrow afternoon). I've been very busy lately and haven't been able to keep as close an eye on the FAC list as I'd like. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Apologies for being a pest. Take as much time as you need and best of luck with everything that is keeping you busy. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2022 [44].

Ceres (dwarf planet)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article nearly won its previous FAC, but ran aground on the writing and style. Since then I and a fresh pair of eyes have given it a copyedit, and I think it's ready for another FAC. Serendipodous 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE to Coords: former featured article; if re-promoted, please adjust the placement and tally at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Great article on the dwarf planet. That's being said, the article's images and image placement may need some work, one-line paragraphs should be merged, and there's some stuff that can be written more about (Why Ceres don't have a moon? Is Ceres seismically active? Does Ceres has a magnetic field? etc.) so I don't think the article should be promoted yet, but overall, good work on a Level 4 Vital article. You should be proud of your efforts and accomplishment. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's possible to answer why it doesn't have a moon; that's like asking why I don't have a sports car. Serendipodous 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur on that point. Regarding the magnetic field, as far as I know, it's not thought to have one [45], and the bow-shock event detected by the Dawn spacecraft is thought to be due to the solar wind impinging upon the transient exosphere [46][47]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Take "Why Ceres don't have a moon?" as an example – why does Salacia and Orcus have a moon even though the parent body is less massive than Ceres? It may be because of their distance from the Sun, or their origin. I doubt that there haven't been any research done about the topic yet that would warrant inclusion into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It still sounds strange, because we can also ask "why Orcus don't have two moons?" or smth similar. I tried to find any paper that talks about hypothetical moon of Ceres, but didn't find anything significant except for thia paper Dawn mission's search for satellites of Ceres: Intact protoplanets don't have satellites. I think it can be included, though I'm not an expert on Ceres: Examination of the physical properties of the 41 largest and most massive main belt asteroids suggests that large asteroids without satellites are intact and their interiors have internal strength. This is consistent with results from the Dawn mission at both Vesta and Ceres. Ceres' volatile-rich composition also is a likely contributor to both the absence of satellites at Ceres and of Ceres meteorites at Earth. These results suggest that collisional disruption creating rubble pile structure is a necessary condition for formation of satellites around main belt asteroids. Artem.G (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          My bias is that one should explain why a body has a moon, rather than why it doesn't. Of course, if people have done studies, then we can write about them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure that seismic activity has been studied apart from the cryovulcanism that the article already discusses, but I did a little work on the other topics mentioned. My standards for image selection and placement are very low, so somebody else ought to evaluate that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a line that was unreliably sourced; it's been restored with a {{citation needed}}, but I can't find any reliable source that could substantiate it or indicate that it's a sufficiently important datum to include. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{citation needed}} was filled in with a personal website, which I am highly doubtful of, and since the point is a really, really marginal one, I snipped it out again. XOR'easter (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Artem

[edit]

Article is good, sources seems to be ok, will try to read thoroughly and comment later. At a first glance, 'Proposed exploration' seems odd, as it describes missions proposals for Vesta or just some asteroids, but not specifically a Ceres mission. More comments later. Artem.G (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some source checks:
Ref 7 should be moved to notes; ref 14 - do you think it's reliable source? Looks self-published. Artem.G (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 can be cited properly, with authors (and maybe it can be swapped with some real paper, not with a conference summary?)
Refs 30 and 31 should be formatted, can they be found online? Ref 35 needs ISBN. Ref 100 - can it be found online?
Fixed. (except for some reason the format isn't recognising "et al.") Serendipodous 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has the numbering of these references changed? I think I'm pretty close to supporting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One of the references was moved to notes. Serendipodous 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking rather nice, now. XOR'easter (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from XOR'easter

[edit]

I am very close to supporting this for promotion. I'm not convinced that all the images are necessary; the portrait of Piazzi falls awkwardly before the end of the infobox, squeezing the text between them, and it doesn't add much. The first map in the row of three is both incomplete and drab. Other than image issues, I think it's a go. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Serendipodous 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild just a note about what is going on in astronomy articles. Unfortunately, some months back, different editors nominated five astronomy articles at once at FAR, which has placed an enormous burden on the few editors who work in this area. I'm wondering if you might consider giving this one a little extra time, depending on what those editors say ? They are quite taxed, and it's demoralizing and demotivating ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then they need to come here for some R&R positivity. Happy to give it, or any other article, a little extra time - so long as there are clear indications that this will result in some further reviewing attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipodous and Gog the Mild ... as the other side of the same same coin, 90377 Sedna was originally a FAC nomination of Serendipodous. Serendipodous, if you were to help out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1, the few reviewers at FAR who are stretched so thin might have more time to devote to this FAC nomination. It doesn't seem quite right for the very few editors we have working in astronomy to be struggling to clean up five, now reduced to three FARs at once, while a new nomination appears at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:: They could close the Sedna FAR, which was pointless to start with. Serendipodous 18:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "numerical procession" A link for this term would be helpful.
  • "Ceres's lack of an asteroid family is believed to be due to the large proportion of ice in its composition, which, if fragmented, would have sublimated to nothing over the age of the Solar System" Do you mean that Ceres is thought to be a member of a family the other members of which have sublimated away? If so - or if not - you should clarify.
  • How about "Ceres is not part of an asteroid family, probably due to its large proportion of ice, as smaller bodies with the same composition would have sublimated to nothing over the age of the Solar System."
OK. Moved to the topic sentence. Serendipodous 15:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "meaning that seasonal effects have occurred in the past, with the last period of seasonal activity estimated at 14,000 years ago". What seasonal activity?
  • "Ceres comprises nearly a third of the estimated (3.0±0.2)×1021 kg mass of the asteroid belt". You say above 25%.
  • "It is approximately the size of the large trans-Neptunian object Orcus (though 1.5 times as massive)" Why is this worth mentioning?
  • "pit crater chains" This term should be linked or explained.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Serendipodous 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 2016, Dawn found definitive evidence of water molecules on the surface of Ceres at Oxo crater". I do not understand what you are saying here. Presumably it is not ice as this is a major constituent of the surface, so evidence of it would not be significant. If you mean temporary liquid water then you should say so.
  • " Ceres is thought to consist of an inner muddy mantle of hydrated rock, such as clays, an intermediate layer comprising a muddy mixture of brine and rock down to a depth of at least 100 km (60 mi), and an outer, 40 km (25 mi) thick crust of ice, salts and hydrated minerals." This is unclear. Mantle links to an article which defines it as the layer between the core and the crust, and my dictionary of geology gives the same definition, but you appear to use it here to mean a layer with a specific composition. If you are using sources with a different definition, then you should give it rather than linking to an article which defines it as an intermediate layer.
I think the sources call it a mantle because it is still uncertain whether Ceres has a core or not. Serendipodous 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I can really do is put the word "mantle" in quotes. Since the sources use it and don't explain it, and other sources I've looked at don't explain it. Serendipodous 10:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I found the meaning of "mantle" clear enough in context. I was going to suggest putting it in quotes, as you've now done. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ceres is a surviving protoplanet that formed 4.56 billion years ago; alongside Pallas and Vesta, the only one remaining in the inner Solar System". The only ones?
  • "it has the most water of any body in the inner Solar System after Earth" The source says "Ceres, the most water-rich body in the inner solar system after Earth". I am not clear what the source means, unless it is referring to surface water. Ceres is more water rich than Earth proportionally, but it can hardly have as much water in total as Mars, which - if I understand correctly - still has much of its water as ice and bound up in rocks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mars does have water, but Ceres is made partly of water. Even given their differences in size, Ceres still has more water than Mars. Serendipodous 22:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think you are right. There is speculation that very large amounts may be present on Mars deep below the surface, but the known water is only a fraction of the amount on Ceres. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else addressed. Serendipodous 12:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

[edit]
  • "Ceres's internal differentiation is possibly related to its lack of a natural satellite, as satellites of main belt asteroids are mostly believed to form from collisional disruption, creating a rubble pile structure." I didn't fully grasp this at first. It could use clarification. Specifying that a rubble pile structure isn't differentiated would be enough, I think.
  • "Tholins, formed from ultraviolet irradiation of simple carbon compounds, were detected on Ceres in Ernutet crater…" I looked at the source, and it doesn't mention tholins or Ernutet crater.
  • Question: is there an accepted standard for how to refer to craters by name? In the absence of one, I would think either "Ernutet Crater", with capitalization, or "the Ernutet crater", with an article, would make more sense than how the article currently has it.

More later. A. Parrot (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Serendipodous 20:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. Parrot, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to spot-check the sources, but I'm having difficulty finding the time. I hope to do it over the weekend, but unless I've done it, I won't be supporting or opposing. A. Parrot (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lines of longitude, unlike latitude, are arbitrary, yet apparently there's an agreed-upon system of longitude for Ceres. Is there any information about how or when this system was established? A. Parrot (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added. Serendipodous 08:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

I have no concerns with source quality. Though I'm not an expert in this field, the citations seem to meet the high standard set by WP's other solar system FAs. (I was rather amused to see A Companion to Roman Religion, a book in my wheelhouse and indeed my source library, listed here.) I spot-checked 20 citations and found only three faults. (Citation numbers according to the latest revision of the article.)

  • Citation 26: The page seems to be wrong; both my copy and the one currently on Google Books show the word on pages 51 and 52. (The archived version of the Google Books preview doesn't want to load.)
I'll take your word for it. I don't have access to the entire book. Serendipodous 09:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 65: The paper talks about organic compounds, but not tholins by that name. It may be partly that I'm too unfamiliar with the chemistry jargon and don't recognize an equivalent term for "tholin", but the paper doesn't say definitively that the organic compounds have been affected by radiation, only that they may have been. If I'm understanding the definition of "tholin" correctly, it seems like their presence would be proof that the organic compounds have been affected by radiation.
The line cited by cite 65 isn't about tholins. It's citation 66 that mentions tholins. Serendipodous 09:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was Citation 65 when I wrote my comment. In any case, it's this source: [48]. A. Parrot (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I'm a moron. Anyway, changed to what the source actually says. Serendipodous 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 117: The article mentions the presence of nitrogen and the absence of phosphorus, but it doesn't mention carbon, hydrogen, or oxygen.::
Added. Serendipodous 09:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All concerns resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A. Parrot, just checking if this is a source review pass and a general review support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is both. A. Parrot (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

I came looking to review it favourably, but I was dismayed to see it has been changed over from one spelling system to another since its last FA version. This isn't permitted by MoS. I've raised this at Talk:Ceres (dwarf_planet)#ENGVAR. Once this issue has been resolved, I will have a proper look at the article. John (talk)22:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose per the lack of agreement in talk about what spelling the article should have. Happy to come back after this is resolved. John (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped it. Serendipodous 09:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. John (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are having an RfC on spelling now. Let my oppose stand until this matter is resolved.John (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. The issue of which variety of English to use would seem to be settled. I was wondering if you had any further thoughts on the article or the nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I'll post some comments here tonight. Thanks for notifying me. John (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a nice article, well-written and objective, with good sourcing and it looks to be comprehensive and up to date regarding the latest discoveries.

*Now that the thorny issue of which variant of English to use has been settled, the spelling needs to be standardised throughout. I think this one is done, but please check my work. John (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Originally considered a planet, it was also classified as an asteroid in the 1850s after the discovery of dozens of other objects in similar orbits. In 2006, it was reclassified again as a dwarf planet – the only one always inside Neptune's orbit – because, at 940 km (580 mi) in diameter, it is the only asteroid large enough for its gravity to maintain it as a spheroid in hydrostatic equilibrium. This is a lot of real estate to spend on taxonomy in the lead, and I feel it could be trimmed down a little.
    We now have Ceres was subsequently classified as an asteroid and later a dwarf planet – the only one always inside Neptune's orbit; these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. which is better, but there has to be an even clearer formulation than this. John (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ceres's small size means that any internal ocean of liquid water it may once have possessed has likely frozen by now. It is not completely frozen, however: brines still flow through the outer mantle and reach the surface, allowing cryovolcanoes such as Ahuna Mons to form at the rate of about one every 50 million years. Again, this is fascinating and vital to say, but there should be a more economical way to say it in the lead.
  • In the years between the acceptance of heliocentrism and the discovery of Neptune, several astronomers argued that mathematical laws predicted the existence of a hidden or missing planet between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. could we have dates for the first two events. I'm an astronomy geek and I don't have these dates at my fingertips, and neither will the general reader.
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although they did not discover Ceres, they later found the asteroids 2 Pallas, 3 Juno and 4 Vesta. Using those names seems a bit anachronistic; weren't they adopted long after, in 1852?
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He announced his discovery on 24 January 1801 in letters to only two fellow astronomers, his compatriot Barnaba Oriani of Milan and Bode in Berlin. I don't think we need "only".
  • On 31 December 1801, von Zach and fellow celestial policeman Heinrich W. M. Olbers found Ceres near the predicted position and thus recovered it. What is a "celestial policeman"? It sounds fascinating!
It is first mentioned in the section's second paragraph. Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, my apologies. If I missed it, in admittedly quite a quick read through, so may others. I wonder how to do this so it's more obvious. John (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Compared to other planets and dwarf planets, Ceres's orbit is moderately (though not drastically) tilted relative to that of Earth, with an inclination (i) of 10.6° (compared to 7° for Mercury, and 17° for Pluto) and elongated, with an eccentricity (e) = 0.08 (compared to 0.09 for Mars)." isn't quite sparkling prose.
  • Ceres is believed not to have a magnetic field. Didn't Dawn take any measurements?
Revised. Serendipodous 09:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. John (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider amalgamating the three very short sections Craters, Tectonic features and Boulders into one called Features.
If they are features, then what are cryovocanoes? Serendipodous 09:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see what you mean. It's the very short "Boulders" section that bothers me. John (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I see. Thank you. John (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...it has the most water of any body in the inner Solar System after Earth, and the likely brine pockets under its surface could provide habitats for life. Likely? I thought the existence of brine was more settled than that?
Inferred yes. Brine canot exist on Ceres's surface and Dawn only saw Ceres's surface. Serendipodous 09:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. John (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took an initial chop at the prose. There's nothing major to fix here, just a few nips and tucks; I am just still a bit concerned about the lead. We certainly can't repeat the same link twice there. I'm sorry, I'm getting bonked and I will need to come back to this. It's a beautiful and fascinating article. Thanks to those who wrote it. John (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's looking good. I think that if we removed "these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive" from the lead I could support it. This is over detailed for the lead. If it's essential to reflect this taxonomical detail in the lead, there will be a more elegant way to express it. John (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've actioned my own suggestion. Here is the cumulative diff of (mostly) my edits over the last day or so. Could you please review them and see what you think? John (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only change I have an issue with is your change of "believed" to "predicted" as regards Kepler, as I not think one can make meaningful predictions regarding God's design. I also caution you about getting involved in the whole planet/dwarf planet mess. I fought that battle for a decade and lost. Serendipodous 19:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I've restored "believed" as it makes little difference and perhaps you're right. There's always a tension on science articles between dwelling on the taxonomy ("is Pluto a planet?") versus describing the phenomenon ("how big is Pluto?"). Science geeks (and I include myself in that) often overvalue the former over the latter. Taxonomy is interesting and important, but it should always be in second place to the phenomenon as it is a social construct which can change and ultimately doesn't matter. I (and I suspect most readers) am more interested in whether life could be present on it (for example), than in whether it is an asteroid, a dwarf planet, or both, or something else. Thanks anyway for the caution. John (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kwami

[edit]

I haven't reviewed the whole article recently, but had a couple changes in wording reverted because they were rejected here. Though I can't see where they were ever mentioned here.

Ceres's composition is not consistent is rather awkward to say aloud. The Cererean composition works better IMO.
internal processes ... unlike on Vesta is semantically odd. In contrast to Vesta avoids that, though maybe there's a better way to put it.

— kwami (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ce'd it. Serendipodous 21:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your ce Serendipodous, and I am ok with "Ceres's", although it is a little awkward, "Cererean" is even more so. We can agree to disagree, Kwami. They were discussed just above as one of a batch of copyedits. John (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2022 [49].

Securitas depot robbery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

During the COVID lockdown, I pursued an interest in the history of heists which resulted in a featured list amongst other things. A loose end was always the page for the Securitas depot robbery since I wanted to improve this account of one of the world's largest cash robberies: of the almost £53 million stolen banknotes, around £32 million has never been recovered. The history of the gang which did the heist is unique, taking in crashed sports cars, mixed martial arts and various locations in Kent, UK. I took it to Good article in June 2022 and I then put it to peer review where unfortunately it did not receive comments. This is my second FA nomination (after Olive Morris) and I hope the discussion will be as fruitful as first time round. Thanks for all constructive comments. Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nikkimaria! Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is well-written, seems comprehensive and well sourced. John (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Your interest in heists overlaps with my interest in policing and police use of firearms!

  • Personally, I dislike long lists of locations in prose like "Tonbridge, Kent, England" and I don't think the county is especially helpful to readers unfamiliar with English geography. I would go with "Tonbridge, Kent, in south-eastern England" but that's mostly personal preference.
  • I feel we could do with the year in the opening sentence just for context. The reader has to read a little bit before they find out when the event occurred.
  • "turned queen's evidence" strikes me as informal and not necessarily clear to an international audience; "testified" or "gave evidence" might be better.
  • who he realised were criminals impersonating police officers I believe that should be whom though I won't press the point but ... it took him that long? The timeline here could do with some copy editing. I'd suggest either spelling out at the beginning that the unmarked police car was the robbers and omitting the "realisation", or omitting the description of "hostage-taking car".
  • meticulously planned by organised crime → by *an* organised crime *group*?

I made a few tweaks as I went through but it looks in good shape. Can't see anything that would rule out promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian

[edit]

I know nothing of this incident but the nom seems to be languishing a bit and after all who doesn't like a good heist story, so recusing coord duties to review...

  • Copyedited per my usual practice but let me know if you feel I've misunderstood something. Queries:
    • Dixon ... realised the two men were criminals impersonating police officers: Perhaps I'm ignorant but do we know just how he determined this given they were uniformed and fooled him initially?
    • The entire heist was filmed on CCTV and Kent Police called the gang member dressed as a police officer "Policeman": Sorry, this seems to pop out of nowhere... I assume this means that CCTV recorded the heist and subsequently Kent Police referred to one of the bad guys as "Policeman", but the way it is here it's almost like Kent Police were monitoring the CCTV at the very moment of the robbery and yelled out "Policeman"...!
    • Other gang members ... known as "Stopwatch" ... "Shorty", "Hoodie" and "Mr Average": Same again, I think we could recast both these bits to make clear these were nicknames bestowed on the perps after the event when police had reviewed the CCTV footage.
    • They asked a worker to drive the power lifter but he kept deliberately crashing it: Full marks to the worker for trying to disrupt the robbery, anything on how the perps reacted to this?
  • Structure seems logical and I can't complain about comprehensiveness -- seems to explain all one needs to know without going into unnecessary detail.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read, so leaning support subject to resolution of the above prose queries and a clean source review. All up, nice work.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dixon ... realised the two men were criminals impersonating police officers: The most comprehensive report is in Sounes' book. He says Dixon still thought they were police when he got into the car and they play-acted taking him to Maidstone police station, next telling him they were going to Tonbridge to explain a change in direction. The driver then told Dixon "You will have guessed we are not policemen. Don't do anything silly and you won't get hurt". So Dixon must have started to wonder what was going on and then they told him. I've tried to make it a bit clearer in the article.
  • The entire heist was filmed on CCTV and Kent Police called the gang member dressed as a police officer "Policeman": Yes I see what you mean! I've added a bit to show that the police were reviewing the CCTV footage and nicknamed the gang members at a later stage.
  • Other gang members ... known as "Stopwatch" ... "Shorty", "Hoodie" and "Mr Average": Agreed as per previous point, added something about nicknames.
  • They asked a worker to drive the power lifter but he kept deliberately crashing it: Yes it must have been awful for the driver. The gang members were enraged but presumably more focused on getting cash into the van than reprisals, although Dixon did get a gun pointed at his head. Again, Sounes has the best account, and I've added some more details.
    • Okay, but we can't say something about the gang's rage, no threats from them? I just find it pretty amazing that this worker was so determined to make life difficult for the robbers and kept getting away with it -- I'm assuming of course they realised he was deliberately sabotaging things... Also was there any official recognition for the worker's ballsy efforts afterwards? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyedit and the comments, hopefully I have answered them fully. Mujinga (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally yes, thanks -- the tweaks, especially re. the CCTV/nicknames, are succinct and effective; there's just my remaining reservation and supplementary query immediately above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes you are right that the brutality of the gang needed to be emphasised more. I think I shied away from that to avoid being too sensationalist, hopefully now the balance is better. It's unclear to me from Sounes' account whether the worker's sabotage was seen as such by the gang or not - it must have been a chaotic situation and they were unable to drive the power lifter themselves (I added that detail in as well). I wouldn't be surprised if the worker did get an award, but there's no reference for that - all I could find was that his actions were mentioned in court. Mujinga (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Mujinga, happy with the changes and ready to support subject to source review (which I might have a go at myself if no-one else does but let's see...) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to support following clean source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • You use cite news with work= for every news cite except one: the Kent and Sussex Courier, for which you use publisher instead -- it should be consistent.
  • This isn't something that would prevent the source review passing, but there's no need to give retrieval dates for sources that have well-defined dates, such as newspaper issues.
    • The main reason the retrieval dates are there is simply because the bot adds them, but I would say it could conceivably be useful for future researchers to see when the article was retrieved in a case where say both the newspaper's archive and archive.org are down. Perhaps that is unlikely to happen though! Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding the url-access-level parameter to the Kent Online and FT sources to show subscription is required.
  • FN 25 is a dead link. Does it cite anything you cannot get from the other sources used for that sentence? -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never had access to that source it was added early on in the article's history, so I made sure everything was referenced from Sounes. Seems best just to remove it then. Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike Christie thanks for picking up the source review, I hope I've answered the queries to your satisfaction. Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: the article has three supports, an image review pass and a source review pass, so is it now at the point where it can be approved? Thanks Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look once I get off work, unless one of the other coordinators beats me to it. Hog Farm Talk 13:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2022 [50].

Fort Southerland

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the Duckport Canal FAC was archived due to inactivity, I was given a waiver of the normal two-week waiting period. So now follows a hopefully more interesting subject - a minor Confederate fortification in southwestern Arkansas. It's short, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be, although there is some confusion about the original name (spoiler: it's fairly likely that it's on the NRHP under the wrong name). Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "after a Union victory in the Little Rock campaign the previous year" - specify that this relates to the American Civil War?
    • Done
  • "and when beginning the Camden Expedition in March, decided to veer to the west and move through Arkadelphia instead" - don't think you need that comma after March (or if you do then you also need one before "when")
    • Removed
  • "the field of fire of the positions were" => "the field of fire of the positions was" (the subject of the verb is "field of fire")
    • Done
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now happy to support BTW if you had any spare time and fancied taking a look at this current FAC, your thoughts would be most gratefully received. If not, not to worry. Have a good day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, were you still planning to return here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a look at the remainder of the article, and can't see any further issues. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (MSG17)

[edit]

Only two pieces of media in the article: a freely-licensed relevant image of the site as it currently (in relative terms) stands and a location map. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Will comment, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an expert on Arkansas in the war, but I have checked the indexes of Civil War Arkansas : beyond battles and leaders and The impact of the Civil War and reconstruction on Arkansas : persistence in the midst of ruin and none of them so much as mention the fort so feeling good that there's nothing much missing from the article. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any way to add a caption to the IBox? It's not exactly clear what we're looking at
      • Added
    • is there a reason for "An redoubt" rather than "a"?
      • At one point the adjective "earthen" had been in there, but I never fixed the syntax when "earthen" was removed
    • "is roughly oval- or bowl-shaped" kinda confused me at first read without considering the deeper explanation in the article. When it's not explained that the distinction is because two different sources say different things, it's confusing (at least to me) because it would seem obvious that something looked like-- in fact, surely it could be oval and bowl shaped... Is there any way this might be more elegantly phrased?
      • the source that calls it bowl-shaped also states that it is "roughly oval-shaped" within the same paragraph, and the oval shape is what's most commonly used, so I've simply removed the references to bowl-shaped
    • "After the Confederates retook Camden," perhaps add date or some sense of time?
    • Added
    • "but according to historian William L. Shea, are more accurately termed redoubts" my brain wants a comma after 'but', as well. Is that correct?
    • I'm bad with commas so I'll go with your gut instinct and add it
    • Is Shea's questioning of the accuracy for the same reason as Christ?
    • Shea just says "the accuracy of that name [Southerland] is questionable"
    • "It was constructed south of Camden and was" Might be some confusion here whether 'it' is Redoubt D or E. Worth clarifying?
    • Clarified
    • "move through Arkadelphia instead." instead of?
    • Have tried to clarify, although it may wind up making the sentence awkward
    • "In places, the field of fire of the positions was not properly cleared and enemy troops" would it be more accurate, perhaps, to say "the field of fire was limited by incomplete clearing"? Since my understanding of 'field of fire' is that it is the area that can actually be reached by weaponfire
    • Done
    • "Union supply trains were captured in the battles of" I think it might need to be made a bit more clear that by this point Camden was held by Union forces...?
    • Added
    • "The line of trenches connecting the redoubts" are these the same trenches that Union forces had been digging earlier?
    • Not entirely clear from Shea, so I've rephrased it to "A line of trenches ..."
    That's pretty much all I came up with, hopefully some of it is helpful. Pretty nice little article. Please go easy on me, it's been a while since I reviewed much of anything. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Starting on this now; hope to finish tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891: - How do the above replies look? Hog Farm Talk 03:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    happy to Support at this point. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "five fixed positions were constructed." How does one construct a non-fixed position?
    • Removed "fixed" Would the hemp bales from the Siege of Lexington count as a "non-fixed position"?
LOL! Yes!
  • "Shea notes ... Mark K. Christ notes". Thesaurus time?
    • Reworded
  • "Redoubt D was actually known as Fort Southerland". Does "actually" add anything?
    • Removed
  • Suggest running Construction and Description together. It seems odd to have them separated by History. And there is a little overlap.
    • I've merged them together, which should resolve the overlap
  • "Fort Southerland was located on a hilltop". "was"? Has it since moved? Or perhaps the valley has silted up?
    • Reworded
  • "and fills a city block". I very much doubt this. Do you mean 'Made of earth, it is roughly 2,000 by 1,000 by 2,000 by 500 feet (610 m × 300 m × 610 m × 150 m), approximately the same size as a city block.
    • Done
  • Are these measurements from the outer edge of the ditches, the inner edge of the banks, or something else?
    • Checked Baker, Bearss, Shea, and both Christ sources and none of them are clear about exactly how this was measured
Bleh! Ok.
  • "as of 1993 there were several trees". Nothing from the past 30 years?
    • Not that I can find. Minor features like this generally only get attention when some sort of special event is occurring, like the NRHP nomination.
  • "The fort was well south of the city when it was constructed". Which fort?
    • clarified
  • Why is "Camden Expedition and modern history" one section?
    • Split the postwar stuff into its own section

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Can see no reliability or formatting issues in this short and sweet collection of references -- GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, given the innocuous nature of my source review I don't consider it necessary to recuse coord duties so will shortly be promoting this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 October 2022 [51].

Osbert Parsley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English composer, organist and 'singing man' Osbert Parsley, whose 50-year-long musical career at Norwich Cathedral spanned the reigns of four Tudor monarchs—Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. The article has received a peer review—and all comments on how to promote another of my Norfolk heroes to FA would be very welcome. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Nordovicum_(Map_of_Norwich,_1581).jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright - this needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Parsley's_Clock.png
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Information on Wikimedia Commons amended to reflect the fact that I made the file myself using Musescore. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so then this too is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been added for the intermediate work (IMSLP); I'm looking for a tag for the original work (the original composition). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: - Have you been able to get this licensing bit worked out? Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - Yes, I think it's now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Observations by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

The prose is fine and thanks for indulging my queries, though some sort of link for the first occurrence of the word motet would help those like me who are unfamiliar with it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The damage done was never completely restored by Edward's successors Mary and Elizabeth" is an interesting but not entirely neutral take on the reformation and counter reformation in England. A more conventional approach to the subject is that Mary attempted to reverse the changes under Edward, but at the end of her brief reign their half sister Elizabeth confirmed or reinstated some of Edward's work.
Sorted, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the context of the English Reformation, it would be relevant if possible to mention which of his compositions, extant or destroyed, were in accord with Roman Catholicism or early Anglicanism or indeed both.
I'll look to see if any of the sources provide this information. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morehen came up with some relevant information regarding your point, and I've amended the Compositions text accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the restricted compass of the top part" no doubt makes sense to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the subject. But is there a way to say this that caters for a general audience that includes people as ignorant of music as myself?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting married in his late forties was likely unusual for his era, has anyone conjectured that this indicates he was likely a monk? Especially if his wedding was after Elizabeth's accession - 1558 was a rather significant year. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, Boston (1963) p32-33 speculates about Parsley's possible monastic life before the Dissolution. He notes that Parsley becomes a singing man in 1535, three years before the Dissolution. he then goes on to suggest that Parsley was:
  • either a layman who assisted the monks, saying there is nothing to suggest this could be wrong;
  • or he was a novice. In Boston's view there is no evidence he was a priest, so he wasn't, but he could possibly have been a novice who may have been prevented from taking holy orders, and so became a singing man.
This is imo all speculation by someone writing nearly 60 years ago, so I didn't include it in the article. Do you suggest any of this could be included? No other sources come close to speculating that Parsley might have been a monk. or why he married in 1558. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is speculation centuries after the event, and we only know the year of the marriage, not whether it took place under Mary or Elizabeth. Marriage involving those previously in holy orders was a way to clearly take a side in the reformation and counter reformation. If Boston is still seen as an authority on the subject then I think it would be reasonable to say that "Boston has conjectured that .......". ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Some minor points on the prose:

  • Life and musical career
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth are unknown" – "x or y" needs a singular verb, rather than the plural one here. Alternatively, "or" should be "and".
  • "He was appointed a 'singing man'" – unclear why single, rather than the normal double, quotes are used here.
  • "conjectured that Parsley was either hired by the cathedral monks to assist them as a layman chorister, or he was possibly a novice monk" – the prose might flow better without the superfluous "he".
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later life
  • " ‘gifts’ from the cathedral" – more single quotes, and curly ones to boot.
  • "Te Deum" – unclear why there are quotation marks (here and later in the text). We usually give generic titles like this without quotes (or italicisation).
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and commemoration
  • "during an Evensong service" – the OED doesn't capitalise "evensong" and nor does Chambers.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composing career
  • "Parsley's instrumental music, nearly all for viols, survives" – Does this mean some of his instrumental music or all of it? (It would be a bold claim four hundred years later that everything OP wrote in that line remains intact.)
  • "Peter Phillips … noted that "Parsley can be remembered as one of those men who just once conjured up a masterpiece, as it seems to us now, from nowhere". A nice phrase, but it isn't clear which one of Parsley's works Phillips is talking about.
All done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few comments. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, per the coordinator comment below, perhaps you have a support or oppose for this nomination? Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have overlooked this. My few quibbles have been properly attended to and I'm happy to support. An intriguing article that seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. Tim riley talk 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
  • "His instrumental music, nearly all for viols, including six consort pieces, written in a style that combines both of his Latin and English vocal styles" - there is no active verb in this sentence. I presume the word "was" is missing before "written".....?
Thanks, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth is unknown" => "the identity of his parents and his place of birth are unknown"
Done (also, see comment from Tim riley above). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A decade later the master of the choirboys and the choirmen was being paid at the same rate" - the same as each other? or the same as one of the amounts in the previous sentence? If so, which one?
@ChrisTheDude: - Text amended, please let me know if anything needs to be clarified any further. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Interested! As usual I'll skip the lead, and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Life ...

  • Image: I sort of like the large image but have seen others avoiding anything higher than upright=1.3.
    Image resized. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that "parish" is a common term that needs no link.
    It's often thought so, but there's a complex history and much interest involved it. For instance in England alone, Norwich had dozens of parishes (one for each church), whereas whole parts of Yorkshire had only one, containing many churches dispersed over a wide geographical area. I'd prefer to keep the links in. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a man named John Hering and his wife Helen" - I believe that Henry is male enough a name to simply say "from John Hering and his wife Helen" which sounds a bit fairer to me.
    Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In chronology, he would first be a choir boy, then a singing man, than get married. I was surprised by reading about his will and only then about choir boy.
    Now sorted, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what made him "probably ... unofficial organist" for 50 years?
    The cathedral management would have had overall control, but no one person or group is named in the sources, unfortunately.Amitchell125 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later life

Composing career

Agreed, now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music for voices

Recordings

  • I wonder why this table has a header, but not the others.
    Header now removed (the table was added by another editor). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a bit about performers, and perhaps even reviews that say something about the music?
I'll look to see what there is. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good look, and found nothing notable, mainly because Parsley's music appears in compilations that include other, often more famous composers, and the performance of his works is gets noticed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving lead for after sleep. Thank you for the article, - I had no idea of the man and his music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep than I thought: the lead. Some things are the same as in the prose, such as please link Morning Service, for readers around the globe who are unfamiliar with Anglican church music. As for the order: I could imagine 1) chorister service, 2) rulers, 3) style, 4) Memorial plaque. I wonder if we could have a bit about today's performances of his music, but this is for lead and prose. Are his church works regularly part of services, or sometimes, or rarely? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, apart from the query about modern performances of his music, which needs researching. I'll see what I can find. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I found in a quick search was this, - please sift if anything is useful:

Still lead, having looked again:

  • "English Renaissance composer and singer", - singer is such a general term, - how about saying at this point that he was a singer at the Norwich Cathedral, the place where his life was focused? Singer could be someone performing ballads ;)
Changed singer to 'chorister', which is what he was. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to not leave his other names to a footnote alone, but present them bold in the lead, to tell readers who knw him by a different name that they still arrived at the right spot. I'd do that in the first para, but not immediately. A second para could say that we don't know much about his life. It's normal in FAs to have the first para as a summary of it all. - Please (very generally): when responding to a bullet, repeat the bullet, when responding to whatever indenting, repeat whatever indenting, as outlined on top of User talk:Drmies. It helps readers who use a screenreader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion about removing the note on alternative surnames for Parsley. There are now redirect pages for all his alternative names (these are rarely encountered, so I don't want to clutter the lead section with them). I have followed the procedure I have found used at other FA people with difficult names to transcribe). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After more sleep: how about an infobox? Other cathedral organists have one, see Stephen Cleobury, for example. Yes, he was a composer, but he was also a singer, and a person ;) (I never understood anyway why composers are somewhat special in that respect.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider your suggestion, but I'm not an infobox fan, and none of the other reviewers have ever brought the matter up. As far as I am aware, they are not compulsory at FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not compulsory, but we could still offer some easy access for readers from all the languages where Parsley is not covered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion Gerda, but I would rather an infobox was not included. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes above. I'd still support, even without infobox, once the other points are done, but feel that you speak about your personal preference, not how it would be detrimental for a reader. Just for information, I'd like you to take a look at the last composer FA, and at the close of a discussion that I felt was sensible. As a doctor once told me: it never hurts to get information (which I then got, but it didn't change my mind). - For the other points: I'm busy but will check them out soonish, probably not today though, with a bio and a RD article waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Your comments—many thanks for them all—have been addressed to the best of my ability. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, pleased! - Nitpicking:
  • "was a unique honour for the cathedral's choristers" - may be my lack of English but it reads like a contradiction, - I'd expect "was a unique honour for a chorister"
  • In the compositions' table, Evening comes before Morning, yes by alphabet, but then I'd drop the link to Morning, - was linked before.
  • In the table of the instrumental ones, viol is linked at the bottom, - I suggest no link, as linked before, but if a link then for the first.
You decide. None of this is in the way of a support, with thanks for diligent work around a man known too little. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review

  • "notable for the difficulty in singing the top notes of the highest part" - source?
Text and citation in the main body of the article accidently removed but now restored. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
url issue sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bandcamp reference is incomplete, but is there not a better source for this claim? Ditto CPDL
Refs replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is DIAMM sometimes italicized and sometimes not?
Sorted - the letters were given as a website in the source. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My error, text and source now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles
Now sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brennecke yet to be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm unclear here, as Shakespeare's "Singing Man of Windsor", Brennecke's article, includes a quote, i.e. not a song title. Surely the way I have put it is correct? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point. The relevant guideline is WP:QWQ - we're trying to avoid the "" formulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems to be inconsistent: for example Musical Times has a publisher and location but Music and Letters has neither. These aren't required parameters for periodicals so it's okay to either include or exclude, it just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite done - compare for example Phillips and Waters, which are to the same publication but have different formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, point above sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not conduct extensive spotchecks, but I noticed some verifiability issues around the Recordings section. For example, the article states a 2005 recording was released under the DHM label; the provided source was for a 2005 release by Sony BMG, although it notes there was a previous version in 1974 by BASF HM. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the sources. This section was added after the peer review by another editor, apologies not not taking a look at it before. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above comments Nikkimaria​, now hopefully all addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, just checking if the SR is GTG... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last point is pending, otherwise good with the proviso that a full spotcheck was not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 October 2022 [52].

Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons

[edit]
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC), Henni147 (talk), and Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mens ice skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu's Olympic seasons. He has recently retired from competition and completed his career of competing at the Olympics; this article covers his medal winning three appearances at the Olympics. The article is a co-nomination with Henni who has also done the FL for Yuzuru Hanyu's career, and Ernest who was the co-nominator for the successful GAN nomination of the Yuzuru Hanyu biography article at Wikipedia with User:Yolo. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you very much for setting up the FAC nomination. Here are some additional notes that might be useful for the review process:
  • The result table got extracted from Hanyu's career achievements sub-page, which has reached FL status already. So it should satisfy the FAC criteria.
  • This Olympic seasons article emerged from a page split of Hanyu's bios page, and has no equivalent among figure skating articles yet. This is especially true for the sub-sections about Hanyu's six Olympic programs. Their background and creation process has received an unprecedentedly broad and thorough coverage by newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts, both in Japan and overseas, and we believe that a summary of these insights is very valuable for the global coverage of figure skating on Wikipedia. Henni147 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add more below, but I wanted to chime in here to attest to this statement, that Henni is correct about no equivalent/similar article in any bio about a figure skater. I'm proud that I was able to help facilitate its split from Hanyu's main bio and that it's come far enough to be submitted to FAC. Henni, Ernest, and Yolo have worked really hard on this article, so they should also be proud of this accomplishment, made possible by their dedication and the fact that, unlike most skaters, so much has been written about Hanyu. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone familiar with the article since its conception, it wouldn't be objective for me to give a support/comment (it's obvious I support it). But I'll help responding to the reviews when it's needed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add, since this type of article within Figure Skating project is unprecedented, it has gone through a peer-review before the 2022 Winter Olympics which can be viewed here. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px unless it's needed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please inform me if I did it incorrectly. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: We uploaded two more images to Commons, and included them in the 2018 after season honors-section. On Commons, the two files are currently listed in multiple categories with "missing SDC copyright license". What influence does that have on the FAC nomination? Shall we remove the images, until the licensing issue is fixed, or is there nothing to be done? I am not familiar with the licensing procedure on Commons. Henni147 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Issue seems to be solved. The categories have already been removed from one of the two images. However, another look at the copyright and licensing status might be good. Just in case. Henni147 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japan's freedom of panorama rules are non-free for Wikipedia purposes, so both of these will need tags for the original works pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147@Nikkimaria: I have added the tag to both pictures. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the correct tag - neither of these appear to be architectural works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Could you suggest which tag is appropriate for these? Since we are not familiar with Commomns. The monuments may be not architectural, but they function like other architectural monuments or memorials. They're not promoting something and people don't need to pay to see or photograph them. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Japan distinguishes between architectural works (buildings) and artistic works like these. Do you know when and by whom these were erected? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Update: I just got this source link from the website of Sendai City. According to the city's sports promotion division, the designer of the monuments has never been announced, and it's not planned to reveal any illustrations for the designs in the future (see Q&A #6). Henni147 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria This hasn't been pointed out, but the images have been removed from Commons and the article. So, unless there's another problem, we could get a pass? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to verify, were there any images other than those added since the initial review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's two: Ballade No. 1 in 2015 and People's Honour Award. I replaced the previous images with these two, so that they face towards the prose text. They were uploaded by the same users under the same license and show nearly the same image content as the ones originally used. Henni147 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Looks like quite a comprehensive overview. Not sure whether I'll get around to a fuller review, but I do have a couple of comments/questions at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sfn reference "K&C 2021, ch. 1" (currently footnote 159) doesn't point to a citation. (Presumably it should be to "Kiss & Cry (June 22, 2021)")
In that sfn, only initials of institution are used, which in this case is Kiss & Cry, based on this. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you very much for pointing out the error! Yes, I used the wrong author abbreviation in the sfn template. It has to be "Kiss & Cry" instead of "K&C". Thank you very much! Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd find it helpful to have translations for "Number 2013, ch. 2" (currently footnote 26) and Beijing: Vogue China (32). (There may be other lacking translations too)
For sfn with quotes, translation of the quotes is already included in the article as a direct quote. Added trans-title for the Vogue China. I believe other refs with titles in foreign languages have been translated. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked reference section for missing script- or trans-titles, but it looks complete now.
Note: For direct quotes in Japanese language the following system is consistently used on the page: The English translation is embedded as a direct quote in the prose part, while the original Japanese wording is either included in the sfn template (print sources) or in the r-template (websites and AV media sources). The latter can be viewed via mouseover, but currently it's only accessible in the desktop version. Alternative would be to place the original Japanese quote in the citation template, but that would further blow up the reference section. I am open for good solutions here. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed results

  • I think the note at the top should be "For a full list of Hanyu's detailed results" or "For the full list of Hanyu's detailed results" (or something similar)
Added. I used the latter. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the tables, shouldn't the references be in a citation format rather than direct links to an external site? (I haven't checked policies on this, so perhaps not)
I can't find the policies yet either, but as Henni said that table is taken from List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu, and the issue wasn't raised during the FL peer-review. It's also now part of figure skating manual of style. But please inform us if there's a policy prohibiting this. I'll keep looking. Thank you for your comments.
Update: Just found this: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In this case, it will fall into the "amount of detail" reason because the info needed by the articles (placements, total scores, score and placement from each segment) have to be taken from three pages from one link. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in case of statistics tables it seems to be allowed (even encouraged) to place the references with their archived source directly as an external link in the stats table. Otherwise the reference section would blow up exponentially. These "Details" links in our table navigate to eight ISU stats pages for the men's singles discipline, of which we need at least three to cover all listed data. Citing these sources individually would lead to ca. 40 additional inline citations. Now we have 13 compact links, which is far more economic. Since this solution has passed the FL class review last year, I expect it to be fine for FA class as well.
However, what we can do is to use the big result table from the new "Spin the Dream" source by Asahi Shimbun as a global inline-citation, and place it above the tables (if needed). Then we'd have both, a cited source plus links to competition details on the official ISU website. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Figureskatingfan

[edit]
  • The ISU has published a new version of their Technical Panel for the 2022-2023 season, so you may need to update the page numbers you cite [53]. Fortunately, it's just one reference, though.
I don't think it's necessary to update the TP handbook since it's the handbook that applied when the event happened. Unless, if ISU happen to change the definition of under-rotation in the future which would make the attempt not categorized as UR anymore, we may need to cite the updated TP handbook as well, but the 2021-2022 season handbook would still need to stay. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that you've archived all your refs, since one of you suggested that I do it for the figure skating articles I've worked on, so I suggest that you put this template on this talk page, as I've done for Tara Lipinski (which has frustratingly stalled out here at FAC):
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all I have time for right now, so I'll come back soon for more comments. I have to say, though, that the images in this article are so well-chosen and even whimsical, like Heaven and earth illustration, which is impressive due to the sheer volume of images of Hanyu, even on Commons. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all thanks to Henni and the support from fan-photographers who have been willing to provide the needed images :) - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments! I've sent a request for images of Hanyu's Rondo Capriccioso and Heaven and Earth from the Beijing Olympics if possible, so that we can add a small gallery in that section too, which is uniform with the other two Olympics sections. Usually, my fellows Phantom Kabocha and David Carmichael travelled to all big competitions to take pictures, but due to the restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic and exclusion of audience from most sports events, they had no opportunity to contribute anything themselves since 2020.
Anyways, I'm very grateful to both for all the great pictures, and also to fellow users from twitter and PH who helped searching, accessing, and translating Japanese sources. It would have been impossible for Yolo4A4Lo and me to compile this large amount of information alone. Henni147 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. I've looked over most of the article and can now give my enthusiastic support. This is an complete and exhaustive article about an important figure skater, one worthy to receive the bronze star. It's also a great example of an aspect about a figure skater bio, one that we can all learn from. (For example, including outside links of the specific short programs and free skating programs discussed. I will use that.) Best to all the team going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Coming up to three weeks and this nomination has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Support from Christine and DarkWarrior, along with an image pass from NikkiMaria. Several other editors have added placeholders and added further comments for further review during the upcoming week. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updating since the 25th. There appear to be two further supports from User:3a4t and Aqaria. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski and Epicgenius: Any further comments from you guys? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
  • skater in history - "in history" is redundant. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely "He is the first" should be in past tense? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, Hanyu became - Hanyu also... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the former, he had scored world records at two Grand Prix events in the previous season and broke another two records at the 2013–14 Grand Prix Final and the 2014 Winter Olympics, becoming the first skater to score over 100 points in the short program. - this says "broke records" but then never says what these are. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I condensed the sentences about Hanyu's world records, since this article focuses on Hanyu's Olympic seasons. I don't think, it's important to list the exact events from other seasons, where the records were set. This should also solve the issue you mentioned above. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With his win at the subsequent World Championships, he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season, after Russian Alexei Yagudin in 2001–02. - reword. Perhaps, Hanyu was the second skater (and first Asian) to.... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I prefer to keep the use of brackets in encyclopedic prose at a required minimum. I'm not a big fan of the season bracktes in the lead either, but I couldn't figure out a smarter solution yet. So I think, I'd rather leave the structure of the sentence as it is now, but I'm open for other suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced that he would "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional. - this feels a bit weird, "turn professional" needs a bit of context. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a link from "professional" to this terminology section of the main FS article that explains the difference between amateur and professional skater. I'm also considering to add an explanatory footnote why Hanyu himself refrains from using the term "retirement" in his special case. Usually, when figure skaters move from amateur to professional level, they water down the technical difficulty of their programs and no longer execute quadruple jumps or comparable elements, but rather focus on aspects of figure skating as a performing art. However, Hanyu plans to even increase the difficulty of his technical content and include the quadruple Axel in his future ice show programs, which is uncharged territory among professional skaters. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my opinion, the note to terminology section has sufficed to give the context and keep the article focus on his Olympic seasons. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Yolo4A4Lo: Yes, it might be smartest to polish the terminology section in the FS main article, rather than increasing the number of footnotes here. However, as long as the terminology section is that sparsely sourced and at danger to be removed, I suggest to keep this cited footnote for the time being. When this Olympic seasons page is ready to be promoted for FAC, I will work on that section in the main FS article. Henni147 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Considering the scope of the article is "Olympic seasons", the article goes into quite significant depths on the other intervening years... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My suggestion here is the following: the key event summaries could be moved to Hanyu's main bios and merged with his current career summary section there, while condensing the key event sections on this page to information that are absolutely essential for the understanding of the other sections. Some of Hanyu's competition results and injuries etc. could indeed be skipped or summed up. I will go through the three sections today and create drafts for each one. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski @Henni147: I personally suggest to keep them as they are. The initial paragraphs are already condensed summaries of his main bio contents, only added with information that give context to his approach towards the Olympics and motivations, such as his increased technical contents towards the years and his quest chasing the quad Axel even before his first Olympics. Mentioning certain competition results also give context on who were his close rivals coming into the Olympics. And the Key Events sections are already shorter than other sections on the same level. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the deal with the weird external link references such as which earned the Japanese national team the third spot at the 2014 Winter Olympics.[7]: 3 [15]:3 I can't see that a bare link with no explaination has any place in an article like this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main source article on nonno.hpplus is quite long, so I added anchor links that navigate the reader directly to the right section. But if it's unfitting or violating the MOS, I can remove the anchor links from the inline citations. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I decided to remove the anchor links, since the article has its own table of contents that readers can use for navigation. Now the formatting of the inline citations should no longer be an issue. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned about the sheet amount of images and videos. Even if they are free/suitable for links, having a gallery before a section in my eyes ruins readability (such as in 2014 Winter Olympics). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the inclusion of the galleries and/or video links violates the MOS guidelines, I can remove them, but in my opinion they are essential for readers to get an idea of Hanyu's actual programs, costumes, and skating, and also to compare his Olympic performances with the challenges in 2022. One can try to summarize or describe it in words like "missed the Salchow jump here and landed it successfully there". However, figure skating is not only a sport but also a performing art, and you need to see what actually happens on the ice to fully grasp the differences. These galleries and video links all have an explanatory purpose, they are not included for the sake of decoration or promotion, and it's videos of his Olympic programs and challenges only, not other competitions. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
Thank you very much for all your comments so far. I will try my best to figure out smart solutions for the key event sections to be as compact in wording as possible. I hope that, apart from the key events, the article has the potential for a promotion to FAC. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will look at this article very soon. I'll review the prose as well, although this article is extremely long, so it may take a while for me to sort through these issues. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With his win at the subsequent World Championships, he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02) to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season" - Would it be better to say: "...he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season, after Russian Alexei Yagudin in 2001–02"? I feel that the phrase "after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02)" interrupts the flow of this sentence.
  • "In 2017, he reset the world record" - I understand what this sentence fragment is trying to say, but generally, "reset" isn't the correct word to use in this context. I'd suggest something like "he again set the world record"
  • "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced to "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional" - The phrase "announced to" isn't quite correct. How about "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced that he would "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional"?
More tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Fixed all. I decided to use "improved his world record", but if "again set the world record" is preferred, I can change it. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2013–14 season:
    • "He participated in numerous ice shows in order to get additional practice time and raise money for the areas affected by the disaster." - I think you can just remove "in order", i.e. "He participated in numerous ice shows to get additional practice time..."
    • "In the course of that event" - Similarly, I'd say "During that event"
    • ""Parisienne Walkways" was Hanyu's first of his multiple collaborations" - This is a bit awkwardly worded. I'd say ""Parisienne Walkways" was the first of Hanyu's multiple collaborations"
    • "Later in 2018, Buttle named "Parisienne Walkways"" - This wording makes it sound like the collaboration took place in 2018. If it didn't, it should be "Later, in 2018," with a comma after "Later".
    • "The music piece was Hanyu's personal choice; the program was meant to mark the culmination of his first four senior seasons" - I'd just say "Hanyu chose the music piece to mark the culmination of his first four senior seasons." The phrase "personal choice" sounds redundant to me, unless we're specifically distinguishing against someone else's choice
      • Yes, we wanted to make clear here that the program was Hanyu's personal choice, and not that of his choreographer or coaching team, which is common practice in figure skating, especially for competitive programs. It is unusual that a skater chooses his Olympic program music himself, especially at such young age for the first Olympic Games. If required, we can add an explanatory footnote here, but it might be difficult to find a proper source for that. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, they were not officially recognized as new highest scores because the International Skating Union (ISU) only records results that were achieved at international competitions, not national championships." - This sentence changes from past to present tense. For consistency, I'd say "because the International Skating Union (ISU) only recorded results", even if the ISU still does this today.
    • "In May 2015, the Madame Tussauds museum in Tokyo unveiled a life-size wax figure of Hanyu in the costume and ending pose of his Olympic short program "Parisienne Walkways".[70][71] On July 15, 2022, after a public voting conducted by Merlin Entertainments, the costume on the wax figure was changed to the one, which Hanyu had used for his free skate program Origin in the 2019–20 season.[72] In April 2017, two monuments in memory of Hanyu's and Shizuka Arakawa's victories at the Winter Olympics were installed in their hometown near the south exit of the International Center Station on the Sendai Subway Tozai Line." - I would change the sentence structure a bit, since there are three consecutive sentences that begin with "On DATE, so-and-so happened".
More later. This is a long article, so it's taking me a while, but I should be able to get through the rest of the page over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Excellent, thank you very much. Now that you have read the first section, do you agree with Lee Vilenski that the key event sections should be condensed (with more focus on the Olympics) or would you say that they are fine like this? Before we revamp all three sections, we would like to hear more comments. It's quite a lot of work that should not be in vain. Thanks in advance. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147, personally, I thought all the details in the first section made sense. However, now you mention it, I agree with Vilenski that it may be helpful if you do condense the "key events" sections, since all three of the "key events" sections are quite long.
There are a few quotes, as well as other details, that may have to be trimmed so that the article is more concise. For instance, these three sentences ("After the 2013 Four Continents Championships, where he had finished second, Hanyu suffered a knee injury and resumed training two weeks prior to the World Championships. An additional ankle sprain in the official practice forced him to compete while taking painkillers. Placing ninth after the short program, he fought back to fourth place overall, which earned the Japanese national team the third spot at the 2014 Winter Olympics") could probably be summarized as one sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius I've gone ahead and shorterned those 3 sentence into one which looks a bit better. Hopefully that puts it closer to an enhanced version. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: To be honest, I am not happy with the new wording. If we remove Hanyu's placement at 4CC, we can skip that event altogether. It has no meaning without mentioning Hanyu's final result there. Also, it is true that the injuries contributed to Hanyu's 9th place in the SP at Worlds, but the new wording makes it sound like it was the main course of the low placement, which is not true. Hanyu could have messed up his jumps without the injuries as well. So I would be careful with this kind of causal phrasing. I hope you don't mind that I reverted your last edit.
My suggestion is the following: I will compile alternative key event sections in my sandbox over the next days (taking care of accuracy in content), and then we can discuss if we use them or just keep the sections as they are now. These sections need to be adjusted globally with a proper concept. Henni147 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better version of the edit then you can add it into the article. Until then, you might consider restoring it in case Epicgenius has a comment to make about it. Otherwise you should go ahead with improvements to the prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo: I decided to put two information back:
  1. The direct quote of Hanyu's career goals is the most crucial direct quote of the entire article. It shows his clear visions and aspirations from a very young age and how he stuck to his declared goals from beginning to end. It is like a "red thread" throughout his skating career. That's why it should even be highlighted as a blockquote in my opinion, and not be rephrased or disappear between the lines.
  2. I also put the info about Hanyu's fall on the quad loop at 2018 Rostelecom back, because we refer explicitely to that event, when we later talk about his 5-quad program at the 2019 GPF. It would no longer make sense to the reader, why the quad loop was a jump that had caused him an injury if we don't mention it previously. Henni147 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo, Epicgenius, and Lee Vilenski: I have created a draft for an alternative 2021-22 key event section in my sandbox. If we only consider the text in black, it's about 12% less prose than before. I tried to move away from a chronological career summary, and focus on Hanyu's global situation heading into his final Olympic season. The additional paragraph in gray is based on a recent interview with Hanyu on Japanese television. If we want to include it, I'd suggest to place it at the end of the second paragraph. This is not a must, but it would give a deeper understanding of his focus on the quad Axel instead of a third Olympic gold, and also his motivation to move from competitive to professional skating, explaining why he no longer wants to be evaluated with scores.
If desired, I could create similar summaries for the other two seasons. However, I would also agree with keeping the key event sections as they are now. I am open for suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me. My opinion is that the text in gray might detract from the article and, if included, should be condensed to one sentence at the end of the second paragraph. Also, I get the impression that, in the proposed rewrite, the first paragraph is actually more detailed than in the current article. I'm not against adding these details, but you may be better off placing some of these details (such as the description of the new point-scoring system) into an explanatory footnote. Otherwise, the rewrite looks good, and I think you should summarize the other two seasons as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you very much for your quick reply. I condensed the first paragraph and limited the infos about the new judging system to the footnote. Update: I also shortened the additional paragraph in gray to one sentence and merged it into the section to see how it fits. It can be removed at any time, but I think it fits well in context. Henni147 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. The rewrite looks good. But I personally think if we want to use the rewrite version for the 2021–22 season, it would look better if the other two Key Events are made into a non-chronological summary as well to make them uniform. It's just my opinion. I won't mind if the rewritten is used, while the others stay the same. I'll go with the consensus. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yolo4A4Lo: Yes, I was thinking about re-arranging the other two sections as well, but I did not have the time yet. I will try to create them this weekend, and then include them all three in the main article with the correct references. Henni147 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I revamped the pre-17/18 key event section. I try my best to do the same for the first key event section as well. (Sorry for the delay, but I was too busy with other work the last days). Henni147 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I will take a look at this by tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice comments from Epicgenius. Henni has tried to make that edit which you requested. Are there more edits which could be added to the article to try to gain your support? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sorry, I forgot about this. I did look through the article again yesterday, but I only found minor grammatical nitpicks, which in my view shouldn't prevent this article from becoming an FA. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB

[edit]

Disclosure, I offered to do a review in exchange for Ernest reviewing Aliens. Figure skating or any other form of skating or Olympic sport is not my jam, but I have persevered.

  • It's difficult to impossible to judge what is a reliable source given many of them are in Japanese, but Ref 88, "Fantasy on Ice 2017 Official Program (Makuhari Performance)" (Interview) (in Japanese), is this a book or a live interview or a magazine? If it's physical literature it seems like it'd be in the "books and magazines" cited section, and if it's video/audio, is there a link that can be added if it is uploaded somewhere?
    • This is a pamphlet that was published and distributed exclusively at the Fantasy on Ice show, featuring an interview transcript of Hanyu and Toshimi Oriyama (figure skating journalist who also works for the Japanese Sports Graphic Number magazine amongst others). The pamphlet had no ISBN or other ID, but I can look up the exact page number of the interview later.
    • About reliable Japanese sources: we tried our best to stick exclusively to the main Japanese daily newspapers (Mainichi, Chunichi, Sports Nippon, Sports Hochi etc.), magazines (Number, Sportiva Shueisha, Aera etc.), and online news agencies like Kyodo or Yahoo. One exception is itagiappo.com, but I can try to replace it by a more reliable source. Henni147 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice the use of "nailed" a lot in the context of executing a move or feat well. I'm not 100% but I don't think "nailed" is necessarily encyclopaedic language.
  • There are a lot of images and a lot of big empty spaces and a lot of images facing outward from the article instead of into it, such as File:2020 4CC Yuzuru Hanyu Podium.jpg. If there are alternative angles that face into the article these are preferable from a style view. The gaps aren't great but there isn't much I can think of for you to do about them.
  • Similarly, the taller images, you can add "upright" as a setting which will make them thinner and take up less space in the article.
  • It doesn't matter for this review but for future reference you don't have to specify "right" to position an image on the right, it defaults there.
  • The last section, "2022 post-Olympic events and Olympic program challenges", I've read it a couple of times and I still cannot tell if Hanyu is specifically retiring from Olympic competition? If that is the case I'd maybe rename the section to "2022 post-Olympic events and retirement from competitive skating" or something more apt.
    • I changed the wording now to make it clear that Hanyu stopped with competitive skating at amateur level, which includes the Olympic Games. He himself said that he wants to refrain from using the term "retirement", because it usually means that skaters no longer strive for an athletic peak when turning pro, but rather focus on the "artistic" side of skating. However, Hanyu wants to keep his athletic skills at the same level as before, just not presenting them in a competitive setting anymore. It might be smart to add an explanatory footnote there to clarify what turning "professional" in figure skating means. Henni147 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section, I would suggest (though not mandate) that you consider moving the following to a final subsection just afterward, called "legacy" or something, since it's more of a summary of his impact on the sport. It's an assessment of his overall influence and it's sandwiched in between a retirement and him doing professional routines -
"Various news outlets and magazines such as Nikkei Asia or International Figure Skating noted that Hanyu's exit from the competitive circuit marks the "end of an era".[206][210] Juliet Macur of The New York Times remarked that "we may never see another skater like Yuzuru Hanyu".[211] Numerous sports figures from and outside figure skating reacted to Hanyu's announcement with gratitude and praise, including Japanese gymnast Kōhei Uchimura,[212] baseballer Shohei Ohtani, and tennis player Naomi Osaka.[207][213] Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, sent a personal message to Hanyu through the IOC's official media account on Twitter:[214]
Congratulations on an outstanding Olympic career. You are a true Olympic champion. Good luck for the next steps in your skating career. We will keep following you and look forward to seeing you again.
— Thomas Bach, IOC president (July 20, 2022)"

Support by 3a4t

[edit]

I'm unable to write a full review at the moment, but I believe the article is well sourced, well written and meets the NPOV criteria. It is an exhaustive description of Hanyu's achievements in his Olympic seasons and one could argue that this article makes for a better read than Hanyu's main article. The unique nature of the subject (such as the unprecedented amount of media coverage about Hanyu's Olympic programs), as well as recent events (Hanyu's retirement from competitive skating) make it a particularly good candidate for a Featured article.3a4t (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear about your support. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Apqaria

[edit]

First, thank you for all the effort spent to produce such an informative article that adds so much depth for readers about Yuzuru's journey. I have followed the updates on the article since the start but I have finally given it a more overall detailed read to contribute to the FAC review after an invitation from Henni147. This is my first time contributing to a FAC review so please pardon me if I am doing anything wrong here. I have focused my review on the content and I have a couple of comments so please check below

Thanks for the fast update. I am glad to support the article and hopefully with it as an example and a featured article, we can see more detailed articles like it for other skaters/athletes. Apqaria (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
Addressed comments

It looks like this has had more than sufficient amount of prose commentary so I'll instead conduct a source review. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

  • I suggest adding |access-date= for the sources with external hyperlinks.
@FrB.TG: Do you know any bots that can do it fast? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG and Yolo4A4Lo: I have a general question here: what is the purpose of adding an access-date to archived sources? The required information was available at the date of archiving and the url-status parameter shows whether the website is still live and showing the piece of info or not. In both cases, adding an access-date would be redundant information and just further blow up the citation section in my opinion. But if it's required by Wiki MOS, I can add them manually. Henni147 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, it's not a MoS requirement, but it makes sense in case of links that are not archived. Your reasoning of the archived dates being enough makes sense. I guess what's important is that it is done consistently (either everywhere or nowhere) and that seems to be the case here so all okay. FrB.TG (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 1 needs a page number and |format=pdf.
Done. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 2 is not in Japanese as our article suggests.
Corrected. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes nonno.hpplus.jp a high-quality reliable source?
Nonno is a lifestyle magazine from Shueisa that also owns Sportiva. They also do reporting on figure skating to wider audience. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 16 needs a |lang= parameter.
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes sportiva.shueisha.co.jp a high-quality reliable source?
Sportiva is the only sport magazine by Shueisha, one of major Japanese publication. They provide a lot of live and immediate reporting and are one of the major figure skating news source in Japan. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes victorysportsnews.com a high-quality reliable source?
    • Ito Yamane, the author of the cited online article from victorysportsnews.com, is known as a reliable sports journalist for the Number magazine among others, and has published a book about figure skating programs, which I also added as a source. I am not sure about the reliability of victorysportsnews.com in general, but given the fact that Ito is among the writers, it should definitely count as a reliable source in this case. Henni147 (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major cities should be de-linked in |location= parameter in references (like Tokyo in #19, Ottawa in #21, New York City in #51, #55 and #59, and Beijing in #143).
De-linked all major cities. I didn't de-linked Lausanne because I think it's not a familiar city, but please inform me if I missed something. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 27 should be translated.
The translation is fully quoted in the article. Does it need to be re-written? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes mp.weixin.qq.com a high-quality reliable source?
weixin.qq is a blog platform by Tencent QQ, but the source cited is officially written by Vogue China editorial team. It can be accessed through the magazine's official Weibo account. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 40 title needs a translation.
Done. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done on other instance as well. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 56 should have |url-access=limited.
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes walkerplus.com a high-quality reliable source?
Cited article is a web version of article from Tokyo Walker, a nationwide travel magazine from Kadokawa Corporation and a part of their Walker Press network. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes goldenskate.com a high-quality reliable source?
Golden Skate is probably the oldest and most known news source in figure skating. They conduct direct interviews and reporting to all figure skating competitions. Most of figure skating articles on Wikipedia use Golden Skate to cite details that are not picked up by huge news outlets who usually only focus on the sport during Olympic seasons. GS is alsu suggested by WP:FS STYLE. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does only source 77 have a |url-access=subscription and not for other ones by The Japan Times?
Added to articles with live links. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes rockerskating.com a high-quality reliable source?
Replaced the source with one from Nikkan Sports. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The location for ref. 123 is GANGNEUNG, South Korea, not McLean, Virginia.
Corrected. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 129 should use a {{cite tweet}} to show the tweeter.
The source is not a Tweet, but a report/blog post made by Twitter editorial team. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the point of abbreviating International Figure Skating in sources if we write the full form (and the abbreviation) every time?
Removed abbreviation from |magazine= - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 162 should be translated.
Done. Please check if the format is right or not. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote in ref. 167 should be translated.
I think @Henni147: has the full and proper English translation. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the English translation. Also shortened the original Japanese quote and removed the second sentence, which was redundant in content with the first. I hope, that is fine. Henni147 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's automatically generated by Template:Cite AV media, and it's the title of the video, not the web page. I'll answer other points later. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 October 2022 [54].

Village Green (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the English rock band the Kinks. Ray Davies, the band's principal songwriter, wrote it in August 1966 after feeling disappointed that beer was being served in metal kegs instead of wooden barrels. After the Kinks recorded it, he hoarded the song while figuring out what to do with it. It wasn't until November 1968 that it saw release on The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, an album which spawned from the song's central themes. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Support from me on prose and content, following the in-depth FAC-style GAN review I just completed. Since I'm here, I may as well pitch in an image review and get that over with.

  • Single cover - license correct, NFCC rationale appropriate, no concerns
  • Devon image - free Flickr license checks out, no indication of Flickrwashing
  • Harpsichord - On review, I'm not sure if the uploader can legitimately release this image on a CC license. The uploader is or was indeed an employee of the college. However, the image appears to have been taken no later than 2000, based on the publication details in the catalogue it was originally published in. There are no credits in the catalogue that I can find, and it does say that the catalogue is copyrighted to the RCM. I think there would need to be a VTRS ticket from the college confirming release before we can safely accept this. It may be easier just to replace it with another harpsichord image, unless you want to go to the trouble of emailing the college to ask them to release it over VTRS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support! Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to support since I suggested it in the first place! For the purposes of the image review, the replacement image checks out as validly free. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sammi Brie

[edit]

This is my first-ever FAC content review (two image reviews precede this), and I do intend on claiming it for WikiCup points. Other editors are invited to critique the review. Ping to Tkbrett.

  • Alt text: The newly added harpsichord image and album art do need alt text.
    • Added.
  • MOS:'S: Pye Records' should be Pye Records's.
    • Fixed.
  • The tracks for Something Else done in late 1966 went unused and the band reconvened at Pye in early 1967 to re-record several songs. A comma is needed after "unused", as the "and" links what could be two separate sentences. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences
    • Added.
  • The Kinks' long-time producer Shel Talmy produced The name is an appositive—i.e. it could be theoretically removed without causing damage to the sentence—and should be set off with commas.
    • Done.
  • The song employs a fifth-cyclic sequence and a descending chromatic chorus, something musicologist Allan F. Moore writes evokes the music of Baroque composer George Frideric Handel, a relationship he thinks is further emphasised by the presence of a harpsichord. I wonder if the first comma should be a dash instead. The hierarchy of ideas in the sentence is a bit muddled with two commas.
    • Changed to a dash. I also tweaked the sentence after the comma in light of this change.
  • of a distance time and place — "distant", perhaps?
    • Yes, fixed.
  • The community's value no longer consists in its original purpose, but is instead photographed by American tourists as a symbol of a past England. Conversely, there is no subject after the conjunction, so this comma should be removed.
    • Fixed.
  • ...to F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel, The Great Gatsby, a relationship The novel title should not be in an appositive. If you remove it, you get "F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel". A reader is left to wonder, "What novel?"
    • Fixed.
  • In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties", the song's string section written for music enthusiasts while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics. I wonder if the second comma should be a semicolon and then everything after a sentence. Something like In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties"; the song's string section is written for music enthusiasts, while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics.
    • Done.
  • describing it as "beating heart of the album" missing article
    • Fixed.

I have no further concerns, and when the copy changes are made and remaining alt text integrated, I will support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, out of curiosity, did you have a concern with my image review not being sufficient? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, nope - just missed it since it wasn't bolded. Oops. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something for it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Comments Support on prose from Ippantekina

[edit]

Support from zmbro

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

Sources are all reliable, links all work.

  • MacDonald (2007) is missing a location.
  • FN 63 should be "pp. 118, 121", not "p. 118, 121".
  • Optional, but I notice you're inconsistent about using ISBN 13 vs ISBN 10. There's no actual requirement to be consistent, but some people prefer it; there's a convert here if you want to convert the three ISBN 10s you have.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie. I fixed the fn 63 and converted everything to ISBN 13. Regarding MacDonald 2007, I omitted the location due to advice I received in the past to not include it when it's obvious – in this case, the Chicago Review Press being in Chicago. Is there any guidance regarding this in the MOS? Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 11:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is just consistency, so since you're consistently applying a rule that's fine. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 October 2022 [55].

Low Memorial Library

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the original library building constructed on Columbia University's Morningside Heights campus from 1895 to 1897. Great care was taken in designing this building, which was literally the centerpiece of the campus. Named after the father of Columbia president Seth Low (and ironically the highest point of the original campus), the structure is shaped like a Greek cross, with a limestone-and-granite facade and an ornate domed rotunda. The Low Memorial Library had space for 500,000 volumes but was inadequate as a library. It was converted into offices in 1934 but remains a prominent fixture on the Columbia campus.

This page was promoted as a Good Article ten months ago after a GA review by GhostRiver, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Baffle gab1978, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Fairly nicely written and organized article about this well-known tourist visiting spot in NYC. Would it be of any interest to possibly consider adding a section dealing with the artistic renderings of the building as it has been visited by artists and moviemakers over the past several decades, such as here: [56]. It seems like I've seen in several NYC movies such as the ones by Woody Allen and other directors. Also architects have made artistic renderings of high quality, etc. Could you consider such a section for this article. As a separate point, the lead section should say more about the centrality of the building to the campus, it needs more emphasis as the cornerstone for the entire campus, rather than just simple focal point; you already have some of this in the section on this topic which you could move up into the lead section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ErnestKrause. I've edited the lead to emphasize the fact that Low is actually at the center of Columbia's Morningside Heights campus (the university has since expanded to another campus in nearby Manhattanville, hence the clarification). I'm working on adding some information about media appearances, including film and artwork. Unfortunately, so far, I haven't been able to find many reliable secondary sources, although the university's own website has a couple of pages describing film appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the Wikipedia article Columbia University in popular culture. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. After I saw your initial comment, I actually looked at that article to determine whether any of the content there could be used on the Low Memorial Library page with a reliable source. There do seem to be a few details that can be used, e.g. the bit about the song Nappy Heads (although the source itself does not mention the library). – Epicgenius (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I haven't had any luck finding reliable sources for these works of popular culture (the only results mentioning "Nappy Heads" and Low Library, for example, are Wikipedia mirrors). There are quite a few mentions in less reliable sources, though: 1, 2, 3, 4. I did find some stuff related to live events, such as Masterpieces of 20th Century Electronic Music, but these are things that may fit better in the "History" section. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here might be a better link with about a dozen images here [57]. It seems to be RS. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have now placed that source in the article, although the reference mentions Low Library in connection with only two films. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joining for support of this candidate. In case you might have an interest in other nominations on this page, I've recently listed the popular culture personality Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons as a candidate here if you might have time to leave some support/oppose comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ErnestKrause, I appreciate it. I may take a look at that later. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has been open for a month and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless it attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been on my to-do-list for about that long, - I hope to get to it next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Support after I read the article and found nothing to question. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

No, I'm not dead.

Claiming this to comment and ultimately hopefully support. If I haven't written anything in three days, leave a note on my talk. Vaticidalprophet 18:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do this one. Hog Farm Talk 20:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. January 23, 2007." - any chance there's a way to link directly to something, rather than force the reader to go through the obnoxious NRIS search box if they want to follow this?
  • What makes Joy of Museums high-quality RS?
  • "Columbia University (1901). Columbia University: Kings College founded in the province of New York by royal charter in the reign of George II perpetuated as Columbia College. Internet Archive. Knickerbocker Press. p. 3. Retrieved September 24, 2021." - looks like you're currently using Internet Archive as the |webiste=parameter. I think the |via= parameter is closer to what you're wanting.
  • ""Low Library" (PDF). Event Management. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2022. Retrieved September 25, 2021." - should be specified that this is related to Columbia University, the current citation doesn't make that clear?

Spot-checked about 5 or so references, no issues noted with that. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I've replaced the Joy of Museums source, and I've formatted the 1901 Columbia reference and the Event Management reference. I will fix the 2007 NRIS citation tomorrow, since I think there may be a better source available. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now replaced the NRIS citation with a PDF detailing when the building was added to the NRHP. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried pretty hard to nitpick, but I couldn't find much more than the above, happy to support Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 October 2022 [58].

Electric eel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC) and LittleJerry[reply]

This article is about the electric eel, recently found to be a genus with three species, but long studied by science as a unique and remarkable species; its study advanced understanding of electricity as well as of physiology. We've tried to present the subject at once plainly, historically, and scientifically, and we hope you like the result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I think some sections are too short and lacking important details. The Anatomy section, for example, just describes the external appearance of the creature, but in the "Gas exchange" section below, the reader is told about the buccal cavity and the operculum. Further on, we are told about the lateral line and electrocytes. The location of these should have been described under Anatomy. The Gas exchange section does not seem to contain any respiratory physiology, such as the mechanisms of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange. Do eels have hemoglobin? "Growth and reproduction" doesn't say anything about mating. Does it involve discharging eggs for males to fertilise? The anatomy drawing looks terribly amateurish. Do we have anything better? Graham Beards (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. Electric eels are in the great majority of ways typical teleost fish, with haemoglobin in their blood, oxygen taken up and carbon dioxide given out, eggs laid and fertilised externally, and so on, just like almost any ordinary teleost. The drawing is not of the general anatomy but of the layout of the electric organs, certainly the most aberrant feature of this genus. We'll address the positioning of the anatomical features shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should say this? I still think the drawing is poor. Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Yes, will do. b) Maybe the drawing was too large for and not precise enough about what it was conveying, which is just the location and shape of the electric organs. I've resized and relabelled it. Replaced image with a diagram showing successive levels of structure of body, electric organs, electrocytes, ion channels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "guess" cited to the 2005 Scientific American article is not convincing. Horses are much bigger, but still get shocked. Graham Beards (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its the best we got. We are limited by the information available. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere they have an insulating layer of non-conducting fat which protects them. This is far more convincing. Graham Beards (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that. LittleJerry (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - At the moment I am not fully confident that the article is comprehensive or accurate. Graham Beards (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards I just purchased this This book which should arrive in a few days. So lets put it on hold. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to revisit. I'll keep this FAC on my Watchist. Graham Beards (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards I did some expansions. I added more on reproduction/lifecycle, plus information on eyesight, hearing, gills, locomotion, nocturnality and origin of lineage. The electric stuff is more Chap's territory and he's away now but should be back soon. I did contact some experts on how the electric eels avoid being electrocuted themselves and if there's papers on it. It seems to not be discussed specifically (yet) in the scientific literature. You mentioned reading about fat insulation, but I can only find that mentioned in the popular literature. The Scientific American article seems to be the best resource on that subject at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American is popular literature. If you going to use the guess as an explanation, you should ensure that it is made clear that it is a guess. And, it goes against the point about wading horses, in the preceding paragraph, which are also bigger than a human arm. I think the guess regarding insulating fat tissue is far more credible. Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed SA article and added new information on the vital organs being packed in front and separated from the electric organs. The electric charge goes into the water and away from the body. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right. These eels act more like capacitors than batteries. See: Sun, H., Fu, X., Xie, S., Jiang, Y. and Peng, H. (2016), Electrochemical Capacitors with High Output Voltages that Mimic Electric Eels. Adv. Mater., 28: 2070-2076. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201505742

Graham Beards, anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-read the article later today. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two more comments:
  • I think mitochondrial DNA is better than "mitochondrial genome" because more readers will know what DNA. (Not a big deal)

Support I am satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. (I don't think there will be any issues with the quality of the sources). The nominators have done a splendid job. Graham Beards (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I also think the article looks surprisingly short for such a well-studied animal, so I will also wait with reviewing until the expansion hinted above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, ready? LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of archaic "ſ" This version of the letter S has fallen out of use in the English language (a long time ago) and its use in the long quote under Notes will confuse many readers. They will not know that "dorſal" is just "dorsal", "obtuſe" is "obtuse", "ſo ſevere" is "so severe" and so on. Why is it being used here? It is not an archaic spelling and is not affected by WP:PMC but come under MOS:CONFORM. Graham Beards (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
I think these three images[61][62][63] should definitely be used in a multiple image template on a top to bottom row so the readers can see the differences, or by using the compilation image you mention, which I fear is in even lower resolution, though. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, note which species are shown in the images.
    All photos up to 2019 are of "E. electricus" sensu lato, i.e. only identified to genus. It might be possible to predict the species if an image is taken in the wild and has GPS co-ordinates, but we don't seem to have any of those, and it'd be close to WP:OR anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above and below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay photos of entire live specimens on Commons:[64][65][66][67] I think showing at least one entire live specimen is important.
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see it, but we can be on the look out for better photos. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This shows that contrary to earlier ideas, the Apteronotidae and Sternopygidae are not sister taxa" But what does this mean to the subject of the article?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lineage of Electrophorus may have split from sister taxa Gymnotus" Should be taxon singular. Also link sister taxon.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are marked on the phylogenetic tree" Is this a synthesis of different trees? In any case, should be stated in text what the cladogram is based on.
  • The tree is from Elbassiouny et al 2019, as stated and cited in the Phylogeny paragraph. Clarified the wording to this effect. The data on electrolocation are from Bullock and Lavoué, also cited in that paragraph; these do not affect the tree's structure (i.e. there is no synthesis of phylogeny). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would make more chronological sense if the taxonomy section comes before the section about modern DNA work.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electric eels form a clade of strongly electric fishes" Well, they specifically form a genus, which should be specifically stated.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could state the common name of Electrophorus in parenthesis in the cladogram like you do with all the other listed groups.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the picture of the old book text description adds. Would be more interesting to show a historical depiction of the animal or similar, like this skeleton (which should be used somewhere either way).[68] The info in the caption should instead be incorporated in the the text that covers the animal's naming.
  • "About a century later, in 1864" Not sure why we need to spell out it was about a century later, the year is enough for the reader to deduce this, overly wordy.
  • "but in 2017 the genus was merged back into" By who and on what grounds?
  • "The three species are E. electricus (sensu stricto), E. voltai sp. nov., and E. varii sp. nov." This wording would confuse most readers. Try to explain it in common terms.
  • Anything on their human use or non western cultural significance? The research section is very centred on western science, which I'm sure is not all that could be said.
  • I randomly found this interesting paper which doesn't seem to be cited, looks like an oversight:[69] Images and videos from it are free to use.
  • One of these videos from the paper should definitely be included.[70][71][72]
Added one. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk; all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleithrum is triple duplinked, could also be explained in parenthesis at first mention.
fixed. The cleithrum is pointed to in the picture below. LittleJerry (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intercratonic basin" What is that?

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other new species, E. varii, is also a fish predator" Since this article will probably exist for decades from now, "new" seems unhelpful.
removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ecology" Seems an odd section with unrelated info (habitat and feeding) seemingly grouped ad hoc out of convenience rather than for being related. Feeding and prey info would make more sense grouped closer with info about its hunting style, and the "ecology" section could just be called "distribution and habitat" as usual.
Ecology = "the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings." That includes habitat, feeding and nocturnalty. I've written many FAs with habitat and feeding under "ecology". LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems weird that the info about feeding and how it attacks its prey should be so far apart, but if no one else complains... FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mouth is at the front of the snout, and opening upwards." Opens upwards?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an "oral respiratory organ" covered in blood vessels" Why quotation marks?
Changed LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eight radials in each pectoral fin" As opposed to what?
What do you mean? It says that electric eel are the only memebers of their group with eight radials. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so what is the regular number of radials in the rest of its group? FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They differ. Changed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for randomly switching to Electrophorus instead of just sticking to "electric eel" throughout?

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used "electric eel" throughout except in the couple of places where the name of the genus is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main organ is the first electric organ to develop, followed by Sachs' organ and them Hunter's organ. All the main electric organs" You go from talking about a "main organ" singular then to "main organs" plural, are we talking about the same or different things?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produce electrical discharges as early as 7 cm (2.8 in)" Do we have any idea what age this is?
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "males becoming reproductively active at 1.2 m (3 ft 11 in) in length" Likewise, and other places too.
See above. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Human deaths from electric eel shocks "are apparently quite common" in the region." This seems like it could be elaborated on. Any notable cases or descriptions of how this occurred or how to avoid it? Like venomous animal articles, this one could potentially save lives if there is anything useful about that.
Not mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electricus. Blaekish, without dorsal fin" Source says blackish.[73]

Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by which is has the power" It has.
fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Replied to all. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any Colouration differences in the species? The images seem to indicate so?
This could be stated explicitly in the article for clarity, then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2021, Jun Xu and colleagues state that Hunter's organ" Stated?
  • "so they suggest it may" Suggested? I know 2021 is recent, but it won't be in ten years.
  • "Despite their name, electric eels are not closely related to the true eels (Anguilliformes) but are members of the electroreceptive neotropical knifefish order (Gymnotiformes), which is more closely related to the catfish." Much of this is not stated in the article body. The intro should not have unique,unsourced info.
  • "until the unexpected discovery in 2019 of two additional species." This is a bit misleading, since these other populations were already known. Would be more accurate to say something like it was discovered that the electric eel constituted three species instead of one.

FunkMonk, all finished. LittleJerry (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • Evidently someone brought one from Latin America to Sweden, possibly at Linnaeus's request. None of the sources records who shipped it. From the sources summarized in "Early research", we know that European naturalists were experimenting with electric eels in Latin America in the 1760s, and that specimens were shipped alive back to London at that time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could that make it into the section? That European research was already underway by the time Linnaeus got one shipped to Sweden Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cover it in the 'Early research' section, where it seems like a good fit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way it reads, it looks like Linnaeus was the first European to lay eyes on it. Chapter 8 of The Shocking History of Electric Fishes has a lot of good info on this if you can access it Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a bit in the section to indicate that research was already under way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But do try to include that book if you can access it, it looks like it has lots of great detail about early research beyond just electric studies Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in my local library, and it's printed only as a very expensive hardback. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the research sources actually give this, other than to say that it is low, and that as the article says, it's in very brief but repeated pulses. This suggests 1 Ampere, but since it also says 500 Volt is the max, and it's from 2010, it's not obviously terribly reliable; and giving a single figure ignores the fact that it's A/C (i.e. varying continuously) and in pulses, so quoting it would basically be misleading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Around one amp is accurate and Zurich Zoo says "0.83 ampere with the power output of 415 watts occasionally up to 1 ampere and 600 watts". [74] Graham Beards (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, adding it with what I hope is sufficient caution. The power of 600 watts supposed by the Zurich Zoo is however definitely wrong, as it assumes 600 volts x 1 ampere continuously = 600 watts. The pulsing, intermittent, varying current is however very far from continuous, so the average (it would have to be root-mean-square) power is much less. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, trying that now. The two (Electroreception, Electrogenesis) are actually quite closely related as they are used together, so if the split doesn't work for you, we can just undo it, no worries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adults survive though this period by air-breathing, and the young through prolonged parental care lasting four months" I thought they usually breathe air, and this sounds like the young can only breathe by using prolonged parental care Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to continue this later today or by Friday Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems kinda trivial to me, like just listing random facts about random indigenous populations. To me, it'd be like listing movies or video games with electric eels at random if you were to put in a Pop culture section. Like, according to Claude d'Abbeville, it's called the "pouraké" in the Tupi language, why not add that too? And the list goes on and on Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "local culture" paragraph. The stuff about using horse is already mentioned later. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77? LittleJerry (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dunkleosteus77, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional sSupport from Sandbh

[edit]

The lede doesn’t provide a sufficiently good summary of the main body of the article. The two paragraphs are too long. All I can learn from them is largely confined to eel genealogy and biology. The first paragraph goes into too much detail about the three species whereas all that needs to be said is that there are three species.

I've trimmed and copy edited the lede accordingly. Feel free to revert or edit etc. Sandbh (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sandbh (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, could you do a source review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has done one by the weekend I can take a look then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

[edit]

A fascinating topic, that I've been meaning to read about for a while, so I'm going to seize the chance to review this. Thanks for bringing it to FAC. I haven't read through all the other changes made during the FAC, so if I'm repeating a resolved issue, feel free to say so. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 2019 it was discovered that there were three species of electric eel." I don't love this construction, which to a biologist would imply that two species new to science were discovered in that year. Suggest reworking to make it clear it's a split.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC
  • "strongly electric fishes" can we be more specific? What abilities do they have, are they unique to this clade, or unique in strength, and if so how?
  • It's just a brief mention here in the Phylogeny section; much more is said in the Electrophysiology section about these abilities, including the exceptional voltage which is indeed the greatest of any fishes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no taxonomic study to cite between 1872 and 2017?
Nothing important. LittleJerry (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albert and Crampton (linked below) suggest two families were lumped in 1995. The source you cite implies that they are sometimes split and sometimes lumped. I suggest either mentioning each of these, or recasting the sentence to acknowledge the variety in number of families, and then mention the most recent split. As things stand, this is suggesting that 2017 was the first time the families were combined after 1872, which is plain incorrect. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have split from its sister taxon Gymnotus sometime in the Cretaceous" the "may" is confusing. If there's multiple hypotheses here, I'd suggest explaining them; if not, I'd phrase this as "a YYYY study estimated..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2019 paper says the species may be distinguished via anatomical features; as you're not overburdened by length, suggest including.
Its already stated in the species section. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pack-hunting story is interesting, but the use of passive voice is odd; I'd suggest "They were thought to be solitary...until they were observed hunting in packs in YYYY by scientists", and then add this behavior.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species mainly eats fish" there's three species, "the species" is ambiguous. Given taxonomic revision, I'd suggest "electric eels" in place of "the species".
Its talking about E. voltai. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/explain "radials"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electric eels use their high frequency–sensitive tuberous receptors, distributed in patches over the body, for hunting other knifefish" seems to me this would work better with the other information on hunting.
No, we are separating anatomy from behavior/ecology. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And this sentence is referring to ecology....? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could move it to the Ecology section, but it'd be a bit orphaned there, and it seems to fit well with the oother electrical stuff where it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Not any sort of deal-breaker. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/explain "tuberous receptors".
  • There's essentially one sentence on how the electro-reception works; more detail would be nice.
They were originally together. LittleJerry (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A whole paragraph; and the linked articles give more detail, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of material on electrophysiology and the production of an electric current, but that doesn't necessarily tell the reader what that has to do with sensation. Perhaps it's a matter of rewording, rather than adding...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Researchers have explored what the electrosensed world of weakly-electric fish might be like, as I've described at Electroreception and electrogenesis#Electrolocation. There is no reason to suppose the electric eel's world is much different, but there isn't the same body of detailed research on electrolocation in this genus. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the other biology folks above were unbothered I might be the outlier. 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The caption of the marine-freshwater comparison seems worthwhile including in the text; not everyone will read the caption.
  • Apologies, missed that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says they use their electrical capabilities to stun prey, but then discusses their use in self-defense also; what do the sources say about this?
Huh? LittleJerry (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humboldt and his story about horses, what's unclear? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, your comment puzzled me as well. Humboldt's horse story was widely doubted by biologists but not any more. There's no doubt among biologists that electric eels defend themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's worth mentioning then. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned it near the end of Electrophysiology (cited to Catania 2016; he discusses Humboldt in several of his papers). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not actually elaborate on the sentence in the lead discussing the electric battery.
  • Might this be a useful source?

That's it from me for the moment. Nice work. It's a little concise in places, but I understand the literature is quite sparse, aside from volumes about the cell biology involved in electricity production. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked for more sources after having done the source review, and it seems to me there is some detail that may be worth including that isn't currently. For instance: Albert and Cramptom 2005, which isn't cited, compares Electrophorus to the rest of the order, and highlights some aspects that are unique.

Support from me, nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Froese and Pauly 2022 link is broken. Reliability looks okay, written/curated by experts. Also, there appear to be three separate sources by the same people and from the same site; is that needed?
Thanks, but my issue is that Froese and Pauly, Fishbase, appears three times in the list of references, when surely they should be collated? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edwards 2021 appears to be a pre-print; was it subsequently published? Author looks reliable, but we should avoid a pre-print unless absolutely necessary.
  • It doesn't seem to have reached a journal at the moment, and it fixes some definite errors in the conventionally-understood history. It also serves as a secondary source for the early (historic) primary material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBC source needs a date.
None given. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked phylogeny from Elbassiouny et al. Source is from 2016, article says 2019; the presumed typo is easy to fix, but have there been better phylogenies published since? There's some candidates here, haven't checked them. Would be particularly useful because bootstrap values for the first split are not high. Phylogeny is accurately rendered.
  • Typo fixed. I don't see a new complete phylogeny for the group. Even if we had a new one it would be unlikely to affect the placing of Electrophorus within the Gymnotidae, which is the key takeaway here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alda et al 2019, Systematic Biology, appears to cover most of the group. The topology is identical, the node support higher. I'd suggest citing it, even if you're not revising anything. At the very least it's a far heftier journal. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely an oversight on my part, but I'm not seeing where the source for the electric organs on the phylogeny is.
  • I fixed one instance of ref order (ones cited earlier listed first), check for others when you're done.
  • Spot-checked some uses of de Santana et al., look okay.
  • The Bastos source is a PhD thesis, not ideal. Did he not publish that information elsewhere?
  • Animal Diversity Web looked questionable at first, but it's maintained by the museum at Michigan University, actually ought to be high-quality; and possibly, as a secondary source, superior to some of the papers.
  • Spot-checked Oliveira et al, looks good. Seems to have more usable information, though.
  • Not sure the "miscellaneous publications" adds anything to Albert 2001. Worth working in the publisher, though.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's considerable use of 19th century primary sources. These are attributed inline, and I believe their use is okay, but I can't help but wonder if their work has been covered by more recent sources.

Otherwise things look good. I did only a handful of spotchecks, as that's what I had time for; if more are needed, please let me know. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2022 [75].

John Raymond science fiction magazines

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about four science fiction magazines published in the early 1950s. The publisher, John Raymond, had no interest in sf, but was lucky enough to hire Lester del Rey, who acquired good material and made the magazines profitable. Raymond was difficult to work with and uninterested in improving the magazines, and del Rey soon left. The magazines lasted only a few months longer, which is a pity as they are better regarded than many of the other 1950s magazines that lasted for many more issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments (full review later)

[edit]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "When a second distributor approached Raymond, again suggesting a science fiction magazine, Science Fiction Adventures was launched, again with del Rey as editor, this time under an alias." When did this happen? Later in 1952?
  • Per the above bullet point: I'm not thrilled with this phrasing because of the number of commas. Perhaps, "A second distributor approached Raymond later in the year suggesting another science fiction magazine, and Science Fiction Adventures launched with del Rey again as editor, this time under an alias."
    I decided to keep the "When" at the start, as it simplifies the syntax in the middle, but I went with most of your suggested wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but agreed, and became the editor of Space Science Fiction," -> but agrees to become the editor of Space Science Fiction" to remove a comma
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year, and Raymond soon decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953, and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month." Suggest splitting this sentence into two, and removing some extra words, as so: "The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year. Raymond decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953 and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though in the event Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." -> "although Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." or something similar
    I'd like to keep "in the event" or some similar wording -- it implies that it was later events that changed the original plan, rather than simply saying it did not happen that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was cut short after only one instalment when the magazine ceased publication." suggest deleting only, as the reader already knows that this is a limited amount so the word is unnecessary
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the opinion of science fiction historians Ted Krulik and Bruce Tinkel the magazine improved over its first year;" comma after Tinkel
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ashley considers that it although it took some time for the effects of Knight's reviews to appear," -> "Ashley stated that although it took some time for the effects of Knight's reviews to appear,"
    I'd rather not use "state"; I'd prefer to use a verb of opinionation -- considers, argues, suggests, asserts, etc. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Ashley's opinion the magazine quickly developed into one of the stronger sf magazines of the day," comma after opinion
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Science fiction historian E. F. Casebeer considers that the magazine" change consider to stated, as I think that more accurately describes what Casebeer is doing here.
    As above I'd like to argue the reverse -- he certainly is stating this, as you say, but isn't it true that any quote can be presented with "state"? I think that's because "state" doesn't colour the quotation at all; it just presents it. I think it's worth using verbs that indicate we are presenting a critic's opinion. I tend to avoid "state" anyway, because if something is worth quoting it's often because it's an opinion rather than a neutral statement of fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first issue of Fantasy Magazine contained a Conan story, by Robert E. Howard," Delete the comma after story
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence in "Bibliographic details" is very long, even with the semi-colons. Suggest splitting it up.
    Yes, that was long and ugly. Now cut in half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: Thanks for the review! Replies above; I've made nearly all the changes, and argued for keeping a couple of words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comment about "in the event" above. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have just realised that I forgot to follow-up on this discussion. Sorry about that! All of my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • As a US subject the article is presumably written in US English, so the second word of the caption on the grid should be spelt "colors"
    Oops. Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership" - the "also" indicates that one of the previously-mentioned mags was also aimed at a juvenile audience but it isn't clear which one
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation" but the body does not mention the "in order to improve circulation" element at all, or explain why paying the authors more would cause circulation to improve
    I think it's implied by the sentence in the body after the description of the proposals: "Del Rey calculated the increased circulation that would be needed for these investments to show a net profit". Do you think it needs to be more direct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem to say the same thing as the lead. The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation", meaning (to me at least) that Del Rey's argument was that if pay rates were increased, circulation would as a direct result go up. The text in the body says that Del Rey essentially said "we need to put up pay rates, and if we do so, we'll need to improve circulation by N% to be able to afford it", which is almost the exact opposite of what the lead says (IMO). Does that make sense....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. I went back to the source and the way it's put in the body is the way the source has it -- del Rey's goal was reinvestment, and he argued that it wouldn't take much increased circulation to earn that money back. The implication is that he also argued that it would increase circulation past that point, meaning that the investment would lead to increased circulation, but you're right that saying his primary goal was the increased circulation isn't really accurate. I've dropped the mention of circulation from the lead -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The cover layout changed to mirror the inverted "L" format used by Galaxy" - I don't understand what this is saying, can you reword at all?
    Most sf magazines had cover art that covered the entire front cover. In 1950 Galaxy Science Fiction came up with a cover design that reduced the art to about 80% of the cover, with an inverted "L" shape taking up the top and left edges -- you can see an example at that article. Several other magazines copied this (e.g. see here). The source for this article doesn't talk about the fact that multiple other magazines copied it, it just mentions that it picked up the design -- the image of Rocket Stories in this article has that design, for example. I've tried to clarify the layout in the article without going into too much detail -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments by Piotrus

[edit]

Also, minor quibble 2: "John Raymond" is not linked (is he not notable)?

Not as far as I can see. I tried fairly hard to find out which men's magazines he published, but couldn't, and I can't find out anything else about him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MQ3: one reference is expanded in the footnotes, the others are abbreviated. Please standardize.

The expanded one is a website; the rest are books -- I think this is a fairly standard approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am not a nitpicker for the reference standards. It looks jarring to me, but if our MoS is OK with it (and I presume MOS experts are active at FAC), than I am not going to make trouble :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super MSQ4: please rm duplicate link to L. Sprague de Camp in the body.

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MSQ5: Please add disetabilishment category; based on the tables, 1954?

I didn't add this because it's not the same for all four magazines. Three were 1953, one was 1954. Would it be valid to add both, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the topic is magazines as a set, I'd think 1954 as the end data for the set would be ok. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also ping User:TompaDompa who may be interesting in providing feedback on this topic too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I was pinged by Piotrus above. A couple of things that immediately stood out to me:

  • Is there any particular reason to cite the 1993 edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for the "SF Magazines" entry and the current online edition for the "Science Fiction Adventures" entry?
    One reason I've kept it this way is that the 1993 edition was not authored by Mike Ashley. He has been added as an author to the online edition, since he's contributed updates to that version. Ashley is certainly the world's leading authority on sf magazines, but I want to avoid the articles I write relying solely on his name in the citations, so I like to use this version. It's not that big a deal and I can update to the online articel if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction in the references that cite it (in the same way that authors that have Wikipedia articles are linked). I think this is best practices.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, Brian Stableford has an article that should be linked.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a great fan of abbreviating science fiction as "sf" (or "sci-fi", for that matter) outside of direct quotes. Unlike, say, the paper editions of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, we don't need to abbreviate the term to conserve space (WP:NOTPAPER).
    I do it mainly for variety; spelling out "science fiction" in full can get very tedious to read. If you read through the last two paragraphs of the "Science Fiction Adventures" section as if each instance of "sf" were spelled out, it sounds very repetitive. And of course when we quote sources with the abbreviation we have to explain it anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may give the article a more thorough look later. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

czar

[edit]

Hiya, some comments on a read-through:

  • I might have missed it somewhere but how did Raymond do business—did he use the same company or who funded these magazines? What was the business structure, where and how was it published, etc.
    I don't think you missed anything. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find out more about Raymond -- even just the names of the magazines he was publishing -- but have found nothing. I am in contact with Mike Ashley, who wrote most of the sources I use for these magazines, and could ask him, but even if he knows more that wouldn't be citable so I haven't yet done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And with a business name like "Space Publications", it isn't exactly easy to find more info on the company. czar 04:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any considerable Legacy of Raymond's magazines or Raymond as a whole that would be relevant here? It kind of drops off after just listing the individual magazines.
    No, not really. The 1950s was a boom time for genre magazines; scores of new titles were launched, and it's kind of surprising that Raymond's are now fairly well-regarded (due, certainly, to del Rey's abilities as an editor, rather than to Raymond). They would probably have been quite successful if he'd allowed them to continue, but a total of two dozen magazines in just over two years is a tiny fraction of what was being published and they had no lasting effect on the field, as far as I can tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear why "Bibliographic details" needs its own section: It repeats facts about del Rey being the editor and contains facts that could either belong in the general "Publication history" or the individual sections for background on each magazine; on structure it makes me wonder why this isn't organized as Background on Raymond's business and motivations, followed by a section about each magazine's contents and specific publication details and reception (akin to capsule articles), followed by commentary in a combined section on the impact of Raymond's magazines, if viewed as a whole (like the article does) rather than individual magazines.
    I'm open to restructuring, but I do have reasons for doing it this way. I've used this format for many magazine articles, and I like it because I think the publication history sections can tell the story of the business and the reception and legacy material naturally splits out into a "Contents" section. I use the "Bibliographic details" section to make sure all the infobox-ish details are captured -- price changes, page counts, sequence of editors (and their pseudonyms) and publishers, format changes (none for these four magazines), title changes, and foreign reprint editions. Some of this information naturally reappears elsewhere in the article, particularly in the publishing section, but keeping a separate bibliographic section means I can skip tedious details in the other sections where they would just impede the narrative. To your suggestion: these magazines (as far as the sources can shed light on it) were a sideline for Raymond, rather than a focus, so I can't really talk about "Raymond's business" overall. And I think separating the publication details for the magazines would entail a good deal of repetition -- the hiring of the editors, for example. Then I think the reverse is true for the contents section -- you're proposing a section on the overall impact of the magazines, but they weren't a unified entity in their impact. Whatever impact is recorded in the sources is about the individual stories. I certainly could combine that narrative, but since I think the reader still wants to know which stories appeared in which magazine, that would again lead to repetition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the combined Publication history being a good background of the business (by any other name), but I'm still struggling to discern the difference between the "Bibliographic detail" contents and the other sections. If the most important content was merged into the existing sections, I wonder whether any of the other leftover detail would even be worth mentioning at all? If it impedes the narrative above, then it isn't necessarily better as its own medley section, right? Typically we don't include page counts in prose—only if it's noteworthy. It's sometimes in an infobox and otherwise omitted. czar 00:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page count and price can be very important in the economics of these magazines, and they get mentioned in the body of the article when the sources go into those details; as a reader of works about magazine history, I am disappointed by a nonfiction source that omits that information, so when it's not mentioned in the body I think it needs to be included in some other way. The main sources I use generally do provide the same bibliographic summary at the end -- the Tymn/Ashley encyclopedia does, and Ashley's histories provide some of the information in appendices. There is often information that fits most naturally in a section like this -- see Weird Tales for example, where the bibliographic details section covers anthology series, foreign editions, variant covers, and collectability. I think it's also valuable to have consistency of presentation, for the same reason MoS requires consistency -- readers get familiar with it and are more comfortable navigating a consistent presentation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing it in an appendix, similar to how music album articles list tracks and production info at the bottom of their articles, is a workable idea. It is a bit awkward as prose in the present case.
    Sidenote but re: Weird Tales, I'm pretty surprised that some of that text made it into a FA! The fluctuating price per issue could easily be handled as a graph/table, if it needed to be covered at all. I think that's the main difference between WP being a general encyclopedia and a specialty encyclopedia—we still leave some details out for the sake of the general reader, who would only need to know that the price fluctuated between X and Y, not the fully enumerated value of every volume. It seems unlikely that this type of prose fact-listing would become a standard for magazine articles when we avoid it in other venues.
    czar 04:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply below to the note about del Rey's bibliography, which might address this too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strauss is missing an identifier
    Added OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notation in the table should be explained for a general reader—is it volume slash issue?
    Yes; should have noticed that was missing. Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above that "sf" as an abbreviation comes across as strange. In academic reference works about the subject, I see the value of the abbreviation (though perhaps better as "SF" in uppercase, per most abbreviations), but since Wikipedia is for a general audience, it really should be written out for the eight times it's used. In the event that it's used in sentences alongside "Space Science Fiction" and "Science Fiction Adventures" and it's really important to not say "science fiction" several times in a sentence then yes, I could see abbreviating as "SF" in uppercase if introduced in advance, but I think the better suggestion there would be to recast the sentence to refer to "the genre" or use another term or separate the sentence's idea to make the repetition unnecessary. It's currently really easy to get lost in the sentences that mention two similar publication names when I, as a reader, do not yet have an image in my mind of what exactly that publication name is or represents.
    I'd prefer to change it to "SF" than get rid of it -- I think a reader quickly detects strained variations, and there's no harm in gently introducing one or two terms of art in an article. I use the lower case form partly because the most prestigious reference, the SF Encyclopedia, does so; see here for a random article that uses it. The main science fiction magazine expert, Mike Ashley, also uses "sf" in his books. These aren't academic works. "SF" is certainly frequently used in the field, so if you really think it's necessary I can change to that, but for full disclosure I've used "sf" in quite a few other articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing would be an issue if we eliminate the abbreviation completely: there are two quotes in article that abbreviate "science fiction"; one to "SF" and one to "sf". If we keep those quotes the article still has to introduce the abbreviation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the latter case, I believe we would just replace it with "[science fiction]" like any other mid-quote change in the original text. I would consider Ashley's books to be academic monographs and the SF Encyclopedia to be a specialty book. It's not something a general reader would expect. Abbreviating to "SF" sparingly when recasting is insufficient sounds like the best compromise between all needs. czar 01:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it to "SF" throughout, and used "[science fiction]" for the in-quote "sf". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't del Rey edit all of the magazines? Why is he only called out as the editor of the first two in the lede?
    He did. I hadn't realized the lead wording didn't make that clear; now rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

czar 19:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made some changes in response to some points and have replied above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When del Rey became an editor, was it after he gave Raymond advice or because he submitted the story "Pursuit"? czar 00:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent find; thank you! I'll add something based on that and post again here when I'm done. I'll be slightly cautious about it, though, because Moskowitz's work has been criticized for inaccuracy. Ashley's account comes partly from correspondence with del Rey (he publishes an excerpt from del Rey's letter in his 1976 book) and since Ashley doesn't tell the story that way I think I need to be cautious. I've also emailed Mike Ashley in case he can back up Moskowitz's account, and since I'm emailing him anyway I've asked if he knows anything more about Raymond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, Mike responded almost immediately with a copy of del Rey's letter to him in 1975. Of course that's not a source we can use but here's what he says: "I came in contact with John Raymond first when my agent called to tell me there was a new sf magazine in the works and that they desperately needed novelettes. He suggested I do some outlines and take them over to Raymond--who didn't seem to know what he wanted. (He was publishing a photo "art" magazine--girlies--and the idea of doing sf had come from the distributor, who then had no such magazines. I went up to the office and found a huge stack of manuscripts from agents, with no one knowing what to do, though an Asimov and one other story had been bought. Raymond vaguely discussed one outline--that for "Pursuit"--and told me to write it and he'd buy it. Then he tried to learn from me what he should know about sf." He goes on to give more details, but that's the part that overlaps with what Moskowitz says. I think I'd be inclined to leave out Moskowitz's account; it's not accurate, but I can't cite the letter from del Rey to correct it. Any thoughts? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the source doesn't specify who summoned whom and for what, might be best to just leave that out and say that del Rey gave him early counsel and was then chosen as the editor. czar 04:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I think the current wording is in line with that source (which Ashley wrote based on the letter from del Rey) -- do you see wording that needs to be changed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another observation: In the sources I'm reading, it seems like these magazines are much more often associated or based around the relationship with del Rey than with Raymond. What is the thought behind scoping the article this way rather than as the works of del Rey? czar 01:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These were originally four stubs, one for each of the four magazines. I began working on expanding them, but found immediately that it would be ridiculously repetitious to do so, so I decided the sensible thing was to merge them. Ashley treats them in his prose histories all together in a single run of pages. I don't think it would make as much sense to make the articles "Lester del Rey science fiction magazines" -- for one thing, he was not the only editor of these magazines; for another, he also edited two issues of Worlds of Fantasy in the 1960s. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking more Lester del Rey bibliography, covering the magazines he edited (since these four are best associated with him) as well as other works. When scoped this way, it would avoid some of the list-as-prose issues discussed above since the descriptive bibliographic detail could just be listed (as a list) with room for written analysis alongside. Then it becomes a matter of what level of detail is undue weight to warrant a summary style split from such a bibliography. Definitely agreed that it made sense to combine the four stubs. czar 05:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see -- you're suggesting that a list format article such as a bibliography for del Rey would be a natural repository for that kind of detailed data, which would allow less details in articles such as this? I can agree with that. In articles I've written more recently I've gone with descriptions that give the basics without a tedious listing of details -- e.g. "the page count varied between 128 and 144 pages for most of its run" rather than listing the back and forth page count changes for every issue. For this article I think it's harmless to give the format, page count, and price, since that's just twenty words. The British editions aren't listed in the publication section and I think should stay. I've moved the table down and taken out the text in the bibliographic section giving the editorial succession, since that's clear in the table. I don't know how generally applicable that approach will be, though, since I can't use only colour to convey information. Here it's OK as the succession is given unambiguously in the table caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Czar, forgot to ping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Czar, can you let us know how things are looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No active objections from me—just suggestions czar 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I can see nothing to fault formatting- or reliability-wise -- looks GTG. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

I didn't think I'd have time to do a full review but can now recuse coord duties to do so... It's always difficult to find serious fault with Mike's SF mag articles, and any heavy lifting in this case appears to have already taken place. Lightly copyedited as usual so happy with prose, structure and comprehensiveness up to usual standards, will take Buidhe's image review as read, and obviously I stand by the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, and I appreciate the copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2022 [76].

Deja Vu (Olivia Rodrigo song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Deja Vu". Though her popularity exploded with the number-one hit "Drivers License", many critics thought her second single was even better than it. The song also performed strong commercially and debuted at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, making Rodrigo the first artist in history to debut their first two singles in the top 10. It interpolates a Taylor Swift fan-favorite called "Cruel Summer". I worked on this article a bit earlier in the year and I think it is in a good position with respect to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full prose review, but I will still help out by looking through the images.

  • File:Olivia Rodrigo - Deja Vu.png: The image has a clear purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. I appreciate the archived source link, and the WP:ALT text is solid.
  • File:Olivia Rodrigo with Dr Fauci 1.png: The image has clear WP:ALT text and the information on the Wikimedia Commons end looks solid to me. I would recommend revising the caption to include the year the photo was taken for full context but that is not an absolute requirement for this image review.
  • Do you think it would be helpful to include an audio sample?

This FAC passes my image review. I do have a minor suggestion for one of the image captions but it is nothing that will hold back my review from passing. I also have a question about including an audio sample, but that is more outside of the realm of an image review. I hope this was helpful and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. Regarding a sample, I considered it unnecessary for this article as I believe the song's composition is amply described by words. Hope you're having a great weekend.--NØ 04:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I respect your choice as usage of non-free media should be kept to minimum and you should not force something into an article if there is not a clear and defined need for it. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (passed)

[edit]
  • Sources are reliable
  • Shouldn't Rolling Stone be italicized for ref #6?
  • Some Rolling Stone refs are tagged with |url-access=limited but some are not
  • I believe The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times refs should be tagged with |url-access=limited
  • Spotchecks: 1, 7, 11, 18, 19, 22, 35, 50.
  • Why the quote in ref #5?
  • Out of curiosity, why don't we use {{single chart}} for the Billboard charts in the table? Ippantekina (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed. Regarding point 7, Billboard does not seem to maintain a chart history record for Rodrigo yet, which would probably be located here when it gets created.--NØ 02:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source review passes. Ippantekina (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Article is in great shape overall, a few comments:

  • set in Malibu, California -- I think it should be filmed in Malibu, California
  • on the set lists for her 2022 concert tour Sour Tour, and Glastonbury Festival 2022. -- "tour" and "2022" are a bit repetitive here, perhaps tweak this.
  • He direct messaged Rodrigo suggesting they make music together. – DM is a bit informal, perhaps "he reached out to Rodrigo" or "connected with Rodrigo"
  • a month after "Drivers License" -- was this a month after DL was released? Or a month after working on/writing DL? Perhaps some clarification is needed.
  • eating strawberry ice cream, trading jackets, -- these seems to be WP:OVERLINK
  • ensnarling production -- the source says ensnaring, unless I misunderstood. Perhaps you can simplify for unfamiliar readers since it is not in a direct quotation, per WP:NOTSIMPLE.
  • Changed to "enmeshing". Apologies if this is still too complex and I'd be glad to open up to suggestions.

Great work, I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review, Pseud 14! Very helpful and there weren't any overlaps. These should be addressed now.--NØ 06:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed commnets
  • This is likely a dumb question so apologies in advance. Could you clarify what you mean by "retroactive interpolation"? I read this as meaning this interpolation was put in later, but from my understanding, this was something identified in the song later. I'd just like some clarification about this part.
  • What I was trying to convey is the identification. So I've removed this word.
  • To continue with the interpolation bit, was there any commentary or criticism tying this in the larger issues in the music industry (specifically the seemingly rising case of lawsuits around plagiarism in songs like "Shake It Off" and "Dark Horse")? I vaguely remember the retroactive insert of writing credits being a rather big moment so I would think there is more on that. I was thinking of stuff like this source.
  • I don't think I can connect it to any official lawsuits without inserting original research, so I've now mentioned Swift's writing credits on another Sour track instead. The piece in the above link seems to be by a law school student so are you sure its reliable with regards to the FA standard?
  • You are correct. It would not be reliable enough by Wikipedia's standard let alone a FA standard, Apologies for that as I missed that. My primary question still stands. I remember there when the writing credits were added retroactively, there was a discussion about it connected with the state of music and creativity as a whole. Were any of these discussions picked up and addressed by third-party, reliable sources? It could just be a case where it was more so discussed in forums and the like. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure the comma is needed here, they did, in his new relationship, but I am uncertain so I wanted to ask you first.
  • For this part, which Rodrigo released as her debut single, I'd say "she released" as Rodrigo is repeated twice in the same sentence and this would be clear in context.
  • I'd link bridge in this part, The song's bridge was influenced, to help readers less familiar with music jargon. I would also link hook later in the article.
  • For Citation 6, the entire title should not be in italics, and I would include a time-stamp to where in the video this information is supported.
  • Since interpolation is linked in the article, it should be linked in the lead as well for consistency.
  • I'd clarify the attribution for these quotes, pretty chimes" and "blown-out electronics", as it is not immediately clear to me.
  • I believe these work best as part of the same sentence, and since these quotes are from different critics (The Independent and The Guardian), I am having a hard time working the critic names into it. Apologies for that.
  • My issue with these quotes is the attribution is not made immediately clear to readers which leaves room for misinterpretation on who is saying what. I have been told in the past to not use quotes without clear attribution in the prose (or they become "ghost quotes" for a lack of a better descriptor). I would be interested to see how other reviewers respond to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for beating a dead horse, but I have a question about this part, alleged similarity with "Cruel Summer". The earlier section clearly says the song was influenced by "Cruel Summer", but this section is more coy about it by saying "alleged".
  • Maura Johnston should be linked in the article and in the citation. I would double-check the music critics to make sure you did not miss anyone else.
  • I have a comment about this sentence, Chicago Tribune shared the latter's viewpoint. I'd avoid saying "shared" when it comes to reviews unless the Chicago Tribune critic explicitly tied his review to the Rolling Stone one. Plus, this sentence does not really add anything new for the reader. I'd recommend removing it.
  • The quotation marks in this part, described it as a "'don't know what you're missing' fantasy" that flourishes under thick drums and hurtingly relatable snark, do not cover the full quote.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing the music video did not receive a lot of coverage? I must admit that I am rather surprised since it is still one of her earlier singles, but music videos in general seem to be falling out of popularity.
  • I attribute this to Rodrigo releasing the song, music video, and the album preorder on the same day (April Fool's, no less!), which probably took critical attention away from the video.

I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am ecstatic you found the time to review this after all! Thanks and I await your reread.--NØ 04:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Apologies for pressing the point, but I was curious about your response to my question about the larger (potential) commentary about the retroactive writing credits. It could have been a case it was more discussed in forums (and less in reliable publications) but I wanted to clarify that point before re-reading the article. I am not 100% sold on the quote issue as I believe attribution is important, but again, I'd be curious on how other reviewers respond to that point. I will re-read the article either tomorrow or on Tuesday at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the article a few more times and I could not find anything to comment on further. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If successful, this would be the second song FA with this title (alongside the Beyoncé song), I believe that would be the first time that happened. It is super minor, but I think that kind of stuff is interesting lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

[edit]

Sour is a fun album. I'll be happy to have a read over this shortly. Here are a couple of comments to start off:

  • It could be interesting to mention "Deja Vu"'s appearance on the Triple J Hottest 100, 2021. Garnered the #33 spot alongside four other songs from Sour (two placed higher).
  • it heralded Rodrigo's "tru[e] arriv[al]" - can probably paraphrase this to avoid restructuring the tense of the quote. Not much will be lost by losing "truly arrived".

Anarchyte (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time! I've accepted both of these suggestions and am excited for any other comments you may have.--NØ 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Triple J, it's probably more suited next to the rest of the Australian information: "... Australian Recording Industry Association certified it 3× Platinum. It appeared at number 33 on the 2021 Triple J Hottest 100, alongside four other songs from Sour" or something of the like. Anarchyte (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • direct messaged - unless the article intends on making more of a point out of the quote ("I literally DM’d her that second"), this can be replaced with "contacted" or a similar synonym.
  • Rodrigo and Nigro co-wrote the song "Drivers License" - I like that the article provides background on their past work, but if possible, a timeframe for Drivers License would be nice for context. It notes that Drivers License was her debut in January 2021, but then jumps back to August 2020 for Deja Vu.
  • Notes application - very minor detail, but if the article is going to capitalise Notes, do we know if it was Notes (Apple)? Otherwise, if it's not an official name, it can probably be lowercase.
  • It may be interesting to explore the contrast between the original notes version and the final version: "Do you get déjà vu when she's with you?"
  • I think this would make a great addition if there was a critical piece analyzing why this change occurred, but alas there does not seem to be one.
  • I don't see the relevance of Salt Lake City.
  • She chose "Deja Vu" as her second single - personal opinion, but I think the ending of this paragraph might fit better after "On March 29, she revealed its title, "Deja Vu", artwork, and release date" or the MTV news sentence
  • Link Wurlitzer and Juno 60 to their relevant articles.
  • "angry-chanty thing" - unencyclopedic.
  • Now a quote directly attributed to the critic to make it clear this is not in Wikipedia voice.
  • reached the same destination - unsure what this means.
  • On the song - does "Throughout the song" work?
  • as an element that recalled Swift as well - consider "an element reminiscent of Swift as well".

Here are some more comments. Will continue later. Anarchyte (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you get through the rest of the article and complete your review before making further changes so it's not changing too much in between your reads. Regards.--NØ 11:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what I've been told in past reviews, you will need some citations for "many of whom perceived it as a strong follow-up to "Drivers License"." as this is a generalised statement.
  • Since the three sentences immediately following this one are a testament to it, I believe we could get away with not putting them here altogether to avoid citation overkill.
  • its similar subject matter - do "their similar subject matter" or "their shared subject matter" work?
  • a likewise illustrious follow-up - cut "likewise".
  • honed - I'm not aware of a definition that meets the context here.
  • "first-ballot hall of fame material" - unclear what this means. Perhaps paraphrase.
  • with Joel on piano - Billy Joel was only named in Composition and the context of "Joel" in Live performances does not encourage someone to make the connection. Should write out his name in full and consider rewording the tour mention to avoid repetition.

That's all from me. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your review, Anarchyte! While I think the Ryder picture taking up two sections is a little too much, I've kept this for now as it complements the music video part quite well. Let me know what you think about how it looks.--NØ 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the picture is a good addition. All my concerns have been addressed. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
  • "Deja Vu" reached the top 20 of national record charts, at number two in Ireland,[64] number three in Malaysia,[65] Singapore,[66] number four in Latvia,[67] number five in Portugal,[68] number 10 in the Czech Republic,[69] number 11 in South Africa,[70] number 15 in India,[71] number 17 in Lebanon,[72] Lithuania,[73] Norway,[74] and number 19 in Greece,[75] Hungary,[76] Slovakia.[77] The song earned a Platinum certification in Norway,[78] Portugal,[79] Poland[80] and Gold in Denmark,[81] Italy,[82] Sweden.[83] - I feel like we could bundle this so all of the refs are at the end of the sentence. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if there's anything else.--NØ 13:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2022 [77].

Shefali Shah

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shahid • Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shefali Shah is an Indian actress who started on Indian television and for much of her career, acted sporadically in films, often playing character roles. Although consistently respected for her talent with awards and praise from critics, it was not until recent years that she gained wide recognition, starting with the internationally acclaimed series Delhi Crime on Netflix. Since then, her career has only been growing, courtesy digital streaming platforms, with substantial leading roles. Having liked her work myself, I thought taking this stub and turning it into something of worth would be a great idea. It was challenging and interesting to find out more about an actor I didn't know much about myself. I'd be grateful to get help from WP peers and promote this article. Shahid • Talk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
Addressed comments

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to conduct a full prose review of this article, but I wanted to try and help with an image review. Hopefully, this will take some of the pressure and work away from the reviewers who normally do this kind of work in the FAC space.

  • File:Shefali2022 (cropped).jpg: The image has WP:ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would encourage archiving the source and author links to prevent any future headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FAC. Would it be possible to expand the caption to include the location/event (i.e. a screening of Jalsa)? I believe further context would be beneficial for readers.
  • File:Shefali Shah 2022.jpg: The image needs WP:ALT text. As with the previous image, I'd suggest archiving the source and author links, but again, it is not required. Do we know in what capacity she is promoting the film (i.e. is this a screening, an interview, etc.)? I am only curious because the current wording seems rather vague.
  • I am guessing these are the only usable images for the article?

I hope these comments are helpful. For the infobox image, I only have a question about the caption, and for the second image, I recommend ALT text and I have a question about the caption there as well. I also just have a general question about the amount of images in the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Good to hear from you and thank you for stepping in. First image: From my experience with infobox images, mentioning the location is not recommended. I can add it anyway if you like. The second image has been replaced by a newer one - please have a look (alt and stuff has been added). Also, a new image with her huband. All images have informative captions, ALTs and proper info. Shahid • Talk2me 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it recommended to not include the location/event for the infobox image? It seems strange to not provide the full context of an image to a reader in a way that easily accessible. FAs such as Oscar Isaac, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift include this information. In my opinion, it boils down to helping the audience. I do not think a reader should look at an image and question where it was taken. As the infobox currently stands, this image could have been taken anywhere in 2022 and that's an issue in my opinion. That's the reason why I'd include the event for the infobox image and File:Shefali Vipul.jpg.
There is a Personality rights warning for the image of Shah and her husband. Could you explain this for me as I am not fully aware of what this means? File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-premiere-of-Delhi-Crime-2-0086-1.jpg looks solid to me. It is a shame that there are not earlier pictures of her, but I can understand the difficulty of finding images in the first place and sometimes there is just a gap in what can find and use. Once the issue with the image captions and my question about the personality rights warning are answered, I would be more than happy to pass this image review.
I want to add that I greatly appreciate your work with biographies on Indian actors (such as Dimple Kapadia and Preity Zinta) and it is great to see FA content about subjects outside of the English-speaking world. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Well, as I said, it's from my experience in my previous FACs :) This was a clear request in my last FAC and I see that Kate Winslet, Michelle Williams, Brie Larson and the likes do not have information of the sort. Having said that, I don't have any problem at all and will be more than happy to provide more information. Please have a look.
The Personality warning has been removed as was the other tag because they're both irrelevant for this version.
Thank you for your kind words, as always. Shahid • Talk2me 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yes, I read WP:CAPLENGTH, and indeed, it is recommended to keep the infobox caption short and to the point, so, if you don't mind, I'll keep it as it suggests. If you insist, I'll restore the full caption. :) Shahid • Talk2me 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will pass this image review. It likely boils down to a matter of personal preference. I was honestly confused by where the infobox image was taken, especially since the background is not in focus, so I would have appreciated more context because it honestly just looks like a candid photo of her walking down a street. The WP:MOS is pretty clear about it though so it should be fine. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • From a glance, I'll say this: having otherwise empty sections that solely consist of referral links (what you've currently done with "Filmography" and "Accolades") is lazy and uninformative with no accompanying text, which renders them useless. Either add some text or move the links elsewhere and scrap those headings altogether. More comments to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SNUGGUMS: Totally. I'll follow the format of other FAs, where filmography and awards are part of the career section. Shahid • Talk2me 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for other parts.....

  • Having "an Indian actress of film, television, and theatre who mostly appears in independent Hindi films" seems rather long for the opening sentence. Maybe cut "of film, television, and theatre"
  • The use of "several" from "several accolades, including a National Film Award, two Filmfare Awards, two Screen Awards, and an Asian Academy Creative Award" is an understatement that implies only 5-10 total, also having this list of awards is redundant when specific ones are mentioned later in the lead.
  • Are you sure husbands and kids are lead-worthy? Tacking that on as the very last sentence makes it come off as a shoe-horned addition. In either case, it reads awkwardly to start a sentence with "Divorced from".
  • The first and third paragraphs from "Early and personal life" are rather short and make the flow of text feel choppy. Either expand on these or merge them with other paragraphs.
  • Under "Early theatre and television work (1990–1996)", you should replace the hyphens in time ranges with dashes like the one used in this very heading per WP:DASH, and its second paragraph uses "she" too much in quick succession. Try to change up the pronouns to avoid monotony.
  • You're missing a citation for "At the 44th Filmfare Awards, she was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress and was awarded the Critics Award for Best Actress" from "Breakthrough with Hasratein and Satya (1997–1999)".
  • Within "Intermittent work on stage and screen (2008–2016)", the use of "illegitimate" from "adulterous husband's illegitimate child" gives off a "you're not actually my child" vibe and we'd be better off with something like "child from wedlock" or "child from an affair"
  • Contrary to what the use of "recognised" from "recognised by critics and the media as one of India's finest actresses" implies in the "Artistry and reception" section, being among the "finest" is a personal opinion and not a fact, so let's go with "described", "ranked", "deemed", "praised", or something similar.
  • Continuing from the same section, assuming "women much ahead of her years" is supposed to mean older than Shah, just say that instead. The use of "poor" from "left it due to poor content" also is blatantly subjective.

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks so much for taking the time to read the article. My changes can be found in this link. To address each point:
  • The opening sentence has been cut as requested.
  • The parts of the awards has been changed from "several" to "various". Since these are the general functions of the awards and not the categories, I believe it is possible to provide a summary of competitive awards and then give the specifics (like it's done on Kate Winslet, for one).
  • Removed part about the husband.
  • Merged paragraphs from Early life and rewrote parts of it. Now there's one section.
  • Changed pronouns as suggested
  • Dashes applied across the board - thank you for noticing this.
  • Citation added for the award.
  • Part rewritten as follows: "accepts the child her adulterous husband had out of wedlock"
  • Changed "recognised" to "described"
  • Changed to "women older than herself"; changed the other part to "she left it citing poor content", which takes out the implication that this is the writer's opinion and clarifies it's hers.
Shahid • Talk2me 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - award list in lead has been removed as suggested. Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there: the use of "citing poor content" reads awkwardly, maybe just write "dissatisfied with the content" or "not liking the content" or something similar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: Great idea! Thank you, done. Shahid • Talk2me 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You now have my support for the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

I will do a general review soon but a source review for now. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

  • I suggest archiving the sources using this tool so that you don't have to deal with the headache of dead links in the future.
  • Linking of the publishers/newspapers/magazines is rather random. For sources like The Tribune, it's done consistently for every entry, but then we Hindustan Times, which is linked randomly (not in 1, 2 but in 13, 16). I suggest remaining consistent: either link them all only in their first instances or link them everywhere.
  • Watch out for MOS:QWQ in ref. 6 title.
  • I would remove The Times Group in ref. 12 and 21 (and wherever else I haven't mentioned) since you haven't listed publishers for newspapers elsewhere.
  • The newspaper for ref. 45 is The Indian Express, not Screen. Although Screen (magazine) is owned by the same company, it's not the article's publisher.
  • Ref. 46 - Bollywood Hungama's previous name was IndiaFM, not indiaFM.
  • Ref. 53 - link Screen (magazine) to Screen.
  • WP:SHOUTING in ref. 63.
  • Ref. 76 - I would remove The Sunday Tribune from the title.
  • Gandhi, My Father should be italicised in ref. 78 and 78 titles as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Ref. 93-96, 104-108, 111-114, 118, 125-127, 129, 173-176, 178-184, 186-190, 196, 198 - see my point about CONFORMTITLE above.

Mostly formatting issues; sources are all reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much! Okay - all your comments have been addressed. Tool used as suggested for archives; only the first link of each publication is now linked across the board; MOS:QWQ point fixed; The Times Group removed; IndiaFM capital I applied; SHOUTING removed; redundancies in #76 title removed; CONFORMTITLE has been applied across the board (never heard of this guideline re italics in ref titles). The only one that hasn't been changed is the use of Screen in #45 - the link is actually to the magazine and not the newspaper - in the late 1990s, the link to the magazine was not screenindia.com (as it was later known when it got its own independent address) but indianexpress.com/screen. Thanks for this meticulous source review. Shahid • Talk2me 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Shah's acting career started on Gujarati stage" => "Shah's acting career started on the Gujarati stage"
  • What is a "nested film"?
  • "her work in the social" - what do you mean by "the social"?
  • "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born 22 May 1973" => "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born on 22 May 1973"
  • "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage" => "Her first stint with acting happened on the Gujarati stage"
  • "but spent most of her studential days" - I don't think "studential" is a word. "Student days" works OK.
  • "an artists' residency in Bandra" - never heard of Bandra as a (?)town(?) so wikilink it as it clearly isn't that well known
  • "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995), in a brief role" => "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995)"
  • "an extramarital affair with another married man" => "an extramarital affair with a married man" ("another" doesn't work, as no other married man has been mentioned)
  • "In Happy Birthday Mummy Ji, she plays Suchi" - earlier "Mummyji" was one word.....?
  • In some places the refs after a sentence are not in correct numerical order
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for your helpful comments, as always. All suggestions have been applied. The last point about the correct numerical order for refs has been addressed as well. Shahid • Talk2me 13:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "has received both local and foreign accolades" - I would remove "both" as redundant.
  • "After a number of small parts on television"
  • "Shah wrote and directed two self-starring COVID-themed" - COVID is a little colloquial. I would use COVID-19 and probably link it.
  • "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born" - I would cut Shah and say "Shefali Shetty was born" as she wasn't a Shah then.
  • "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage when she was aged 10"
  • "which serves both Indian and international cuisines" - prose redundancy. Words like "both" are very often unnecessary. I realise some of these are just dropping single words but if something can be said with fewer words, we should do that (especially if we're aiming for FA). Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting.
  • "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role" - I suggest not starting a sentence with a number.
  • "to play her first lead role as Savi, a married woman in an extramarital affair with a married man" - this sounds as if it were her first lead role to play a woman named Savi (meaning she had played other lead roles before), not on television in general.
  • "$33 million" - MOS:NBSP needed
  • "Shah's husband Vipul cast her in his Hindi stage production Bas Itna Sa Khwab, directed Chandrakant Kulkarni" - directed by?
  • "it marked Shah's return to the stage after a decade in the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar" - ambiguous. It sounds like she spent a decade in "the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar".
  • "Three years later, Shah played Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's social problem film Lakshmi" - I would mention the year instead of "three years later" as the reader has to jump back a few sentences to figure out the year.
  • "The film was one of the highest-grossing Hindi films of 2015" - film used twice within close proximity.
  • "Both the film and Shah's performance"
  • "Critics noted her ability to communicate emotions through gestures and expressions,[135][136] with Kriti Tulsiani writing" - I would advise against using fused participles like "with + (pro)noun + verb-ing". Something like "...and expressions; Kriti Tulsiani wrote" is much simpler.
  • "In Happy Birthday Mummyji, she plays Suchi" - not sure about the sudden use of present simple tense to describe one of Shah's roles. Talking about the older Someday, you use "played".
  • "and revealed to have grown so emotionally invested" - words like reveal should (almost) never be used in Wikipedia as it has a NPOV, suspense-dissolving kind of effect.
  • "The film was reviewed positively,[176] and Shah received rave reviews for her internal performance" - I'm not sure what internal means here. Also, I would simplify the sentence to "The film and Shah's performance received positive reveiws"
  • There's an unnecessary space between "words" and the cited source in "minimal use of words [193]".
  • "stop accepting parts of the sort" -> "stop accepting such parts"
  • "The rise of OTT platforms" - not everyone is familiar with the abbreviation. I would suggest writing it out.
  • "as it brought about an influx of film offers"
  • is "homely, chatty but with a sensible head firmly screwed onto her shoulders — a regular Indian woman who deals with life by wearing a velvet glove over an iron hand."[43] Full stop after the quotation mark; see MOS:LQ.
  • "While reviewing Jalsa (2022)"
  • Suggest italicising "au naturale".

That's it. Admirable work on what would be the first FA on a non-leading Bollywood actress if it passes. This makes me want to watch more of Shah's films, especially her leading roles, as I have only seen her in supporting parts so far. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much for this review. All your points have been addressed with one exception. The use of "reveal" is, indeed, discouraged per MOS:SAY but I believe not in the current case because it speaks about her feelings and not something that could be contested so it's even better than "said".
The part where "three years later" is mentioned has been revised as follows (I want to highlight her absence from film work and not just jump to the next year): "After three years of absence from the screen, Shah returned as Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's 2014 social problem film Lakshmi, alongside Monali Thakur."
Among other points, "internal" was replaced with "understated" (I use "rave reviews" against positive reception to the film, because her performance was even better received than the film itself).
Everything else is done as suggested. Thank you so much for noticing such tiny nuances. By the way, loved your comment that "Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting." It put a smile on my face and showed how thoroughly you read the article. If you want to watch a film with Shah in the lead, I'd recommend starting with the short film Juice which is available on YouTube with subtitles. Thanks again, Shahid • Talk2me 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@FAC coordinators: : Hi there, I wonder what is the current status of this FAC following three reviews, an image review, and a source review. Shahid • Talk2me 19:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been open for less than three weeks. Let's give it a little longer and see if it can attract further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thank you for this reply. Makes sense. Shahid • Talk2me 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a question about this part, in an episode titled Kabzaa. I do not know if this is cultural and regional differences, but I believe episode titles are put in quotation marks and not in italics. I have a similar question for these parts, the well-received Highway and in the fourth segment Ankahi,, as well as any other instances in the article that I may have overlooked.
  • I would avoid sentence structures like the following, with critics Subhash K. Jha and Mihir Fadnavis observing. I have seen this note quite a bit in FACs (i.e. do not use the "with X verb-ing" structure), and although I do not have a strong opinion on it, I know it is not considered appropriate for a FA so I would revise this instance, as well as others in the article, out of the prose.
  • For this part, Karan Malhotra's remake of the 2011 sports drama Warrior, would it be beneficial to clarify that Warrior is an American film?
  • I have a comment for this part, conduct human trials for new drugs. I do not think the link entirely works here as I was not expecting it to lead to the drug test article so it comes across as an WP:Easter egg to me.
  • I have a question about this sentence: Darlings became the highest-viewed non-English Indian original on Netflix. When I look at the film's article, it includes this citation which says it had "the highest global opening ever for a non-English original Indian film". The phrasing in this article makes it sound like it was the most-viewed of all time. Could you clarify this point?

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure I did not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks so much for stopping by. Resplies to your comments (one by one):
  • You are absolutely right per MOS:MINORWORK. Applied everywhere.
  • I'm aware of the recommendation to avoid such structures - that is why you'll find no other instances like this one on the article. The reason this one is used here is because it's a short sentence, with no and it makes it easier to read. I could rewrite it if you think it's crucial.
  • Specified country.
  • I think the problem is settled now when I use the link as follows: trials for new drugs.
  • That's right, but the second source says the following: "Darlings continues to be the highest viewed non-English Indian original film", which supports the text in the article.
Thanks so much for taking the time to offer your helpful comments. Shahid • Talk2me 23:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 October 2022 [78].

Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun

[edit]
Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous discovery in the history of Egyptology. This is a story of how archaeology can shape and be shaped by nationalism, fads, and pop culture. The spectacular treasures and the purported curse on the tomb are well known to Western audiences. Recent scholarly sources tend to emphasize the political dispute surrounding the discovery and to treat the actions of the excavators as examples of colonialist attitudes in Egyptology. I hope I have treated all these topics in a neutral and proportional way. User:Ceoil has given this article a peer review and believes it is ready for FAC.

There are ambiguities in the copyright status of some of the images, which I detail on the talk page here. Several of the photos I'm uncertain about will definitely fall into the public domain in January, if they haven't already. I leave final verdicts up to the judgment of image reviewers.

Minor points: I've tried to write in British English, but some Americanisms have probably crept in. Also, in the reflist, the Duckworth reprints of Howard Carter's three-volume book about the tomb are not arranged by year of publication. For some reason Duckworth reprinted Volume III before Volume II, and Volume II before Volume I. I chose to put them in the most intuitive order, the one in which they were originally published. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments by Johnbod

[edit]

On a quick look, there are lots of big white gaps, and a monochrome look overall. We have hundreds of photos of the contents on Commons, many quite decent. The ones from the Paris exhibition of 2019 look especially good (the photos in the main article on the tomb could probably be perked up too). I'll take a proper look later, & if that's ok will deal with any minor engvar issues I spot. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, like many of us I suppose, I devoured this story when I was a kid and might recuse to review if I have time... No objections to colour images of the contents but as this is about the discovery of the tomb, I'd tend to keep the contemporary black-and-white pics and simply augment with modern colour shots where there's space -- this might be just what Johnbod's suggesting anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pretty much - I don't like gaps when there is no shortage of good images. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some images in the gaps. A. Parrot (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, for sure. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my idea was to focus on images of the process itself. Many more are available from the later phases of the clearance, and I hope to add some next year, once they have unambiguously fallen into the public domain. (The images that I used that fall into this category were already present on Commons; when uploading new images to illustrate the article, I only used those whose copyright status I could verify myself.) But I wouldn't object to adding some current images of objects that are mentioned in the text. A. Parrot (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

The article is very comprehensive and well written. It is well researched with appropriate sources. Thank you for your hard work, it really shows! Merytat3n (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • so that alone among the tombs in the valley it retained most of the goods it was stocked with. the placement of "alone" here is somewhat awkward, perhaps so that, unlike the other tombs of the valley, it retained most of the goods it was stocked with.
Changed.
  • The digging resumed after 3 November perhaps I am misreading this, but it appears to say that they discovered the steps on the 4th, Carnavon was told of such, and traveled from England to Egypt and arrived the day before they discovered it? Is this perhaps meant to be the 13th or 23rd? I cannot access the source for this.
Yes, it was the 23rd. This was an editing typo, now corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

As mentioned by the nominator, took a close look at this at PR, and my quibbles were met then. Another superbly researched and engagingly written article by A. Parrot. No hesitations from me here. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to these few copyedits. An excellent article. John (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]
This isn't an FA requirement, surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I have added some. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: The photo was transferred to Commons from Wikipedia in 2007, and at that time the source link pointed back to the Wikipedia copy (as seen here). Somebody apparently deleted the more specific link because it was recursive. The original link could be added back, but I don't know what to do to trace the image any further than that. Oddly enough, it seems to be one of the better copies of this photo circulating online, so finding a replacement from a different source may not be feasible. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to archived versions, though I don't know if there's some other way I'm supposed to format them. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The current formatting looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this image review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • It's optional to add page numbers to chapters cited; you don't do it for Haikal (2003) but you give page numbers for all the other cited chapters, e.g Dorn (2016) and Goelet (2016), so I would suggest adding the page numbers for Haikal for consistency.
    @Mike Christie: Done.
  • The retrieval date for the Griffith institute cite is "Retrieved 2022-03-05"; should be "5 March 2022" to match the format used for Alberge (2022).
    Fixed.
  • Is White (2003) a chapter or just a reprinted excerpt? Either way, as far as I can tell this was originally published both in McCall's and in Pearson's at the same time. This is a link to the McCall's article. You might consider citing this directly, unless there's value in citing it as you do now because those authors confer authority on the citation.
    White is a reprinted excerpt, but I didn't know how else to format it. It looks like the version in McCall's is abridged; it's missing a lot of the text found in Carter & Mace 2003 (and which was presumably all present in the original Pearson's printing). I'd prefer to stick with the complete text. A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can find. Source are reliable and links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2022 [79].

Phosphatodraco

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about an azhdarchid, the pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "The specimen was made the holotype of the new genus and species Phosphatodraco mauritanicus in 2003;" Suggest wikilinking holotype
Of course, done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2020, the paleontologists Claudio Labita and David M. Martill" I don't think "the" is needed here? It sounds weird to me, but it might just be personal preference.
Yeah, whatever version I use,someone will always have issues with it, so I just do it at random and stick to it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2015 article by the paleontologist Mátyás Vremir and colleagues" is this Mátyás Vremir? If so, wikilink.
Nice, overlooked there was an article, linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The left postexapophysis is placed at the side of the condyle" can postexapophysis be wikilinked to Exapophyses?
Linked already at "left postexapophysial process (which connected with the preexapophys at the front of the preceding vertebra)" which explains both kinds. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, Z1720, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just added an extra image at the end of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • It was one of the only known azhdarchids preserving a relatively complete neck, – why past tense, is the specimen lost?
Just confusion I guess, changed to present. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them – maybe add a full stop to avoid that very long sentence?
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an azhdarchid, it would have had a proportionally long neck, small body, and long limbs. – You already have "Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs, while their bodies and feet were small." elsewhere in the introduction, combine the two?
Combined. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Azhdarchids had long necks and limbs compared to other pterosaurs – maybe start a new paragraph here? This does not relate to the previous sentence anymore.
I prefer three paragraphs for shorter articles, and since the combination of the sentences suggested above made it shorter, I think it might be better now anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shortened further per comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • wing-elements – should it be "wing elements"?
Removed, but I can't say I understand much about when to hyphenate or not... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is larger than azhdarchid such as – "azhdarchids"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that were much longer than wider – "wide"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • low skulls that were much longer than wider, and some that were much shorter, – much shorter than what? I assume it is not supposed to mean "much shorter than wide"? (Aren't they all much longer than wide?)
Specified as "very long, low skulls that were up to ten times longer than wide, and some that were much shorter than that, closer to those of other pterosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combined, the long wing metacarpals and legs made azhdarchids relatively taller than other pterosaurs – when walking, right? Not taller when flying.
No doubt, the source just says "The combined long legs and elongated wing metacarpal gives azhdarchids longer limbs and taller frames, relatively speaking, than other pterosaurs (fig. 25.10)", but the caption of that figure specifies they're depicted as standing, so I thought it was ok to add "when standing". FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that if Kellner's suggestion that the series actually represents vertebrae C3-C8, – is an "is correct" missing here?
Ah, of course, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the ratio between the maximum length of the vertebrae/the front width between – "and" instead of "/"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • is about 4.3 (C5), 4.1 (C6) – "is about 4.3 in C5 and 4.1 in C6"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • all lying at the same plane – "in the same plane"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola – add the Kellner number in brackets, as done with the other vertebrae?
I'm actually a bit unsure about this one. Witton and Naish show what they say is the "complete neck" here[80] based on Kellner, but it actually excludes the posteriormost preserved vertebra, which is the C9 of the original describers. So I don't know if this means they would actually consider it the first dorsal instead? Or maybe it's just because that vertebra isn't preserved in a way that they can include it, since it's only visible in front view in the fossil? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went with the assumption that Kellner would consider it a cervical anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Characteristics of azhdarchid cervical vertebrae.png – indicate the length of the scale bars in the image description on Commons?
It isn't given in the paper's caption:[81] FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witton and Naish suggested that their more generalist lifestyle could explain the group's resilience compared to other pterosaur lineages, which did not survive until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids – if I remember correctly this is now somewhat outdated (Longrich study from Morocco)?
Changed to "which were not thought to have survived until the late Maastrichtian like the azhdarchids did". Then as the text is chronological, the Longrich study should show ideas have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • with aquatic environments, such as rivers, lakes, marine, or off-shore – I found this mixture of nouns and adjectives a bit confusing.
Added a noun for the last two words, if that helps. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but Witton thought this unlikely due to the terrestrial bias of their fossils – the previous text suggest the opposite, an absence from terrestrial environments?
There is a disagreement in the literature that is only now being published, so Witton refers to the earlier ideas proposed in his 2008 paper. Only in 2021 does there seem to have been refutation of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. But for now, I just added "supposed" before "terrestrial bias" to show uncertainty. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their proportions indicate they were not good swimmers on the other hand, and while they could probably launch from water, they were not as good at this as some other pterosaur groups. – Attribute this (and other claims in this paragraph) to Witton? Not sure if it is really universally accepted.
Everything under locomotion is basically Witton, but made one more attribution in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everything should now be addressed, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
Cut a bunch of sentences. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at GA, I still have a gripe with Mauretania being described as "Latin for North Africa", because the name Mauretania refers to the land of the Mauri whose kingdom extended only across the western North African coast before becoming a client of the Roman Empire. The statement "Latin for North Africa" is false, it's Latin for "Mauri territory" or "land of the Mauri" etc. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to put down "the specific name refers to the region of Mauretania" and then use a different source not related to Phosphatodraco to quickly say what Mauretania means. I'm curious what others think about this Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, or simply say the describers gave this etymology, but other sources specify something else. Got any sources for it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources from the Mauretania article and another book, now saying "The describers gave the etymology of Mauretania as Latin for North Africa, while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move the refs around, because right now it looks like the describers support the statement "while other sources specify it as an area stretching from Algeria to Morocco," but tomorrow or day after I'll try to find a better wording if I can Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's the case, the refs are in the same order as the statements in the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I think we're awaiting a source review. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake, please do, otherwise Funk, best add a request at the top of WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • "Alexander W. A., Kellner" – are given name and sure name swapped here?
Yeah, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in another reference, the names are spelled out: "Kellner, Alexander Wilhelm Armin". This could be consistent.
Made consistent, most of these were automatically generated. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 26 now is part of a volume (volume 140) that should be added.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Upper Maastrichtian Phosphates of Morocco" – "Upper" and "Phosphates" need to be lower case.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these nitpicks, all formatting seems to be ok. All sources are of high quality, and all relevant sources have been cited as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the above should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, all looks good now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 October 2022 [82].

4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Pennsylvania's first American Civil War units which received notoriety for insisting upon its discharge before the First Battle of Bull Run. Although the unit was mocked in the press for this action, its troops went on to serve in many of the major battles of the war in the east. This article recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:National_color_of_the_4th_Pennsylvania_Infantry_and_the_51st_Pennsylvania_Infantry.jpg: the source site indicates that all content is copyright protected and explicitly allows only fair use
  • Corrected tag to PD US since the flag itself is public domain and the photograph falls under PD-art
  • Added desc

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Recusing to review,
  • Strongly suggest dumping the one-sentence paragraph opening the lead. If you want two paragraphs there are better places to break.
  • Done
  • Any chance of working the date of Bull Run into the lead?
  • Done
  • "went on to serve in later Pennsylvania regiments during the war". What's a "later regiment"?
  • Reworded
  • "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to service in the army for three months after Confederate forces began the American Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter, a mass meeting was held at the Odd Fellows Hall in Norristown on 16 April, during which resolutions promising assistance to the families of men who volunteered were passed." A bit long. Optional: Split after "16 April".
  • Split
  • "The men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service". Every single one of them? If so, say so. (If not, say so.) Is it known, even approximately, how many men were in the militia regiment?
  • Reworded. The militia regiment would have been much more understrength since relatively few men would have been willing to commit to military activities in peacetime.
  • "volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day". Delete "on".
  • Done
  • "he men of the militia regiment volunteered for a three month term of service on the next day and were accepted" and "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment" seem to be in contradiction to me.
  • Rephrased
  • "The officers of the militia regiment began enlisting recruits, and by 20 April there were about 600 men from Montgomery County in the regiment." The militia regiment?
  • Resolved
  • "the regiment moved to Harrisburg". The only "regiment" mentioned so far is the militia, which I am guessing is not what you mean?
  • Clarified
  • ""On the next day, Patterson ordered". Delete "On".
  • Done
  • "to obtain a steamer to bring the regiment to Annapolis". Do you mean 'to take'?
  • Rephrased
  • "but the latter only allowed half of the regiment". "the latter" → 'he'.
  • Done
  • "The 4th Pennsylvania would not receive new uniforms from the state until June, after it arrived at the capital on 8 May". I don't think this works. Perhaps a new sentence after "June"?
  • Done, details added.
  • "three pickets of the regiment". A "picket" can be either an individual or group. Is it known if this was one group of three soldiers, three separate individuals, or three separate groups? Similarly in the next sentence.
  • Bates suggests that the pickets were stationed together or in close proximity with the statement that: On Sunday, June 30th, at two o'clock in the morning, the pickets of the reginent, stationed-on the old Fairfax road, under command of Lieutenant M. R. M'Clennan, were attacked by about thirty of the enemy. They were repulsed by our pickets, only three in number, who killed Sergeant Haines, previously a clerk in the Treasury Department, at Washington. Three other of our pickets on the outer post, intending to go to the rescue of their comrades, came in contact with the enemy's force, in which Thomas Murray was killed, and Llewelyn Rhumer was severely wounded. The third, dropping upon the ground, escaped without injury, the enemy, in the excitement and darkness, passing over him.
  • There is a lot of "on the next day" usage. Is "on" a USvar thing?
  • No, it's just how I instinctively write since I tend to be more wordy than necessary.
  • "The appeals of McDowell and Hartranft to patriotic duty fell on deaf ears: many in the regiment were willing to stay". Does the second clause here not contradict the second?
  • Reworded. This shifts the emphasis but demonstrates that there was split opinion.
  • "and others felt similarly." Is this on the testimony of Corporal Corson? If so → 'and that others felt similarly.'
  • Done
  • "after the end of the war". Optional: → 'after the war'.
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, because there are sources that use military date format. However, this is also because I instinctively type in day-month format. If there is a date conversion bot the dates should probably be switched.
  • Done

Comments by PM

[edit]

Interesting unit. Will be back to take closer look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will start now as Mike has finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to make this a source review given it has three content reviews and an image review. No need for overkill. Let me know? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much appreciated. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "The 4th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment was formed from the 1st Regiment of the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Division of the Pennsylvania State Militia, which was organized under the Militia Act of 1858. The latter included six companies based in Norristown, Pennsylvania." I can't tell what "the latter" refers to.
  • "In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to service in the army for three months": shouldn't this be "to serve in the army"?
  • "When it was mustered in on that day": we haven't said what day this is; if that's because it's not known, I would just make this "When it was mustered in,".
  • "The Headquarters and Headquarters Company of the 1st Battalion": I'm not clear how I'm supposed to read this -- are these two separate things?
    • I've changed to "The Headquarters Company of the 1st Battalion, 111th Infantry Regiment of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard" which seems to be the clearest reading of the source, although I do find trying to parse through official lineages difficult. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor points; this is a clearly written and straightforward account. I particularly like the quote box giving Russell's newspaper account. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a look at these comments above after work to help Kges out, since they haven't edited since 12 August. I reviewed at both GAN and ACR, so I don't intend to review here as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kges1901 - I hope I didn't step on any toes here, but I don't want to see this archived for stalling out. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • " In response to President Abraham Lincoln's call for 75,000 men to serve in the army for three months after Confederate forces began the American Civil War by firing on Fort Sumter, a mass meeting was held at the Odd Fellows Hall in Norristown on 16 April." This sentence loses its way. You need a semicolon or a new sentence after"Sumter".
  • @Ian Rose and Dudley Miles: - Dudley, are you okay with my replies? If not, agree it may have to be archived if Kges isn't back soon. I recently acquired the Davis book cited, and can access the public domain sources, but won't be able to do anything that requires Bolton, Field, Longacre, or Sauers. Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked over the review and addressed the points raised. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Formatting of sources is fine.
  • Are the ELs RS per WP:ELNO?
  • Yes, the regimental roster is an accurate transcription of the unit muster rolls and the compilation of newspaper clippings is an accurate transcription of the originals.
  • Some of the sources are ancient (Auge, Bates and Russell in particular), but I have examined what they are being used for, and do not consider that anything they support is in any way controversial or likely to be challenged. The controversial aspects of the unit history (the lead-up to First Bull Run) are cited to Davis, which although getting a bit long in the tooth itself, is a university press book. It would be good to have something more recent on First Bull Run that corroborates what the 4th Penn did. Does Longacre repeat the same version of events as Davis? If so, perhaps use him to support fn 10?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kges1901, not sure if you've seen this source-related query. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that addresses what I'm trying to get at. Does anyone else provide a similar account of what the soldiers discussed, McDowell's intent and promises, the factor of lack of equipment in the decisions of soldiers, and their sense of entitlement to a rest? ie, does anyone corroborate Davis? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the citation added only covers the words “decided to send the entire regiment to be mustered out.”? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the location of the citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, all good. Passed source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [83].

1899 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... an election which lacked one of the usual things you find with elections, that is, a winner. Unimportant in itself, this election which elected no one set off a chain of events that helped make Theodore Roosevelt president.Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:History_of_Beaver_County,_Pennsylvania_and_its_centennial_celebration,_(1904)_(14804406853).jpg: is more specific tagging available?
  • File:George_A._Jenks.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:BenjaminFJones.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and what evidence is there this was published c. 1870? The source says only date and doesn't specify whether that was publication or only creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a more specific tag for the first one and swapped the two other images for (regrettably inferior) ones that are clearly PD. I'll keep looking, but this should do the trick for now. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see here.
  • "beginning on January 17, 1899 by the" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "until his 1904 death" — would be better is written as "until his death in 1904"
  • "Matthew Quay was born September 30, 1833 in" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
  • "practicing in Beaver, Pennsylvania and" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • "He himself recognized the" — suggesting to remove 'himself'
  • "Quay had arranged for $1,000,000 of state funds" — suggesting to use {{Inflation}}, the figure would be much more significant now! Same with the $40,000 bribe.
  • "one in Gettysburg planted 50 and invited Quay to visit in a few years and shake all of them" — well, important to mention?
Maybe, but it shows something about what the common people were doing, not just the legislators.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boosted Quay, "rebuild[ing] his tarnished image in the Keystone State"." — The prose should specify where this quote comes from.

That is it! Great work on a very interesting election! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I'm interested in politics, and have written articles about this time period, but not American politics in Pennsylvania, so consider this a moderately-expert review?

  • "The members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in drafting the Constitution, chose state legislatures, not the people, to select United States Senators." Suggested reword: "In drafting the Constitution, the members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 agreed that United States Senators would be chosen by state legislatures, not the people." The use of "chose" and "select" in the sentence was a little confusing, and this reword removes some commas for flow.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the legislature which would be in place when the senatorial term expired first met and chose officers." I am re-reading this sentence several times and I cannot make sense of it. Perhaps, "after the legislature that was in place when the senatorial term expired first met and chose officers." I still don't know what the second part of the sentence is trying to tell me.
There were antebellum disputes about which session of the legislature got to pick a senator. This was intended to settle that. The intent was to impose a duty to vote once that session of the legislature a) convened and b) organized itself by, for example, choosing a speaker or the equivalent. The intent was to avoid a situation in which houses of the legislature refused to vote on the senatorship, which had also happened before the Civil War. I've struggled to make the language clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is this the timeline of picking a senator according to this legislation: when a senator's term ends, the vote to fill that senator's seat must start on the first Tuesday of that state's legislature's session, which is the same day that the state would choose its officers. Is that correct? Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, when the state legislature is elected that will be in place when the term ends, that is, there will be no more general elections before the senator's term ends, that's gonna be in most states the November before the term ends (in states like Ohio or Louisiana, it was longer than that. Then the legislator's terms start in January, the houses meet and choose officers (speaker of the state house, president of the state senate), that is, they organize, and then it's the second Tuesday after that that each house votes on senator.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page has a good discussion of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the constant comments on this point, but I'm trying to figure out how to best phrase this sentence so I would understand it. What about, "Federal law prescribed that the state legislature formed from the general election preceding the senatorial term's expiration would vote for a candidate to become a senator for that state. The voting would begin on the second Tuesday of that legislature's first session." Thoughts? I think dividing the sentence in two helps with understanding. I'm not thrilled with the phrasing, but I think this is better. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to dividing it but your phrasing is not accurate for two reasons: most likely that would be true of the lower house, but might not of the state Senate (which might be formed two elections before). Second, if there was a deadlock, the legislature might not be able to organize itself immediately (look at what happened to the federal House of Representatives in 1839 and 1849, both times it took weeks to elect a Speaker).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase this then. Any suggestions? Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can think of is to directly quote from the statute. Or accept as it stands, sometimes the need to be exact makes stirring prose difficult. I should note that I used an almost identical explanation at 1898 United States Senate elections in Ohio and the phrasing you mention passed without comment at the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is improved and I cannot find a better way to phrase it. Thanks for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wanamaker entered the race anyway, making speeches demonizing Quay. He made alliances with reformers in the legislature" Suggest combining these sentences as "Wanamaker entered the race anyway, making speeches demonizing Quay and made alliances with reformers in the legislature."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the funds be invested in the Metropolitan Traction Company of New York, sending a telegram:" Should MTC of NY wikilink to New York Railways Company?
Done, with a section link.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On January 17, there was the initial voting, in the two houses of the legislature, sitting in the state capital of Harrisburg." -> "The initial voting in the two houses of the legislature took place in the state capital of Harrisburg on January 17." This removes the commas, which were interupting the flow.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which took the privilege of electing senators out of state legislators' hands and gave it to the people." Privilege might be a POV term, and I'm not sure if everyone would consider it a privlege. Also, "state legislators' hands" might be an MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps, "which transfered the responsibility of electing senators from state legislators to a public vote." or something similar.
I've removed possible idioms. But I prefer to say "people" because that is what the 17th Amendment prescribes, that senators from each state be "elected by the people thereof".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, addressed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on one bullet point above, but everything else is good. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. This is a clear and concise article, and my few suggestions about the prose are of precious little importance.

  • Opposition to Quay and indictment
  • "his choice of nominee was generally ratified" – I briefly wondered if a general ratification might be a technical term, and perhaps "usually" rather than "generally" might be clearer here.
  • "brought the issue of bossism home" – a European reader (e.g. me) can more or less deduce what "bossism" means, but it's not a familiar term in these parts, and if you can link to a WP or Wiktionary page that would be good, but if not, no matter. (Afterthought: I see the word is in the OED: "U.S. The system in which political parties are controlled by 'bosses' or 'wire-pullers' You might put that in a footnote if you felt inclined to humo(u)r English readers, but I do not press the point.)
  • Caucus and early balloting
  • "to choose a candidate for Senate" – is the omission of the definite article the idiomatic AmE form? Fine if so, though it looks a little odd to an English eye.
  • "109 Republicans showed up, of which 98 voted for Quay" – "of whom", perhaps, rather than "of which"? Possibly an Engvar point.
  • Appointment
  • "Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison … to vote against seating Quay" – This is a 45-word sentence, and it might be a good thing to break it up. Perhaps something on the lines of Wanamaker got former president Benjamin Harrison, who had appointed him postmaster general, to use his influence to defeat Clay. Harrison convinced Republican senators from his home state, Indiana, as well as those former members of his administration who were in the Senate, to vote against seating Quay.

That's my lot. Tim riley talk 21:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I've resolved everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too. Happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. − Tim riley talk 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review, formatting looks okay, I just have a query re. the thesis by Elizabeth Ann Chapman. I believe doctoral theses, or theses by published authors, are considered fine, but as the type of thesis isn't mentioned and I couldn't find works under this name at WorldCat, I'm not certain if either of these criteria apply -- can you enlighten me? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. Upon looking at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't think I can show the thesis has had a considerable effect on scholarship so I've eliminated it as a source. Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt action Wehwalt, no further issues. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [84].

Fallout (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm, I guess. The last candidacy only had one responder, and they voted "support", so I will be bringing this article back for a third candidacy before the two-week mark. I'm pretty sure everyone gets the gist by now: Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed by Interplay that helped revitalize the genre for PCs. Anyway, I'll soon be pinging a group of people who helped review this article for GAN, PR, and previous FACs to help. Lazman321 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GAN reviewer @Haleth:; peer reviewers @RogueShanghai: (don't feel obligated) and @Shooterwalker: (who also participated in the first candidacy); first FAC reviewers @Buidhe:, @Spy-cicle:, @Ovinus:, @JimmyBlackwing:, and @Darkwarriorblake:; and second FAC reviewer @CactiStaccingCrane:. Lazman321 (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, source-text integrity is FA-class, based of my reviews at the last candidacy and a quick source check now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Ovinus

[edit]

Seeing as source-to-text integrity was previously an issue, I will provide a second opinion; I may also review the article in full.

  • [4]: Fine
  • [5]: Can't check
  • [35]: Fine but please fix archive link, prefer [85]
  • [68]: Fine, but I wouldn't say "a document called Vision Statement", I would just say "a vision statement" (lower case)
  • [70], [75], [78], [95], [101], [135], [155], [165], [178], [183]: Fine

Looks good from those 14 checks. Ovinus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your spot checks. I fixed the archive URL and tweaked the vision statement sentence according to your recommendation. If you want to check citation 5, you can find the intro on YouTube. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

[edit]
Whole lotta comments

Should have my review in within the next few days. I'll likely do some minor copyediting while I review. JOEBRO64 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the writing needs some cleaning up before this article is ready for promotion. My more specific comments mainly pertain to the lede to give you a sense of what I'm talking about. In addition, I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

  • As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's", "of the game", "in the game", etc. In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "The game's combat is turn-based", "The game's quests were intentionally made morally ambiguous", "took up a huge chunk of the game memory", and "over 100,000 units of the game had been shipped by December 1997"
  • I think my main issue with the writing is that it seems to be overly verbose in places. Take, for example, "Fallout's main creator, Tim Cain, worked on it at Interplay as early as 1994." I think this can be revised to "Tim Cain began working on Fallout in 1994". "[A]s early as 1994" is not only wordy, but it casts doubt on whether development began in 1994, and referring to Cain as "[the] main creator" raises questions (what makes Cain the "main creator"?). Not to mention, neither aligns with the content in the article, which says that Cain created Fallout and development began in 1994. You also don't need "at Interplay" since the first sentence of the lede establishes that this is an Interplay game.
  • Other examples of how you can say the same thing using less words and have the lede better reflect the article's content:
    • "It began as a game engine framework, inspired by the tabletop role-playing game GURPS published by Steve Jackson Games. → It began as a game engine based on Steve Jackson Games' tabletop role-playing game GURPS. Adding "framework" after "game engine" is tautological (game engines are frameworks), and you can get rid of the passive voice by using Steve Jackson Games as a possessive. "inspired by" implies that GURPS only served as inspiration for Fallout, which makes the lede's next sentence confusing—it's unclear that Fallout actually started as a GURPS game.
    • "After a period of collaboration between the companies, the license was eventually dropped (Interplay citing creative differences—Steve Jackson objected to the game's excessive violence); Cain and designer Christopher Taylor then created a new character customization scheme, known as SPECIAL." → "After Steve Jackson revoked the GURPS license, objecting to the excessive violence, Cain and designer Christopher Taylor created a new character customization scheme, SPECIAL."
    • "Considered the spiritual successor to Interplay's 1988 role-playing video game Wasteland, Fallout drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." → "Interplay considered Fallout the spiritual successor to its 1988 role-playing game Wasteland and drew artistic inspiration from 1950s literature and media emblematic of the Atomic Age." Games can't "draw inspiration" since they're inanimate objects—developers are the ones who do the drawing.
  • I don't think you need to say the game was released "with modifications to comply with the European market" in the lede—it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and "modifications" creates more questions than answers. (What's being modified? Why?)
  • "Fallout received critical acclaim upon release"—"Upon release", "upon its release", etc. is almost never, never necessary. Readers understand that games aren't reviewed until they're finished—not to mention they're often reviewed shortly before they come out.
  • "Among other games"—like what? I think you can bin this entirely.

I'll come back and take another look once the article has undergone a copyedit. I guess you could construe this as a light oppose at present, but I think content-wise, this article is great. I think you just need to go back and search for redundancies, tautologies, run-ons, and the like. If copyediting isn't your forte, I recommend the essays WP:REDEX, User:Tony1/Spot the ambiguity, and WP:ELEVAR—they'll help you weed out the bigger issues. JOEBRO64 23:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I will be honest. Copyediting and writing prose that is "of a professional standard" as per WP:FACR has never been my forte. Nonetheless, I have tried my best and have copyedited Fallout. There might be some things I missed, but the writing should be substantially improved. One thing I will note is that Steve Jackson did not revoke the license. Interplay dropped the license in response to Jackson objecting to the violence contained in Fallout. Lazman321 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - thank you for correcting me on the Steve Jackson thing, I'd misread. I'll give the article a reread within a day or two and will probably do some additional copyediting where I see issues. I think you've done an excellent job researching. JOEBRO64 10:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the midst of doing a thorough read of the article and copyediting. Once I'm finished, I'll post any lingering questions/concerns here. JOEBRO64 14:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of comments following copyedit.

  • I was confused by "eighteen skills" - we've only mentioned nine so far. "Eighteen" comes out of nowhere
  • It said "The protagonist, known as the Vault Dweller,[b] has seven primary statistics...Two other statistics set during character creation are skills and traits." I do not think I need to clarify it anymore. Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "Character creation" subsection suffers from a little WP:GAMECRUFT. I'm afraid it won't read comprehensibly to someone unfamiliar with video games. I'd advise trimming it down to the essentials and try your best to use plain English.
  • Don't have any comments about Development or Release, nice work
  • I think the reception section needs some more work. There are far too many direct quotes that could easily be paraphrased or just don't explain much. Examples:
    • "March Stepnik of PC PowerPlay predicted that Fallout would revive the genre" doesn't tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the game.
    • "Dan Elektro of GamePro said that Interplay successfully created a "real role-playing game". I don't see how this is meaningful reception. GamePro saying this is a role-playing game doesn't sound like a judgement of its quality to me—it sounds like just stating a fact. I would find a more meaningful assessment.
    • "Butcher said "the look and sound of the game" combined with the "moody and ambient music"..." → "Butcher said the aesthetics, audio, and melancholic, ambient music..." Scare quotes like this can almost always be paraphrased.
    • "The karma system in Fallout was also praised." Why? If it's worth noting that it was praised, provide examples of what critics liked.
    • I would recommend excising the reviewer names from prose and just attributing the opinions to the publication they're writing for. It's easier to follow, and most game critics tend to be non-notable (I personally only include the names of ones that have articles, like Jim Sterling)
    • Generalizations like "Critics praised the character system" and "The post-apocalyptic setting and story were praised" could be challenged, I think they need direct refs to back them up.
  • The topic sentences still need direct references to back their statements up. Again, they're generalizations that could be challenged—readers should know how we're coming to this conclusion. JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the essay WP:RECEPTION for advice on how to write a good and encyclopedic reception section. These issues extend to the Retrospective reception subsection in Legacy.
  • I think the Series subsection needs work, especially the third paragraph. It sort of falls into WP:PROSELINE territory—it's just "[game] was released on [date] to [X] reviews" over and over again. This isn't the Fallout (series) article, we don't need to list every single Fallout game that's come out. I'd say the first paragraph is fine, but the last two need to be condensed.

I'll come back for another read once these comments have been addressed. JOEBRO64 13:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I believe I have addressed all your comments. Lazman321 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Please respond. This FAC won’t end until you vote, so either vote or at least comment. I know you saw my edits. Lazman321 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got caught up with other things. I have another a few more comments:

  • See my reply regarding skills above
  • See my reply regarding generalizations above
  • "The Electric Playground found that "all of Fallout's skills can be used to some advantage, and WILL alter gameplay."" This doesn't really tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked the skills or not.
  • I've added a few {{Clarify}} tags to things that were unclear for me in the Reception section.
  • Done: I have addressed both instances.

JOEBRO64 14:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: I am finished with your requests. Anything else? Lazman321 (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, well done. JOEBRO64 12:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DWB from previous review Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Anarchyte

[edit]

Will do soon. Anarchyte (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks not done.

  • Much of gameplay is sourced to a primary publication. This isn't inherently bad, but just a consideration.
  • Archive for 40 is useless and this isn't much better. Unlikely to be able to support any claims outside an appearance in the top10 list.
  • In the archive currently being used in the page, the text is white. You have to highlight it in order to read it. Judging by the other pages, the background was probably supposed to be black, but due to some archiving error, the background turned up white. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RPG Codex is inconclusive on WP:VG/RS, but might be fine due to it being an interview. Can you confirm their reliability in these situations?
  • If there is little reason to doubt that a source conducted a legitimate interview with someone involved with development, the interview can be used as a primary source. The interviews have pictures of their interviewees, so they might be legitimate. However, I might bring this up at WT:VG/S. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. Yeah, I'm aware that interviews can bypass the perceived unreliability of a website. I'm just unfamiliar with the site, so I wanted to confirm that it was reputable in this regard. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllGame source seems to meet the situational requirement. Should be fine here.
  • Ref 179: Work is Motherboard (Vice).
  • Ref 180: Primary. Looks good, all except release date is backed up by the RPS source. I assume there were no alternatives?
  • Ref 1: Could you please expand on this article's reliability? VG/RS lists the source as reliable, but the discussion was a decade ago and had one participant.
  • Ref 8: Author is Ray Ivey.
  • Ref 12: Author is Nebojsa Radakovic.
  • Different archive versions of the review seem to indicate different authors. That is why I left it out.
  • Ref 83: URL is dead.
  • Ref 99: Work seems to be The Washington Post. See top left of article.
  • Done while still preserving the Orlando Sentinel by moving it to the via parameter.
  • Ref 100: Author is Steve Boxer.
  • Ref 146: Authors are Wes Fenlon, Samuel Roberts, Jody Macgregor, Austin Wood.

All other sources are considered reliable to the best of my knowledge. Note that I didn't do detailed spot-checks. Anarchyte (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of your concerns. Lazman321 (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interjecting about RPG Codex. It's normal to carve out exceptions for interviews, if the interview can be verified as authentic, and the claims made in the interview aren't overly self serving or biased. That said, I don't think RPG Codex is doing any heavy lifting here that couldn't be replaced with a somewhat better source.[86] Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On VG/RS TheGamer isn't doing much better in the reliability field. There's a carve-out for work past August 2020 as being reliable, though this has been disputed on the talk page and no obvious consensus has been reached. We'll wait to see if anything comes of this discussion, but my hunch is that these interviews are fine. Also noting that all other issues I've raised above are resolved. Will be happy to support unless someone opposes RPGCodex on WT:VG/RS. Anarchyte (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there is little opposition to keeping the interviews. @Anarchyte: Would you like to support? Lazman321 (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- I'm satisfied that RPG Codex can be used as interviews only. I support this nomination on the basis of the above source check. Anarchyte (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

Can confidently support this article. The article was very close when I reviewed it, and a lot of work has been put in to take it a step further.

I would still like to see the list of influences given more detail:

  • Deux Ex is a highly notable game and Warren Spektor cites Fallout as an influence: Development of Deus Ex
  • Wasteland 2 bring things full circle, and is inspired by Fallout, which is based on Wasteland
  • It is worth mentioning that some of the games in the "influenced" list included personnel from the Fallout series (which makes the influence more clear)
  • It's also worth noting that Metro 2033 and Atom RPG are both post-apocalyptic games

Good work on this, and good luck getting it over the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I have edited the influence section to address your two bottom requests, but I am less inclined to incorporate the top two requests due to a lack of sources that directly state that Fallout influenced Deus Ex or Wasteland 2, at least as far as I'm aware. If you do find some sources, feel free to let me know and provide links. Lazman321 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found some time to look into this.
  • Warren Spector cited Fallout as one of the influences on the original design for (what would eventually become) Deus Ex.[87]
  • Here's some stuff about "closing the circle" between the Fallout and Wasteland 2. Fargo seems to clearly focus on the influence of the original Fallout, and less so the Bethesda versions. [88] There are also lots of other sources that make the comparison, though I'd consider Fargo to be more authoritative.[89][90][91]
There is some room for interpretation about how much the influence is there, but considering the influence of all the titles mentioned (Wasteland, Fallout, Deus Ex), I think it's worth a mention. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Okay, I have added those two games. Lazman321 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 October 2022 [92].

Ray Reardon

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC), Rodney Baggins [reply]

Nicknamed Dracula, Reardon was the dominant snooker player of the 1970s. He won six World Snooker Championships, and was the number one player in six of the first seven years of the snooker world rankings. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins.[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Wikilink Monmouthshire? (done)
  • "was presented to him by Joe Davis" - maybe specify who Davis was (former world champion, etc) (done)
  • "A week later, at Pontins in Prestatyn, Wales, he retained the Professional title and won the Spring Open title" - these both took place at Pontins at the same time?
  • "He advised Ronnie O'Sullivan on the way to his 2004 World Championship victory, giving him psychological and tactical help" - O'Sullivan was already mentioned and linked, so no need to do so again (done)
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, tweaked article per your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
BennyOnTheLoose, Rodney Baggins could we see some action here please, or this is in danger of timing out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Please can you check the article again to see if your concerns have been addressed now? Let us know if there is anything outstanding. We can't show his highest break in the infobox because that parameter is no longer supported. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Pawnkingthree

[edit]
  • Just a quick comment from me - I wondered if a bit more could be said about his personal life. The article doesn't mention his wife or children. His first wife Susan and his son and daughter were all seen in his 1976 This Is Your Life special and were with him when he got his MBE in 1985. [93] I don't know if there are any better sources out there? He remarried; there's a mention of his second wife Carole here.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some details, Pawnkingthree. All the 1980s sources I saw have "Carol" rather than "Carole". (Incidentally, the Aberdeen Evening Express (10 December 1985) reported that he was "due to return to the flat which he shares with another woman" after the MBE ceremony.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review (I remember watching Reardon and co. on Pot Black as a kid)...

  • Having read and copyedited the whole article, my only question is whether we know his first wife's maiden name? I think a spouse's full name (if known) belongs in a comprehensive bio, and we mention his second wife's surname...
  • Aside from that, nothing really preventing my support, just pending the source review (which I might undertake myself if no-one else steps up, but let's see)...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Ian Rose. In his autobiography, Reardon mentions that Sue was the niece of Billy Carter, but does not mention her surname. The same information is repeated in Masters of the Baize. FreeBMD has an answer, but it's not a suitable source. I checked other likely sources such as Who's Who In Snooker; The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker; Snooker Legends: And Where are They Now?; Karnehm's books (which had a section on some players' wives); Reardon's Classic Snooker, Bedside Snooker and Enjoying Snooker with Ray Reardon: A Personal Guide to the Game; all without success. Similarly, I drew a blank in the British Newspaper Archive and NewsBank. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think that's a pretty decent search -- we can only use what we're given via an RS. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- formatting looks okay, but some queries re. reliability:

  • Rileys.co.uk -- Is a sports bar chain, even one specialising on cue sports, really a high-quality source? As one of three citations for a statement, it seems a tad redundant anyway...
    I confirmed that this is redundant, and removed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • snookerdatabase.co.uk -- Looks a bit amateurish in presentation, what makes it an RS?
    I decided to replace the references. In the course of doing this, I noted that no books cover Pot Black and (for the year that Reardon participated), Winfield Masters results in detail - these were both only one-frame contests in the early rounds; typically book sources include a list of finalists, with, in some cases, the final scores and highest break for the year. Even the annual Pot Black books don't include details of the previous year's event. Although Pot Black is a significant tournament in snooker history, Reardon's participation in finals is covered in the Career finals section, and his Winfield Masters appearance is not significant, so I removed those lines from the Performance and rankings timeline. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • snooker.org -- Looks like an SPS, what makes it an RS?
    I think the source is generally respected, but I've replaced it anyway. (On the basis that it disagreed with Snooker Scene on Reardon's 1990–91 ranking). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have discussed this one a lot at FAC. It's a statistical site for results with awards given by Brittania and the BBC. If we cite things outside of match results and format information of tournaments, then I would want a bit more, but otherwise seems high quality. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the work with an OCLC of 498112105? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I added that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is very much appreciated, Ian Rose. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that's it, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 October 2022 [94].

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges

[edit]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Got here. Non-milhist member comments...

Lede

Background

Supply depots

Winter clothing

Footwear

Medical

Ammunition

Rations

Liquid fuels

Solid fuels

Outcome

Notes

Consistencies

Misc

That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks. JennyOz (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No more from me, looking forward to s'porting. JennyOz (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Indy beetle – pass

[edit]

General comments

  • Just a point of curiosity, but I presume this isn't called "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" to differentiate it from American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign?
    Originally there was an article "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" but I split it in two to avoid concerns about the article being too large. Several editors have opined that the readers would be better-served by one really large article than two fairly large ones, as readers interested in the subject will read the whole thing anyway, but ones looking for certain information will zap to the section they are interested in, and splitting may make it harder to find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US Army demonstrated its ability to learn from its own experiences and to adapt to changing circumstances.[121] Many of the problems encountered during the Siegfried Line campaign in October and November could have been anticipated, and time was lost as increasingly higher echelons responded and developed solutions.[120] These two claims appear to fall under WP:RSOPINION and thus should be attributed in-text accordingly, particularly in the second sentence. "Could have been anticipated" is always going to be a somewhat subjective claim.
    Attributed second claim inline. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They therefore acted simultaneously as base, depot and issue depots. Should "base" and "depot" be plural?
    They are fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Ref 18 - (Moses et al. 1945, pp. 33–38.) Appears to support both claims/paragraphs. I do note, you wrote Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris while source literally ascribes that decision to his office, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (p. 36). I imagine you know more about how these official reports like to word things so I'll defer to you on whether it is best to say "Eisenhower" or "the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force". For citation clarity, I would also recommend breaking up the citations with expansive page ranges (33-38) to smaller page ranges attached directly to the sentences in these paragraphs which they support, if workable.
    Changed to SHAEF. Added a bit about Eisenhower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56 - (MacDonald 1963, pp. 411–412.) Both claims supported.
  • Ref 81 - (Gropman 1996, pp. 134–135) Good.
  • Ref 82 - (Gropman 1996, p. 95.) Good for the claim Munitions production peaked in the last quarter of 1943,, but it would be preferable if this was a point made explicitly in source text, rather than by looking at a line on a chart, due to WP:SYNTH concerns.
  • Ref 115 (Smithsonian Magazine) Good.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

[edit]

For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
  • "The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
    Tossed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Your reviews both here and on the astronaut articles are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will resume with "Medical".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article Battle of Metz.
    It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
  • "ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
  • "105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Thanks for the kind words. An impressive piece of research.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

[edit]

Great article! I made some small copyedits, here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115. ISBN 1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced? John (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging in and for fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.John (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, is that a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- organisation, comprehensiveness and supporting materials look fine as well as the prose, and I'm taking as read the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2022&oldid=1121084339"