Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 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) 29 September 2022 [1].

Ælfwynn, wife of Æthelstan Half-King

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ælwynn was an important figure in tenth-century England, but as with almost all women in this period, very little is known about her. The article is therefore short even though it is comprehensive and I hope it will be found suitable for FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
  • Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia. He was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice. There's a lot of "he" usage in the second sentence and the following one, perhaps Ælfwynn was the wife of Æthelstan Half-King, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who was called the Half-King because it was believed that he was so powerful that King Edmund I (940–946) and his brother King Eadred (946–955) depended on his advice.
  • However, Cyril Hart, suggest introducing him, and other modern historians, perhaps However, historian Cyril Hart, and so on.
  • He was part of Edgar's inner circle as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963 suggest He was part of Edgar's inner circle, serving as his camerarius (chamberlain) until 963

Comments

[edit]
  • Is there any way to link or explain what a "lay magnate" is/was?
  • ""had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side." - closing quote mark is missing

Comments from Z1720

[edit]
Non-expert prose review.
  • "became the dominant secular magnate" Suggest wikilinking to magnate
  • I'm a bit confused as to how the image relates to this article. Maybe add a second sentence in the caption describing Ælfwynn's relationship with King Edgar?
Source review - pass
  • All high quality
  • "Æthelsige 26 (Male) Uncle of Ealdorman Æthelwine 2, fl. 983x985" should have an access date, as it is a web-based database that could be updated at a later date. Also suggest archiving it, if possible.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I read the article before Dudley nominated it, and have just read it through again; I can't find anything to criticize or improve. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Unlike Mike, above, I didn't see this article before its nomination for FAC, but I'm with him in failing to find anything to criticise or improve. It would be one of our shorter FAs, certainly, but to my layman's eye it seems comprehensive, and is certainly a good read, well and widely sourced and evidently balanced. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria on all counts and I look forward to its appearance on the front page. Tim riley talk 20:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

[edit]

Comment from Ian

[edit]

Coord note -- Hi Dudley, I was looking to close this but "however"s always catch my eye, as I'm sure everyone knows, and I think However, the historian Cyril Hart, in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stated that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth" needs further consideration anyway. Earlier you state unequivocally that Æfwynn came from a wealthy Huntingdonshire family. If you feel the weight of evidence is in that direction, perhaps Hart's comment is better as an addition to footnote a rather than being in the main body -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to deal with this. Hart was not questioning the wealth of her family, just whether she came from the aristocracy. Personally, I think that the evidence is against his view, but as he is a leading expert and it is in ODNB, I thought I had to put it in the main text. I could change it to However, the historian Cyril Hart, in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth". This verges on SYNTH, but maybe does not cross the line? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I assumed that all wealthy families back then were ipso facto of the aristocracy, but perhaps it's not that simple so I agree you should probably leave Hart in the main body -- if you use the bit about his denying (or "doubting"?) that she was aristocratic by birth, I think you could safely remove the hated "however" at the start of the sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in order to avoid confusion it is important to signal to the reader that Hart is disagreeing with the views in the previous sentence, but I am open to suggestions how to do it without using the word "however". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that including "denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy" signals that disagreement without the need for further qualification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I have tried it without "however", and it does not seem to me as clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be best I recuse coord duties at this point. The use of "however" to contrast two sources smacks of editorialising, and I still think the reader can get the point without it. I'd be interested in a second opinion and/or suggestion for reword from John, taking advantage of his recent return to the fold.... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from mujinga

[edit]
  • Thanks for an interesting article, it does well to keep things clear with all the names. I was following until the last paragraph of "Life and family", where I wasn't sure who Ælfwold was. Would it be worth adding "another son" or suchlike, since Ælfwold has not been mentioned for a while.
  • Also in the same paragraph, there are two "mays": on "She may have played a crucial role in its establishment" I'm not able to check the source, is there a disagreement here?; on " Ælfwold was a strong supporter of monastic reform who may have put to death a despoiler of Peterborough Abbey", the note says Simon Keynes thinks it was Æthelwine, so is it worth saying who thinks it was Ælfwold?
  • I have looked again at this. Keynes cites the old 19C edition of the Latin text which mentions the killing and points out that the killer was described as a dux (ealdorman), but Ælfwold was not a dux. The authorative modern edition and translation of the text, published after Keynes wrote the comment, names Ælfwold as the killer and the editor says dux was a mistake. I have deleted Keynes's comment and "may have", and added a citation of the modern edition. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

[edit]

I am indebted to Ian Rose for summoning me here, as I would otherwise possibly never have read this great little article. Fascinating, well-sourced and likely to be comprehensive. Worth reading alone for the new knowledge that there was a unit called a hide. Fascinating, as is the whole story.

I agree with Ian about the "however". Here is the text in question, stripped of wikilinks and citations:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed."[a] However, the historian Cyril Hart denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth".

Can I suggest amending it to:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed."[b] The historian Cyril Hart wrote in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth".

One weakness of the section is the over-reliance on quotes, which, by their nature, cannot be altered. They can be summarised though. Here's what that might look like:

The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine came from an illustrious mother,[c] but Cyril Hart wrote in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography that Æfwynn "was of undistinguished birth".

We've slimmed down the quotes (while keeping the footnote for those who want the full quote), and lost the (appearance of) editorialising with "however". The reader will be able to see that the sources seem to contradict each other without framing it with a "however". The "but" does that better I think. They will also guess that the ODNB would have got a historian to write the article on a historical figure. Cyril Hart is wikilinked in any case.

I prefer the last version, but would still support the second one. John (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.
  2. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.
  3. ^ The translation is from Michael Lapidge's edition in Latin and English in 2009. He wrote that Æthelwine "was born of royal stock, and had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side". Andrew Wareham in 2005 quotes the 1879 edition in Latin by James Raine, which leaves out the comma, and Wareham takes "royal stock" to refer to Ælfwynn.

Many thanks John and Ian Rose. I am reluctant to get rid of the quote. So little is recorded about her that a contemporary comment is worth quoting in full. We obviously understand "however" differently, as I would not take it as editorialising, just a synonym for "but", signalling to the reader that the next clause gives a different view to the previous one, which is meaning 3 in OED. So how about just changing "however" to "but"? "The late tenth-century writer Byrhtferth of Ramsay wrote that her son Æthelwine: "had a distinguished lineage on his mother's side. In praising her, Archbishop Dunstan said that she and her kindred were blessed." But the historian Cyril Hart denied that Æfwynn came from the aristocracy in his entry on Æthelstan in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, stating that she "was of undistinguished birth"."

As to getting rid of "historian", I agree with you, but other editors insist on it before giving support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost a philosophical thing with me; please see my essay on it, and there is MOS:EDITORIAL as well, which says "More subtly, editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources. When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second."
I'm not so keen on the two sentences, one starting with "But". We wouldn't be losing the quote, just summarising it in the article and leaving it in full in the note. The benefit of this is it allows us to run the two sentences together. It shouldn't be so surprising to readers of medieval history that sources sometimes vary, that they need to add a special word signalling it.
"John says A; Dudley says B." seems more precise and logical in an encyclopedia than "John says A, but Dudley says B." or "John says A; however Dudley says B." See how it's starting to sound like Dudley won the argument?
Oh, and we should definitely have the date for the writing of the Hart article. John (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously interpret but and however differently. In this context I would just take to mean contrasting views without any implication of which is correct. If I was a reader I would initially take Hart as to be expanding on the previous sentence, and would do a double take and read it again to see that he is disagreeing. But or however is meant as a signal of a contrary view. However, (sic) on further checking I am increasingly doubtful about the Hart comment. With or without a qualifier it reads as an authoritative view, and I do not think it is. He was obviously not aware of the Byrhtferth quote as he would have cited it in his detailed article on Æthelstan. He does quote another source (which has not been translated) as describing her as having had inclyta genealogica. Google translate is not good for Latin, but this seems to mean something like famous or renowned genealogy. I am now inclined to move Hart to the footnote, contrasting the views of him and Wareham, but I will check further and come back to you in a few days. Thanks again for your detailed domments. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John and Ian Rose. I have finally tracked down the situation. I was wrong to say that Hart was unaware of the Byrhtferth quote. He just cited it to the wrong source. As the only source he cites says that she was of a "distinguished lineage", I cannot see any basis for saying in ODNB that she "was of undistinguished birth", so I have moved the comment to the notes. Does it look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much better. John (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me too, thanks Dudley and John. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 22 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) 28 September 2022 [2].

Coventry ring road

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Described as a "roller coaster" and a "Scalextric" by sources over the years, the Coventry ring road is either a marvel of engineering or the world's worst-designed road and a source of urban decay, depending on your point of view. Its multiple lanes, slip roads and short weaving distances make it a bit of a nightmare for drivers new to the area, something I've witnessed first-hand a few times over the years! The article goes into some detail, chronicling the history of the project from its early conception to completion, a mid-project redesign and later remodelling of one of the junctions and the road's reputation. All comments and feedback welcome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Drive by comment

Another drive by comment

[edit]
  • The "Junctions" section lists the junctions by number and states the roads they intersect with and the names of the following section of the ring road.
On the source given I cannot see the junction numbers. Am I missing something? Or is there another source which could give these? If not, it may be better to replace the numbers with bullet points.
Could it be stated somewhere that the "Beginning[s]" mentioned are clockwise from that junctiion?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: per the request below, I have now overhauled the junctions list to be a table instead. I've also updated the source so that it uses a map that clearly shows the junction numbers, and clarified for each whether the "Ringway Swanswell" etc. names refer to the clockwise or anticlockwise section from that junction.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the coordinates are not just in the Junction column, perhaps in brackets after each junction number, rather than as a big block of footnotes within the article? Which is a little unusual. And if Notes has nothing in it it should be removed. And why the "0.0"s at the bottom of the "mi" and "km" columns? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I initially put them in their own column, per other UK road articles, but Imzadi1979 then refactored it. I personally did prefer it the way I had written it earlier today, which also had the detail about what the name of the road is at each stage, but I'm happy to go with the consensus on what's best.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer it the way you had it before, that looks much more accessible to the uninitiated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since I also agree with that, I have restored the original layout for now. While the general principles are there, it seems to me that on the detail, MOS:RJL doesn't enjoy consensus for UK roads anyway, as most of them that I can see don't follow its suggested layout. Even M5 motorway#Junctions, which is the actual example cited at MOS:RJL, it is formatted completely differently from the recommendation. The layout should be appropriate for the road in question IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RJL is part of the Manual of Style, and the FA criteria require compliance with the MOS. At a bare minimum, the first two columns need to be removed for compliance. The repeat of J1 should actually repeat it at a minimum per how it's done at M-185 (Michigan highway), or the milepost should have been repeated as I did per Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky). Imzadi 1979 → 22:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: what are your thoughts on this? It seems like the name of the road between each junction is a useful piece of information to have here, and roughly corresponds to the "Location" column called for by MOS:RJL, so I'm not sure the benefit to readers of removing it. As for the loop returning to the first junction, I followed the format used at M60 motorway, which avoids listing the same junction twice in a similar way. Happy to be guided by consensus though on both these points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with you, but I confess to having skimmed the relevant policy rather than read it in detail. I am hoping to recuse and do a full review of the article, which will give me context to offer an informed opinion. RL and other Wikipedia are currently conspiring against me, but if I don't start within 5 or 6 days, please give me a nudge. Courtesy ping to Imzadi1979. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Imzadi1979: yeah fair enough, looking forward to that as and when you have the time. I'm away myself over the weekend, so won't be able to get back to this seriously until next week anyway. As for the above, I'm confident we can come to a suitable consensus over it. It's good to use the guidelines where they make sense, which may or may not be the case here, but also WP:5P5 does urge us to use common sense over these things. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it is right now, I am not sure I understand the purpose of the sections column. The footer might violate MOSITALICS but it has been a while since I reviewed that. Also - the miles and km should follow MOS:DTT. --Rschen7754 03:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: OK that's fine, if there's a feeling that the sections columns aren't useful then no biggy, I've removed them. I've also changed the final row to be non-italic. Interested to know what you mean by miles and km columns following MOS:DTT, I can't see anything related to distances in there? I have put a hover-over to clarify what "mi" and "km" mean in that context anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the bottom of MOS:RJL#Standard columns - it has to do with how the mi and km columns are formatted for accessibility. --Rschen7754 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: Oh I see, thanks. I've formatted the mi and km columns as suggested then, per the I-275 example. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979

[edit]

Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency in units of measurement. The length is always given in kilometers first, but any other mention of distance is given in miles first. My understanding is that the UK has only partially metricated, and road distances are one of the exceptions, so it would seem to follow that the length of this roadway should be given in miles first as well. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Yes, that makes sense. I have amended to make it imperial first throughout, which seems the most consistent approach (much as I'd personally prefer it if all measurements went to metric for simplicity!)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "The road's circuit encompasses the old and new Coventry Cathedrals, much of Coventry University and the city's shopping areas" - does it encompass all of the shopping areas? If so, I would put a comma after university to make it clear that "much of" only relates to the uni
  • That's all I got as far as the end of the Route description section - back for more later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: thanks for the beginning of a review, I had actually been planning to ask if you would be able to do one already, so definitely much appreciated. Re the point above, I was a bit worried that if I add an Oxford comma in the location you mention, I'd probably have to go through and add one everywhere else. SO I have instead reordered the sentence to make it clear that the "much of" applies only to the university.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as immigrants from across the country moved in" - is it possible to be an immigrant from another part of the same country?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The council increased its lobbying of the government for permission and funding to the construct" - there's a stray "the" in there
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cutting the ribbon at a ceremonial ceremony" - last two words are a bit repetitive.......
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "providing a grant of £232,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021) as part of total costs of £310,000 (equivalent to £7,700,000 in 2021)" - both 1958 values can't equate to the same 2021 value, surely?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After compulsory were issued by late 1959" - missing word?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "totalling £4.7 million (equivalent to £86,700,000 in 2021).[122] By 1971 this cost had risen to around £5.5 million (equivalent to £82,700,000 in 2021)" - inflated value of the larger value is lower than that of the smaller value.......?
    Well the first figure is inflated from 1968, while the latter is from 1971. Presumably the inflation-adjusted estimate was therefore lower in real terms than it had been earlier. I've removed the 1968 sentence altogether as it doesn't seem like this is a very significant matter overall.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but as of 2020 it is a full-time public car park" - either change to 2022 if this is still the case or change to past tense
    Actually it has now been removed, as part of the work mentioned by Harry below. I've reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

I lived in a Coventry for a while and still have friends and family there. I've long been interested in its post-war reconstruction and I like articles on transport infrastructure in general so this ticks several of my boxes! It's a very well put-together article. A few thoughts:

  • The Butts/Skydome roundabout is currently being redeveloped, I think to relieve traffic into the city centre from the Holyhead Road; I'm sure this has been extensively covered in the local press.
    @HJ Mitchell: I have added some detail on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything in the sources about the unpopularity of the pedestrian subways? The council seem to be closing them or opening them up at every opportunity (eg the network under the Butts roundabout and the walking route to the railway station). There's some detail on this in Gould & Gould (p. 59); it also mentions the impact on Lady Herbert's Garden.
    @HJ Mitchell: I have added some detail on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although havne't mentioned Lady Herbert's garden yet. Will do that anon.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I've added the detail on green spaces mentioned on p.59 of the book.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hinted at but I wonder if you could source a statement that the narrow radius of the ring road has hampered economic development in areas just outside it?
    @HJ Mitchell: I can't find any direct reference to this from looking through sources and news, other than the existing statements that it acts as a "barrier" between the city and the outside. The only direct reference to stifling economic development seems to relate to Birmingham (where they've since removed much of the inner ring), so don't know if we can directly apply that to Coventry.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culverting of the Sherbourne at the other end is mentioned, but is the culvert that starts just before the ring road in Spon End relevant?
    @HJ Mitchell: OK, I've done some quite extensive searching on this and I can't find any specific mention of the culvert that starts just west of the ring road at Spon End, although some culverting of the river in other areas is mentioned starting as early as 1949. The best information I have is from comparing two OS maps from 1946 and 1954 (at SABRE maps), and in the former the Sherbourne is clearly visible between the now defunct Albion Street and Queen Victoria Road, while in the latter it is not depicted at all despite being shown further upstream and downstream. (The exact location of the culvert appears to be obscured by the "Tech Coll" label for the nearby Coventry technical college in the 1954 map unfortunately). But in any case, all this suggests the culvert was build long before the ring road in that area was built, and it isn't really of much relevance. I have added some detail to the line you mention above stating that most of the river had already been culverted in the 50s and 60s. Let me know if anything further is needed. I'll get on to your other points, particularly tightening and copyediting, shortly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the route description is a bit complex and difficult to follow, and I know the area. Photos and diagrams with good captions would help. Commons can be a treasure trove for photos but they might not be well described or categorised; perhaps try searching for local landmarks/buildings?
    @HJ Mitchell: I have had a look at this, and I'm slightly unsure what I need to improve here. The section has an outline map showing the structure and location of the 9 junctions on the right, which was added during the GA review and is intended to provide context for the descriptions given in the section. Beyond that, I'm not sure where additional photos or diagrams would actually go, as there isn't room to the right of that section, particularly not for nine separate diagrams. Obviously I could reword the section if that's desirable, with less or more detail depending, but not entirely sure what's needed. Pinging other reviewers @The Rambling Man, Gog the Mild, and ChrisTheDude: in case they also have a suggestion or view on how to improve the prose or imagery in that section? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have some books referenced in full in footnotes and others using sfns and a bibliography. Is there a reason for that?
    Not sure. It may originally have been those that were cited in multiple pages that were put as sfns, but it seems more consistent to have all books thus so I've amended it to that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel there's some repetition of the route description in the history and that the word count could be brought down by eliminating some of this.
    I've had a go at this, e.g. by referring to junction numbers in the history rather than giving detailed information about what each junction is.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose could be tighter in places; there's redundancy in places where the same information could be conveyed with fewer words and the prose would flow better, see this edit for an example.
    Prose copyedited as suggested.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose critiques aren't anything too concerning. They're the same sorts of things I pick up in most FACs I review. I'm happy to discuss anything further, or I'm sure I'll be back to support after just a little bit more polish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: I think I've now looked at everything you mentioned here, with the exception of the route description, on which I'm not too sure how to proceed. Adding several extra images to the route description doesn't look feasible with the layout as it is (plus one might need nine such to cover all the junctions), but if you have any alternative advice please let me know. Other than that, hoping you can have a second look at this now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As none of the other reviewers share my concern about the readability of the route description, I'll concede the point. The main thrust of my comments has been amply addressed, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

Just to note that I'm on vacation this week so may not have time to get to the above comments, but I have seen them and will deal with them ASAP hoefully either this week if there's time, or next week when I'm back home. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, open a month and a half and still comments to action so we're looking pretty shaky here unless something changes soon -- can I assume you're back from vacation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: sorry, I am back from vacation and have been going through the whole article doing the "tightening" mentioned in the review above, but rather too slowly. I've now addressed TRM's points below, and will come back later tody and complete the tightening on the final couple of paragraphs before seeing if HJMitchell wants to come back for more. I'm also awaiting a return by ChrisTheDude and I think Gog the Mild had indicated that they might do a review, but not sure if that's still on the cards. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - this one has been a long slog for one reason or another, but it's looking like it might be almost there now. Can you see anything outstanding that needs actioning? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder forComments Support from TRM

[edit]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at everything for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy that my concerns have been addressed, so glad to support this candidate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from LEEV: passed

[edit]

I don't do source reviews often, but I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, the article uses "footnotes", "notes" and "references". This doesn't seem normal, when we have a notes section for traditional references. Presumably references should be "citations" or "bibliography". Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: calling the main reference section "Notes" and the bibliography for short refs "References" seems to be a fairly standard terminology on Wikipedia. MOS:REFERENCES has an image with an article with such "Notes" and "References" section, although admittedly I haven't seen one which also has "Footnotes" before. In Kigali I had "Notes" as one section and "References" as another, with a "Bibliography" subsection so I've followed that here too. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, the citations that are in book form don't have ISBNs because they are technical documents? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a bit tricky... what I've done is that journal articles, whose citations refer to individual pages within a wide page range, are included in the bibliography, as are standalone article with lots of pages such as the Urban Initiatives masterplan document and the "Coventry Planned: The Architecture of the Plan for Coventry, 1940–1978" article, which is hosted by Coventry city council but not published in a journal as such. I guess I could just merge those into one reference (I have seen journal citations in the past where individual page numbers aren't supplied, but it seems like if we can provide the reader more info maybe we should?) or else move those entries up into the main references section but just list them separately... Or leave as is. Happy to follow your guidance on this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Institution of Highway Engineers notable enough for WP:REDLINK? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we already have an article for it at Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. It just changed its name since that ref was published. I've made a redirect.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As we have a section for general citations, I'd rather any book sources were in there, rather than in the general list section, so #1. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had differentiated between maps and books in this instance, but I've moved the two map refs down now, as you suggest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two YouTube links to someone called "whovianlover", why is this reliable? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm another difficult one. The video probably isn't reliable in itself as it was effectively a school media project, but there are two possible mitigating circumstances - (1) the article now only uses the video as a reference for directly attributed comments by a city council spokesman and Brian Redknap, the city engineer at the time (I have removed an earlier use as it wasn't necessary, the other ref providing the samew info); and (2) as the article mentions, the video was produced in collaboration with the Coventry Transport Museum. If you're not happy with the youtube link, I could even remove that and just leave it as a citation to the production itself, bearing in mind the above mitigating circumstances?
  • Why can we trust the Forbes contributer? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have to confess I wasn't aware of the distinction between Forbes and Forbes contributors, until I looked it up just now. I had assumed when writing this that Forbes pages were always reliable. However, I do note that the entry at WP:FORBESCON allows such pages if the author is acknowledged as a subject-matter expert. This author, Carlton Reid, has written extensively for the Guardian on matters pertaining to cycling and cycle lanes, and is also a multiple published author, e.g. [3][4][5] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks
  1. 21 - checks out
  2. 30 - "a year later" and opens in October the following year, do good enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 43 - checks out.

I'm happy with the spot checks, just some comments above on formatting and ISBNs and suchlike. Drop me a ping ping when done. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: thanks for your review, and I've replied to all your comments above. Please let me know what you think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I included it because it's an interesting and well-researched piece on the subject of this article, which may be of interest to readers seeking more information. I also think it's a bit unfair to call roads.org.uk a "fansite". Its author, Chris Marshall, is cited in quite a few reliable sources as an expert on the subject of UK roads, for example the Independent, BBC Sounds and this published book on the London Ringways, which cites Marshall's research extensively. I'll remove it if there's consensus it's not appropriate, but would be interested to hear other opinions.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough if the author is quoted in reliable sources as an expert. Steelkamp (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I have responded to the points you've raised so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me now. Steelkamp (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelkamp: I've looked at your two points from today. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 09:57, 28 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2022 [6].

WBPX-TV

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a decade of planning, in January 1979, Boston gained another commercial television station. Conceived as a vehicle for scrambled over-the-air subscription broadcasting, WQTV provided such (and some commercial fare) for four years and was one of the first STV systems to fold completely in 1983. The station became a commercial independent but succumbed to very high programming costs at the end of 1985, being sold to The Christian Science Monitor. WQTV would be the springboard for the Monitor to make an expensive expansion into television that included a nightly national news program, a cable service, and programming seen as worthy but dull. It so strained the Church of Christ, Scientist, that its religious functions came under threat from TV losses. The church exited broadcasting at a steep loss in 1992 and 1993, selling the station to Boston University, which renamed it WABU-TV. It operated as an independent with some distinctive local programs and also professional sports coverage. BU sold it in 1999 to Paxson Communications Corporation, owner of the national Pax network (thus the current WBPX-TV call sign), and since then it has largely or entirely been a pass-through for programming from elsewhere. In each of its eras of history, channel 68 has reflected trends in television technology and economics.

This is my first FAC, though several more are conceivable given my inventory of existing and planned GAs. It is also the first FAC for an article on an individual television station; a radio station passed FAC eight years ago. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot, as promised. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Federal Communications Commission [...] FCC Can you add "(FCC)" after the first instance of "Federal Communications Commission" in the article prose?
  • I normally do this now...but I guess I didn't here.
  • [...] which the [FCC] granted after hearing [...] Should this be a hearing?
  • Reworded
  • Even though a construction permit had been awarded in 1969, it would be nearly a decade before viewers saw channel 68 on their screens. This could be written more clinically.
  • Done
  • Blonder-Tongue Laboratories [...] B-T Another acronym that needs introduction. Acronyms may not immediately jump out at and be understood by everyone, especially with several of them in play, and especially especially with all these radio names.
  • Done
  • Is this an overlinking case?
  • [...] Star was the 8th-largest service [...] At the end of January, Star's [...] the end for Star [...] switch Star's subscribers [...] Should be "STAR", no?
  • Why use "Satellite Television & Associated Resources" after introducing the STAR acronym?
  • Taking these together. The main reason is that we have two identically named subjects: the company STAR and the service Star. (In San Francisco, where they also operated, they called themselves Star TV, using mixed case, and they also did so less consistently in Boston.) The Boston Globe prints the latter as Star in mixed case. Then you get ads like this that mix "Star" and "STAR-TV" (with hyphen). So I have Star, STAR, STAR TV, and STAR-TV all used in their own advertising. If you think the service should also be labeled STAR all caps, I would not object. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] but the station would attract a Boston institution with no television experience and big broadcasting dreams. No citation? Good reason to cut this if yes.
  • Done (I wanted some connective tissue for narrating originally)
  • The actual licensee, the Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, was formed because the newspaper employed only Christian Scientists, not possible for a broadcast station because of equal employment opportunity laws. I feel the back-half of this could benefit from some rewording; something like "[...] only employed Christian Scientists, a practice disbarred for broadcast stations by equal employment opportunity laws."
  • Done
  • [...] on WQTV by spring 1990 [...]} Possibly misleading for readers in the Southern Hemisphere; MOS:SEASON.
  • Done
  • [...] newsmagazine [...] newsgathering [...] Are these typos?
  • No, they are not
  • He was replaced by John Palmer [...] Whomst
  • Done
  • [...] which had finally ditched Monitor Channel fare and was airing syndicated shows instead. This could be written more clinically.
  • On displaying inflation for money sums, I have thus far seen it used once in the article, and with a titanic footnote for the figure and calculation. I would advise simply using Template:Inflation, and using often.
  • Bridge cites three outside factors for having sealed the channel's fate [...] This could be simplified; "cites three outside factors that sealed the channel's fate". I note here, with mention to the earlier use of "[the] eleventh hour", that your prose is rich with English idioms and phrases that might not be known or understood by readers for whom English is not a native language.
  • [...] and the association of an "internal opposition" with the Boston Globe. Should be "The Boston Globe" (or just "the Globe", as before) here, no?
  • Yes, good catch.
  • [...] including a local personality who would move to WFXT: Butch Stearns. Is this man relevant to the story of the station?
  • A lot of local TV station articles for stations with news departments have lists of notable former employees. This one doesn't (since no news), but Stearns is high-profile enough to merit mention as having worked here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the FCC's incentive auction, WDPX-TV [...] Whomst
  • Done by adding a mention of the call sign change of WZBU
I am pleased to support this Featured Article Candidacy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I know nothing about the TV business, so some of these questions may seem obvious to you.

  • "It is owned by the Ion Media subsidiary of the E. W. Scripps Company alongside Woburn-licensed Grit station WDPX-TV (channel 58), which also shares WBPX-TV's spectrum under a channel sharing agreement." If I understand correctly; I would rephrase as "It is owned by the Ion Media subsidiary of the E. W. Scripps Company, which also owns Woburn-licensed Grit station WDPX-TV (channel 58); the two channels share the same TV spectrum." If that's not the intended meaning then I don't understand the sentence.
    • It is the right meaning, and you probably have a good point in making it a touch less jargony.
  • I see Hudson is near Boston, but it appears to be not in the city limits; why do we say this is a TV station "in Boston"?
    • Boston is the city of license that appears on legal documents. The transmitter may be in another adjacent city (for instance, for the Boston area, many TV towers are in Needham, Massachusetts). It is also not uncommon, for instance, for a TV station to be located in a suburb of the city it serves now or some other related city (KCPQ, likely my next FAC, is nominally allotted to Tacoma, Washington, but it has been based in Seattle since the mid-1990s). As a note, the Ion stations do not have local studios: the FCC lists a main studio in Cincinnati, Ohio, for WBPX-TV, because that's where the programming for Ion and the other national services they carry originates. [7]
  • I think the time between 1983, when the subscription TV ended, and 1986, when the Monitor acquired it, should be covered in the lead, if only briefly. Similarly I would explain the transition to Ion -- saying that Pax was the forerunner to Ion, as we do now, doesn't tell the reader what happened.
  • What is a "comparative hearing"?
    • Prior to 1996, the comparative hearing process was used by the FCC to determine a winner in applications for the same television channel or radio station, or that were otherwise mutually exclusive.
      Is there a link we could add? Or a footnote to explain this? The term is opaque to someone unfamiliar with the business. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have added a footnote for now. An article may be useful in the future. The term seems very associated with the FCC now that I search it more broadly; most of the hits are pages I've helped to write.
  • "along with some productions of the newspaper": it took me a second to understand this. How about "along with some material [or programs] produced by the newspaper"?
    • Done.
  • What is a "superstation feed"? Come to that, what's a superstation?
    • A superstation was a major-market TV station with certain desirable programs—sports, news, entertainment, etc.—that was uplinked by another company for distribution to cable systems nationwide. WWOR-TV in New York City was one of these. In 1990, new rules called syndication exclusivity meant that superstations had to modify their programming for national distribution to avoid overlapping programming with that aired by local TV stations. This resulted in the uplink firm, a company called Eastern Microwave (EMI), creating the WWOR EMI Service. They filled in with Monitor Channel and other programming they could obtain from elsewhere when they didn't have the rights to nationally broadcast what was being seen in New York.
      Interesting. Again is there an article we could link to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Done: Superstation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Netty Douglass worth a red link?
    • No, I can barely find SIGCOV of her after this.
  • "the Monitor Channel offered World Monitor for air to cable systems free for two years, as long as the system added the service at the end of that period": I don't understand the second half of this.
    • The idea was that a cable system with a public access or local origination channel might throw World Monitor on that, and by the time the system was ready to add new channels (in many cases systems were at capacity due to technical limitations and there was also a lot of uncertainty about potential regulatory changes), they'd add the Monitor Channel.
      I think I follow you. So would this be OK: "the Monitor Channel offered World Monitor for air to cable systems free for two years, as long as the cable system added Monitor Channel to their service at the end of that period"? You may feel that's repetitive, but I have to say I didn't follow the shorter version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine and done.
  • "that had come to reach the core religious functions of the Church of Christ, Scientist": suggest "that by now were affecting the core religious functions of the Church of Christ, Scientist".
  • Done
  • "Harvey W. Wood—a supporter of the media expansion": suggest "Harvey W. Wood—who had been a supporter of the media expansion", since the point is presumably that he's resigning because his past support proved misguided.
  • Done
  • "with the station losing $5 million a year, Kevin Dunn was successful in obtaining the rights through a company known as JCS": who is Kevin Dunn? Presumably a media market player of some kind?
  • His name is used in a lot of the media reporting, but I can't tell you what he did after! (Probably because the Red Sox kicked him out of the deal after one year for failure to pay)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Addressed each of your topics. Some are TV explainers, some are good ideas to tweak. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Addressed second round of issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look good; just one last thing -- you need a source for the helpful footnote you just added. Once that's in place I will support. By the way, I don't know if you've noticed but I've been tweaking your indents. WP:INDENTMIX is the relevant documentation; the rule is to repeat whatever the previous poster did and then add a colon or asterisk, depending on whether you want a simple indent or a bullet. The reason it matters is that when a visually impaired editor using a screen reader encounters indents, it will make a mess of the indent levels and tell the editor that the list has been restarted in the middle, instead of making it clear what is a reply to what. So it's a nice thing to try to get right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've been trying to improve on that. I just added two refs into the footnote. There's a possible article here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a bonus! Supporting now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Per WP:RSP, prnewswire.com is an unreliable source.
  • What's the logic behind your choice of when to use the publisher and work/website/newspaper parameters? You can have almost any reasonable logic behind how you use these parameters, but it has to be consistent. It looks like you're consistently omitting publisher for cite news, which is fine, but [98] omits the work/website/newspaper parameter too. For cite web, [4] & [114] have a publisher but no work/website, and [120] has neither.
  • [5] is incompletely cited.

That's all I can see for formatting. I will look at links and reliability later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced the PR Newswire item with an actual news article. (IABot is down, so I cannot archive right this moment.) [5], the history cards link, was a template invocation of {{FCC letter}}—and I've added hundreds of these to this kind of article. I've been trying to consider ways to get it to use/interact with Cite web, but I'm not quite sure how to do so and have IABot respond to it. It needs an overhaul anyway as I suspect every transclusion will need to be changed due to a years-long database transition at the FCC.
  • The omission on [98] was unintended. This was before I began using PressPass to preformat newspapers.com citations. Articles of newer creation/expansion will generally be more consistent in the availability of citation information. The others have either had a website added or been updated to a higher-quality citation I've since begun to use.
  • I've made a few tweaks to bring most everything under the work parameter. With website/publisher, I try and separate organization names from the website in general (or database names). Ping to Mike Christie. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For [4], wouldn't it be more consistent to make it "website=Congressional Budget Office", and eliminate the publisher parameter, which you don't use for cite web elsewhere? Similarly for [114]? And for [120], I think you now have a publisher but no website/work parameter; shouldn't it be the other way round for consistency? [5] does like better but unless I've gone cross-eyed it would be better to add the website/work parameter rather than the publisher parameter, as you now have it using cite web. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers now refer to this version.

  • Some of the newspaper.com archive links don't appear to have archived properly: [11], [12], [28], [47].
  • [34] only archives the first page. Archiving is not an FA requirement, so I wouldn't hold up a pass for this; it's just FYI. I see for other multipage clippings for which you've only archived the first page, so perhaps that's deliberate on your part?
  • [65] and [69] say 1991 in the citation, but they cite the 1992 newspaper.
  • Just noticed that you have "rabbitears.info" as the website; it's better to give the website name than the domain name.

No issues with reliability. That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the latter two issues, Mike Christie—these are the things that don't happen with PressPass! Not sure how to fix #1. As to #2, I have many, many, many multipage clippings in my articles. The problem is that {{cite news}} does not support multiple archive-urls, and newspapers.com does not support binding multiple clippings to one URL. This is an issue that, to fix correctly, would require major architecture changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the multi-page clippings -- I've always done those as independent citations, but I like your approach better, and I think archiving newspaper.com clippings isn't that important since the original newspaper remains as the underlying source. Re #1, since archiving isn't required for FA, just removing the broken archive links would work. You can also request that archive.org re-archive the link, if you prefer. Sounds like I should know about PressPass; can you post a link? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie PressPass is here. I removed archives on 11, 12, and 28; 47 works for me. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. The source review passes; I removed the URL-status param from those three since it goes in a CS1 maint tracking category if you don't remove it when the archive URL is gone. [47] works for me now too. Any chance I can persuade you to do a FAC review or two, by the way? We can always use more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first FAC ever. I'd like some pointers, but I am definitely amenable to learning the ropes of FAC reviewing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, glad to hear you're willing to try reviewing -- the more reviewers we get, the faster FACs flow through the nominations page, which makes everyone happier. The quicker the older nominations are promoted or archived, the sooner people will get around to reviewing your nomination.

As for pointers, the criteria are at WP:FACR, but you'll find a great deal of variability in the way reviewers approach articles. Some will not edit the article at all, even to do things like fix obvious typos; instead they will post long lists of suggested edits. There's nothing wrong with that, but I find it quicker to make inarguably correct edits myself. I will also copyedit to some degree, though if I think there's any risk at all of changing the intended meaning or if I think the nominator could reasonably disagree on the grammar, I will make it a suggested edit in the review instead.

Source reviews and image reviews are generally handled separately, as you've seen, though any reviewer can raise source or image questions if they want to.

As I said, everyone approaches a review differently, but I can tell you what I've found the most useful way to review. I read the article as a student would -- not trying to memorize the information, but trying to understand it as completely as possible. Whenever I'm not confident I could repeat the information to a third party and get it right, there's something wrong with the article. That includes thinking about the background -- what does a random reader need to know to understand what's going on in the article? Every time the article brings me up short, I have something I need to note in the review.

I would suggest scanning the current FAC page and looking at the different styles of reviewing, and then picking any article that interests you. For a FAC to get promoted it needs a minimum of five reviews -- an image review, a source review, and at least three supports on content -- and the average is closer to six or seven reviews, so I try to review at least that many FACs for each nomination I make. There's no obligation, however, and particularly for newer nominators, everyone understands that it can take a while before they are ready to review. You're an extremely experienced editor, though, and I wouldn't have thought you would have any problems with FAC reviewing. If you keep nominating, you may find some editors are more likely to review your nominations if they notice you've been reviewing.

One thing I do when looking to review articles is to pick older articles, from nearer the bottom of the page. (If you use the nominations viewer, it makes the FAC page a lot easier to navigate.) Articles with only two supports cannot be promoted, so those can languish until someone takes pity on them and reviews them. Three supports doesn't guarantee promotion either, so it doesn't hurt to be the fourth reviewer, particularly if it's on a topic that interests you or where you have some expertise.

I hope that's helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

[edit]
  • Can we get a logo for the infobox? Should be doable with a fair use rationale, right? See the logo I uploaded for Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad if you'd like an example. If there's some reason you can't, let me know.
  • The Ion stations do not have a logo listed in their infoboxes (the only logo is that of the network itself). The main problem is that we'd need about 50 NFURs on the page.
  • After being sold to The Christian Science Monitor, WQTV became the nucleus of a major production operation, Can you specify the year the sale happened?
  • Done
  • Both stations were sold in 1999 to become outlets of the Pax network I think this needs a link, I see Pax is wikilinked in the body.
  • It's not wikilinked because it is the same article as Ion.
  • By late 1977, Boston Heritage—a consortium of local owners and New Jersey-based Blonder-Tongue Laboratories—had begun work to build the transmitter on the Prudential Tower, and Blonder-Tongue's pay-TV system was already in use in the New York area. Hang on, is this the same Boston Heritage from the previous paragraph? Shouldn't this information be mentioned when you first introduce Boston Heritage?

This is just a start, I'll add more comments soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten this, I promise. Work irl has been super busy, but I will add more comments today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I fell behind my self-imposed deadline, but here is another comment. I've been so busy with work irl I just haven't been able to really sit down and take a good look at this. Will try again tomorrow.

  • CanWest was in the middle of assembling a network of stations to air its programming, with outlets in various stages of consideration in Long Island, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Sacramento, California. Recommend dropping the "California", to avoid confusion. A reader unfamiliar with U.S. cities might think that "Detroit, Minneapolis" or "Long Island, Detroit" is a city and state otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going to structure this and try and make consistent progress. I will follow the orders of the sections in the article.

Lead

  • Consider putting an image within the infobox. This is optional, and a matter of taste. That antenna image might fit nicely in the infobox instead of opposite it.
  • which operated it for six years as commercial independent WABU. Should this be independent commercial station WABU?
  • Both stations were sold in 1999 to become outlets of the Pax network, which changed its name to i in 2005 before adopting the Ion name in 2007. This presupposes the reader is familiar with Ion's history; I believe it would be better to say something along the lines of "before adopting the name Ion in 2007". I do see Ion is identified in the first sentence, but I think it's worth repeating the name here, as we're at the very end of the lead section.

The subscription television years

  • PRISM New England can be linked.
  • This is a nitpick, but I don't like the use of "got" in At the end of January, Star's 23,000 remaining subscribers got Preview program guides for February; it sounds informal. Suggest a synonym.
  • Generally, it's good to avoid 1 sentence paragraphs. Could that last sentence go with the previous paragraph?

Where the stars shine

  • Consider wikilinking the TV shows mentioned in the quotebox.
  • WQTV became an aggressive buyer of programs and an aggressive promoter of its programming and relocated its studio base to a site on Soldiers Field Road in Brighton. Double "and"s are a bit odd to read, a comma before one of the ands would help prevent this from being a run-on sentence.
  • and other titles it owned in perpetuity and aggressively promoting the studios for lease to industrial filmmakers. Recommend changing to "...it owned in perpetuity, along with aggressively promoting..."

Will continue tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Acknowledging all of these. I did not change the second bullet in Lead — the novelty is that it is running commercially (ad-supported). BU owned (and owns) WBUR-FM, a noncommercial station, so this is a noteworthy status.
I note that the infobox can support an image in addition to a logo, but that use in US stations pages is exceptionally rare. I also do not think that an image depicting equipment no longer in current usage should go in the infobox for this station. If there were an image of the current tower site or, hypothetically, of studios (which WBPX does not have in Boston), then I would consider this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Monitor ownership

  • the newspaper was prestigious but a longtime money-loser for Christian Science. Do you mean the religion or a specific church/organization here?
  • An unsolicited $25 million ($46.3 million in 2021 dollars) offer for WQTV in 1988 was rejected This leave the reader logically wondering who made the offer, do we have information on that?
  • Not beyond "group of outside investors", which I have added. [8]
  • that same year, Canadian journalist Peter Kent joined as reporter and substitute anchor, a post he would hold until the program was shuttered. Might be better to instead say "a post he would hold for the next X years", the information that the program was later shuttered kind of comes out of nowhere.
  • Soft launch can be linked.

Boston University Ownership

  • a silent television station Does this mean it wasn't broadcasting?
  • Yes, it does. Added a link here and used "inactive"

Not really any other comments here, looks good.

Pax and Ion ownership

  • Good call. A note: Mvcg66b3r can be very aggressive at removing duplicate links.

That's really all I have, this article is pretty close to FA status already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Answered all remaining items here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Happy to Support now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:28, 28 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2022 [9].

Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-songwriter Billie Eilish! Disney-style animations courtesy of Patrick Osborne! Swearing! Like, lots of it. Witness this truly random combination of concepts, and more, in the 2021 concert film A Love Letter to Los Angeles 🎉

And I am finally back! With "Streets" (song) passing FAC under my wing, I feel happier than ever to nominate my second article for the bronze star. Thanks to a bunch of trimming down copyvio and a helpful GA review from @VersaceSpace, I believe the article quality is tantalizingly close to meeting the FA criteria. Constructive comments from anybody are absolutely welcome. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "its performances—which they felt was of similar" => "its performances—which they felt were of similar"
  • "It received a nomination for" => "It received nominations for" (as three nominations are listed)
  • "as she overlooks the Los Angeles skyline" => "as she looks across the Los Angeles skyline"
  • "Eilish's performance is interspersed by shots" => "Eilish's performance is interspersed with shots"
  • "and he wondered how Disney will react" => "and he wondered how Disney would react"
    • Resolved all five above
  • "Kerry Asmussen directed and choreographed the corresponding scenes" - if Asmussen directed significant chunks of the film, why is she not named elsewhere as a co-director?
    • Well, Kerry directed only the live concert itself, and the film explicitly credits them as such and not as a co-director. Sure, the performances are significant chunks of the film, but there are a large number of animated interstitials that I would imagine are out of their creative control, so it makes sense to me that the credits do not credit them with director as a whole
  • "in the order that they placed on its track list" => "in the order that they appear on its track list"
  • "that wouldn't be possible" => "that would not be possible"
  • "because that entailed all the lighting would focus on Eilish instead" => "because that meant that all the lighting would focus on Eilish instead"
    • Resolved all three above
  • "She called the scene as the film's culminating moment" => "She called the scene the film's culminating moment"
    • Eh, wouldn't hurt to incorporate this I suppose
  • "However. she found their inclusion" - that full stop should be a comma
    • Good catch! I've fixed it accordingly
  • That's what I got. Great work and a nice read :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being the first reviewer @ChrisTheDude - appreciate the comments and the nice words about the writing. I've instated all suggestions and answered the question about the co-directing. While implementing the changes, I've added some new content that you may want to read in case you had any suggestions for how to improve them. Feel free to go through the entire thing again if you have to. Once again, thank you for the review, and have a nice start to your week! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 02:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, really really sorry for the ping - it's been a week since you last left comments, and I want to know if all your concerns have been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review—pass

[edit]
  • File:Happier Than Ever (film).jpg has an appropriate FUR.
  • File:Billie Eilish at the 2021 Met Gala - 04.png license and use seem fine. Perhaps a more detailed ALT text
  • File:Finneas O'Connell 2019 by Glenn Francis.jpg license and use seem fine. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Robert Rodriguez by Gage Skidmore.jpg license and use seem fine. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Patrick Osborne.jpg Use seems fine, AGF on copyright as own work. Detailed ALT text same as above
  • File:Hollywood Bowl.jpg license and use seem fine. Could use a detailed ALT text too
    • Per MOS:ALT, "Alternative text should be short, such as 'A basketball player' or 'Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush'. If it needs to be longer, the important details should appear in the first few words, allowing the user of a screen reader to skip forward once the key points are understood. Very long descriptions can be left for the body of the article." The only key information in those images are who the pictures represent, and in the case of the last one, the filming location. Naming the subject is enough.
  • File:Billie Eilish - Goldwing (from Happier Than Ever, A Love Letter to Los Angeles) song sample.ogg audio sample meets WP:SAMPLE length permitted --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for this double-review @Pseud 14. I have replied to the concerns about the ALT text above. Hope to see how you think of the prose soon ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       09:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your response Your Power. While that is a valid point, the primary purpose of alternative texts, as we know, is to aid visually impaired readers and provide context on the information and functionality of the images. Since the individuals depicted in these images are discussed in detail in each of those sections. It could be beneficial to be a little more descriptive to those foreign (and visually impaired) to who the subject(s) are. E.g. "an image of Finneas O'Connell in a suit and tie and wearing sunglasses", "an image of Robert Rodriguez wearing a cap and speaking into a microphone", "an exterior shot of a curved-shaped outdoor theatre" are some short and succinct examples. As FA-class articles exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, details such as these should be given attention too. Apologies for the long explanation, that is my only nit pick (as all the licenses are in good order). --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pseud 14, I'd counter that by pointing to the example image in #Importance of context. "Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text for this image of Elizabeth II should not be 'an elderly woman wearing a black hat'." In the same vein, unless we were discussing Eilish's fashion style in an article about her or discussing the aesthetics of pop artists, I would not make the ALT text read "a blonde woman with short hair and a nude-colored dress." The key questions to ask here include "What information is it presenting?" and "What purpose does it fulfil?" In this article, the images serves to illustrate the people/locations key to making the film, so the ALT text should merely name said people/locations. Your approach of describing how the image looks makes it unclear what the photos are supposed to represent, IMO. And that is a detriment to our viewers who use screen readers, I'd say! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
          📝 "Don't get complacent..."           13:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your Power, But I'd also counter that the purpose of an alt text is to give visual context to what's in the image. If I am visually impaired and the screen reader only says "Billie Eilish", I wouldn't know what the picture depicts. I wouldn't go as far as that description. A short one like "an image of Eilish smiling to the camera" are commonly used in my experience within FAs and FLs alike. I just think that names alone are a bit inadequate. But I will leave that up for another image reviewer to hopefully jump in for their thoughts (and see what they think) before I conclude. Otherwise I have no quibble on licensing.--Pseud 14 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sought image reviewers within the music/film/pop culture spaces [10] [11], and they are of the opinion that ALT text need to be descriptive, in the sense that they add something not already present in the caption. But if ALTs don't do more than just repeat the caption, they should be removed altogether (they're not FAC requirements after all). For consistency, the article in question uses a very detailed ALT for the film poster but elsewhere it's the exact opposite. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well (this is a slight tangent but) I disagree with the idea that But if ALTs don't do more than just repeat the caption, they should be removed altogether (they're not FAC requirements after all). ALT text falls under MOS:ACCESSIBILITY, one of the many MOS guidelines an FA must follow. It is extremely important for our visually impaired readers to get all the information they need in an article - ALT text helps us with that goal, and thus, it should capture the sense of an image's purpose (this doesn't necessarily mean how an image looks). But I do agree with the general sentiments that the ALT texts in the article could stand to be a bit more descriptive relative to the caption. Accordingly I have added a bit more detail - please let me know if this is good enough @Pseud 14. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
                📝 "Don't get complacent..."                 06:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

[edit]
  • In view of this, they created distinct color palettes -- They created distinct color palettes
    • Trimmed
  • A Love Letter to Los Angeles blends live action and animation styles. -- blends live action and animation filmmaking or just "live action and animation"
    • Went with the latter to avoid "film" twice in a row
  • I would link "live action and animation" to live-action animated film instead
    • Done - seems more appropriate
  • Osborne worked on the animation elements, mixing motion capture and rotoscoped visual effects. Nexus Studios worked on the animation in collaboration with -- Reword so "worked on the animation" isn’t repeated in two consecutive sentences
    • Changed sentence to something else entirely
  • drives a Porsche car -- drives a Porsche
    • Done
  • A symphony orchestra plays instruments during the next two performances -- She is accompanied by a symphony orchestra during the next two performances.
    • Somewhat done - I changed your suggestion to be more active-voice
  • The choir and orchestra leave as the next song, "Lost Cause", is about to begin. -- The choir and orchestra leave before she begins the next song "Lost Cause".
    • Simplified
  • Moving on to "Halley's Comet" -- During "Halley's Comet"
    • done
  • multiple bifurcated clones -- I would simplify bifurcated
    • Fair enough
  • orchestra helps once more with the instrumentals. -- this is a bit clunky, perhaps rephrase this
    • Removed "once more" - let me know if this is sufficient
  • takes a seat at the front row to watch the current and next performance. -- takes a seat at the front row to watch to watch the performance
    • Initially I went with this wording to make it clear she was still watching when "Male Fantasy" was up - I have changed the sentence to what you suggested while still making sure that nuance is there
  • combine live action techniques and animation -- combine live action and animation
    • Trimmed
  • Filming for the concert sequences took place on location at the Hollywood Bowl -- Filming for the concert sequences took place at the Hollywood Bowl
    • Also trimmed
  • Principal photography was swift, encompassing the entire first week of July -- Principal photography was completed in the first week of July
    • Trimmed too
  • called the Alta-X. -- I don’t think there’s a need to mention what the drones were called. You can link drones to the Alta-X article.
  • in view of production considerations. -- for production considerations.
    • Done
  • For the animated vignettes -- link for readers who are unfamiliar
  • Berron served as the cinematographer for A Love Letter to Los Angeles, in charge of its lighting and camerawork -- Berron served as the cinematographer for A Love Letter to Los Angeles.
    • Trimmed, and added a WL to cinematographer too
  • used smoke machines and laser beams – used smoke machines and lasers; link to laser lighting display
    • Seems reasonable
  • A Love Letter to Los Angeles was also eligible for Best Longform Video -- A Love Letter to Los Angeles was also nominated for Best Longform Video
  • The paragraphs in the Accolades section could be merged since the second is currently too small and they seem to be thematically cohesive.
    • Done both
  • That's all from me. Great read. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14 - thank you for the QPQ I have responded to all of your prose comments above, with one objection. Will get to the image stuff later. A reviewer below raised objections with regards to the article's neutrality, and in the interest of not bothering them with another ping + looking for a fresh pair of eyes, may I have your third opinion about the topic? Thanks ^^ ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
      📝 "Don't get complacent..."       05:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concerns have been addressed. Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for your ask for a second look on neutrality, I had to wait a bit until after you re-wrote and made the changes before providing my review. Looking at the changes, I think it's an improvement from what it was. Here are a few suggestions (note that these are observations, and will leave it to the discretion of the reviewer to strike out their concerns).
          • Development section -- Looks better now that you've merged the 2nd and 3rd para and re-wrote it to avoid the appearance of reading like a PR. I would suggest though, that you take out Rodriguez was impressed by the album and get straight to his concerns on the explicit nature of some of the songs. His impression on the album, I think is irrelevant since, love it or hate it, he'd still be tasked to direct the film. That should just be left for the critics IMO.
          • and one verse in "Male Fantasy" is about using pornography to distract oneself. -- this reads more like it should be in the thematic analysis section than part of the development section. I think listing the explicit contents is a way to go and structure it in a way that connects/flows to the last sentence, which should be enough, IMO. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the support and image review pass @Pseud 14! I am glad to see that the neutrally issues seem fixed from your view. Wrt the first point, I removed the "impressed by the album" line as fluff per your justifications, with which I completely agree. For the second, I rewrote that line to make the connection to the last sentence clear. I can't possibly move the "Male Fantasy" line to the thematic analysis section because it simply will not fit anywhere in the commentary. As always let me know if this has been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
              📝 "Don't get complacent..."               02:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

Sorry, but the quality of the prose is much below FA standard and the article has a non-neutral tone.

  • Some examples from the lead are:
    • The first sentence should identify the primary artist
      • Done
    • "In it, American singer-songwriter Billie Eilish performs all 16 tracks from her second studio album, Happier Than Ever (2021), accompanied by other musicians, including her brother Finneas O'Connell and the Los Angeles Philharmonic." - over complex (too long, too many commas)
      • Split
    • "The filming crew aimed to make each song feel unique and intimate accompanied by the proper visual atmosphere" - unclear, and using meaningless buzzwords (what does "unique" or "intimate" mean in this context?)
      • This is now clarified in the article. In short, "unique" = performances don't feel like a carbon copy of each other; intimate = viewers feel close to Eilish
    • "It received positive reviews from critics, who directed praise towards its performances" - bit clunky, and this kind of construction implies that there was total consensus - the relevant section of the article actually states some gave it negative reviews.
      • Fair enough. Since there is no Metacritic summary I figured simply stating the praises instead of making a general "the reviews were positive" statements would be safer. Though I'd push back a bit on the "some negative reviews" bit - I read every single review available online, and I went away with the impression that only the Insider commentary was less than positive.
  • Similar text appears throughout the article. For instance, the first para of the 'Development' section reads like PR material and the second para is hard to follow and seems overly detailed.
    • The second paragraph of that section looks way different now, and I removed any redundant details already covered beforehand in the prose. I.e. "the film would feature an animated character who travels across ... Hollywood and holds a concert in it" - this just rehashes the "Plot" section
  • There are also way too many low-value quotes from people involved in this project talking up their own work. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did my best to remove all trivia and quotes that gave the impression of promotional material, but I don't know for certain if I caught all of them. If this is not sufficient, some examples and corresponding explanations for why they did not add anything of value in your opinion would be appreciated.

@Nick-D, no need to apologize! A thorough slap in the face was needed, and with a more critical readthrough of the article I did catch some of the seemingly non-neutral stuff. As mentioned, I did a major overhaul of the article to address your concerns. I removed undue trivia and POV statements like "best way to handle cinematography", though I did my best to preserve what I believed were valuable information about the production process. Please let me know if this is sufficient. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, just wanted to get a sense of whether you believe the article is on track prose-wise now or needs more work that might best be done away from FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Sorry, I've been remiss here. The edits are looking good. I'll do a proper review. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been good progress across the article: nice work. I'm happy to now support after doing some copy editing, but have the following comments:

  • The cast section should be referenced
  • It's surprising that there's no commentary on the links between the film and the pandemic: empty venues have been a key element of the pandemic (perhaps moreso outside the US?), and presumably Elish's decision to make the film was motivated by concerns about the practicality of touring to promote the album? Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D thank you for another read-through! Glad to have your support. There are citations for the cast section now.
Regarding your second comment --- unfortunately the most I can milk off available sources is: There was a pandemic -> this discouraged crowds -> the Hollywood Bowl had no live audience during film -> no audience meant closer camera angles -> two reviewers like the emptiness and thought that it made the vibes more beautiful. I imagine that while dredging through the whole article, folks can read between the lines and catch this link despite no explicit attempts from the article to link them.
Moreover, Eilish definitely had to keep COVID-19 in mind before doing any touring - that's why her previous one was cancelled - but as far as I know her primary motivation to make the film was to pay tribute to the city. Once again thank you for taking the time to read this article! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The improvements between my first read of the article and today have been really impressive. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Looks like this has had a fair amount of reviewers so I'll conduct a source review for now. Version reviewed.

  • What makes CineD a high-quality reliable source?
    • The quality of a given source always depends on context. Here, we are dealing with an interview with the filming crew, and we can easily verify that the author got in touch with them because of the attached photos of the set. The information found in the CineD article lines up with the other interviews/general references used in the prose; no glaring inconsistencies arise. The aforementioned article deals with cinematography for Love Letter, and its author Mark Tierney has a lengthy career in filmmaking, which includes cinematography. So we're dealing with a professional in the filmmaking industry who is interviewing the crew about filmmaking for a movie to which he has little connection. I think this is good enough for a FAC.
  • Spot-checks: 10, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 40
  • Source 22: since the source itself doesn't include an ellipsis, the quote "[her] ongoing theme of solitude, and the autonomy found within that ... speaks" should begin and end with square brackets, per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done
  • Not source-related but I would remove the abbreviation VMA in the lead and body as they're not used anywhere beyond these two instances.
    • Fair enough - done
  • "She contacted Robert Rodriguez, whom she thought was" - who, not whom.

Mostly a source review but some prose-related concerns I noted while checking the sources. FrB.TG (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was quick - thank you @FrB.TG! Appreciate the QPQ. All the concerns above have been addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 11:36, 4 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2022 [12].

Kathryn D. Sullivan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and TommyBoy (talk)

This article is about Kathy Sullivan. Sullivan was selected as a NASA astronaut candidate with NASA Astronaut Group 8, the first group to include women; the group also included Sally Ride and Judith Resnik. Unlike them, Sullivan is still alive, and is currently serving as a scientific advisor to President Joe Biden. She has flown in space and descended to the deepest point in the world's oceans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
File:Kathryn Sullivan, PCAST Member (cropped).jpg. What is the evidence this was taken by a federal employee acting within the scope of their duties, rather than being (for example) a copyright acquired by the federal government or held elsewhere?
It is on the White House site, and the copyright notice says everything on the site is either PD or CC-SA 3.0
File:Sullivan Views the Earth - GPN-2000-001082.jpg. Dead links.
Replaced with a current link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:STS-41-G Sullivan checks SIR-B antenna latch.jpg Can we just have one link, that works, on the image page?
Doesn't seem so.
File:Sullivan and Ride Show Sleep Restraints - GPN-2000-001032.jpg Dead links
Added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to be having trouble with NASA's image search. All four images in the NASA career section are there and available online, but server seems overloaded. Archive.org is snafu refuses on the grounds that the images are online. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Not very much.
  • " They installed a valve into a satellite propulsion system that mimicked that of Landsat 4 and transferred 59 kilograms (130 lb) of hydrazine to it using the ORS." So they didn't actually refuel a satellite?
    Correct. Made this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1988, Sullivan was assigned to the STS-61-J mission, which was scheduled to deploy the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in August 1986.[22] " There seems to be an issue of continuity with this sentence.
    Typo. Should be "1985". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]
  • It looks like her service years are 1988-2006, which is short of the standard 20 year retirement. Were there extenuating circumstances to her retiring early from the Navy Reserves, or did she separate instead of retire? I know the source says retirement, but it seems strange that she wouldn't have done all 20 years.
    It does seem strange but I have no explanation for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rules required that humanities students..." This reads vaguely, maybe something like "The school required that humanities students take three science to graduate"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of MOS:SANDWICH in the NASA career and Civilian career sections. Not a dealbreaker for me, but not sure if you want to change the layout at all.
    Moved the images around so the civilian career should be okay now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review

Reviewers are always welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her tenure ended on January 20, 2017, with the swearing in of President Donald Trump." Her appointment ending with Trump's presidency is not mentioned in the body. I don't think this is an important fact in her biography, so perhaps it can be, "Sullivan was Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) after being confirmed by the US Senate on March 6, 2014, and her tenure ended on January 20, 2017."
    Changed as suggested. Added end of her tenure to the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his wife Barbara née Kelly." I think "née Kelly" should be in brackets.
    Added a parenthetical comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She chose to enter the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC)," -> "She chose to attend the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC)" I think attend is a more precise word for this situation.
    "Enter" is the more precise. "Attend" would imply that she was already a student. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest using level 3 heading to divide the "NASA career" section
    Added. They always cause problems with the image placement. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, Sullivan was honored in the Time 100 list." -> "In 2014, Sullivan was named in the Time 100 list of most influential people in the world." Some people might not consider it an honor to be on this list, so named makes it more neutral. Also, not everyone knows what Time 100 is, so to avoid people clicking on the link to find out I suggest adding a brief description of what the list is.
    We wouldn't want that. Added a bit about what it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. I made some minor edits to the article while reviewing it (mostly formatting). Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments have been addressed. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kusma

[edit]

Great work on all these women astronauts! I have a few comments but nothing major I think.

Rhea Seddon is ready to go next. Anna Fisher is languishing at GA, and Eileen Collins at A-Class. That leaves Shannon Lucid; I am yet to start on that one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering whether some section titles can be improved, or things moved around a little. The STS-41-G section starts with a paragraph about other astronaut work with little connection to that mission. The STS-61-J was cancelled, which could be reflected in the section title ("Cancelled Hubble Space Telescope deployment mission" is too long, but maybe you get what I think). The first sentence of "military career" seems slightly out of place given the title, but maybe that is the best one can do.
    Reworked the first sentence of "military career" to make the connection clearer. Split the first paragraph of STS-41-G, moving the first half into the previous subsection. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "numerous in-cabin experiments as well as activating eight "Getaway Special" canisters" do we know anything about these?
    Linked to the article on Getaway Special. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "firing a pulse of electron into the upper atmosphere and recording the luminosity induced with a special camera" wouldn't we usually say "an electron pulse" or "a pulse of electrons"? (I'm also curious about the experiment; given how far beta radiation travels in sea level air I would expect you need to have near vacuum conditions for this experiment to do much. But that is probably too much detail here).
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the only place where I've seen the abbreviation "CAPOCOM". Typo?
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue soon, bed now. —Kusma (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with changes so far. Slightly more:

  • The main infobox image has fairly low resolution and doesn't scale up well to larger thumbnail sizes. (This is a problem with the original White House image). Consider other relatively recent portraits instead?
  • "The STS-61-J mission was cancelled after the January 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but the crew continued to work on the mission." Hmm, that almost sounds like they pretended it wasn't cancelled. Better to say they worked on the mission objectives?
    That sounds better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also operated a variety of cameras, including the IMAX cargo bay camera, for Earth observations from their record setting altitude of 380 miles" a bit convoluted, and it is unclear which record is being set. Perhaps make the record (I assume it is furthest distance from Earth in the Space Shuttle) an extra sentence and clarify. Was the record ever broken during the Shuttle's service ? (probably equalled by further Hubble missions).
    There is a bit of debate about this but I'm not sure that this qualifies as a RS. Officially, STS-31's record was broken by the STS-82 HST servicing mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. (Not a fan of the sentence in parentheses about the record being broken; parentheses make it look too much how I write when I can get away with it). That dude on Twitter uses different data from NASA? —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where his data comes from. Since STS-82 was an all-male mission, Sullivan holds the altitude record for a woman. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • say who Sylvia Earle is
    It is in the next sentence, but moved forward a bit. Sullivan always refers to her as "Her Deepness". At the time fewer people had been to Challenger Deep than the Moon, but after a spate of descents in 2020-2021 this is no longer true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William J. Clinton" why so formal?
    I only met him once. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to the question regarding the formality of William J Clinton, I have updated the article to reflect Bill Clinton as his more commonly used name.--TommyBoy (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links could do with some copyediting (and perhaps thinking about which of these are needed). "Appearances of Kathy Sullivan on the C-Span TV network" would be clearer for the first one. "Talking about how she felt to be selected", the second one, should state more clearly that the link goes to a video. The third website seems to have more than just podcasts.
    The C-SPAN external link is implemented with a template. One that is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. I'm not changing it. Suggest seeking consensus at Template talk:C-SPAN if you feel strongly about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
    I will go back to pretending the template isn't there. External links sections don't get read a lot these days. —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Figureskatingfan

[edit]

I have nothing to add that others haven't already added. Congrats on your ongoing work on articles about women astronauts. This is a well-written and well-sourced bio, so it has my enthusiastic support. Best of luck going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I conducted a source review for reliability/formatting and nothing of concern leapt out so I'll be promoting this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 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.
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 September 2022 [13].

Battle of Ticinus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my series of Second Punic War articles. This is an account of the first time Hannibal fought the Romans. No prizes for guessing who won. The article was promoted to GA two years ago and has been reworked a little in the light of feedback during the recent FAC of Second Punic War. Sadly, no elephants. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

[edit]
Comparing the two (see below) the current one (top) seems to me to contain more information, to convey it more clearly, to show Rome's sphere of influence in northern Italy and Sicily more accurately, and to have a more complete and more visible key. What do you find better about the suggested alternative?
Personally I prefer the higher quality of the image, as well as the better display of rivers and lakes, as the Ebro river is quite significant. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers... perhaps The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, as the two main powers... or else The First Punic War was fought between Carthage and Rome, where the two main powers... to better link the clauses
I see your point. Resolved a little differently.
  • Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence... I would expand this a little to give a bit more context perhaps, Four years later Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and imposed a further 1,200 talent indemnity, after the Carthaginians were weakened by the Mercenary War
Gone with "Four years later, when Carthage was weakened by the mutiny of part of its army and the rebellion of many of its African possessions, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence and ..."
  • escorted him away from the fight, saving his life. in the lede you say captured or killed; should standardize the two IMO, or at least have the one in the body be the more expansive of the two.
Done.
Thanks Iazyges, that was very prompt. Your points all addressed above. Also your comment below. Thanks for your helpful copy editing. Note that I have reverted a couple of minor tweaks - [14]. There is not a complete ban on duplicate Wikilinks and I think it unreasonable to expect a reader to understand that "16-year-old son", which they may not have clicked on, is "Publius Cornelius Scipio". "to" has come up before and I think it is a USEng-BritEng thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Will take this up as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copy I used has 16 locations on the publication page, with Oxford first. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems you have 15 more locations to add /s. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Défaite_de_Scipion_près_du_Téssin.jpg needs a US tag
Done.
  • File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN_(cropped).jpg presents a MOS:COLOUR issue which is complicated by the fact that the colours in the legend don't seem to entirely align with the colours actually visible on the map?
  • File:218_aC_GALLIA_CISALPINA.png needs a legend
  • File:Sacred_Band_cavalryman.png: what's the author's date of death?
Done.
  • File:Mommsen_p265_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag and author date of death for the photo.
Tag done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Personally I consider image captions to be part of the article they are in, and so are liable to over-linking. Is there any policy which suggests they shouldn't be?
I thought the guideline was clearer, but it just says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."[15] To me, the image text is separate from the article body in the same way as the intro is, and I think it helps the reader to get the context of the images. But appears it is optionable. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a borderless (and textless) alternate version of the infobox image could be made? Looks a bit distracting, and borders are generally discouraged.
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Rome and Carthage at first mention outside intro? Iberia?
Oops. Done.
  • Link Gallic at first instead of second mention?
Picky, picky. Done.
  • Link Carthaginians?
It just comes back to Ancient Carthage, which is already inked.
Ah, I swore I saw a link to Punics from that somewhere. Oh, seems it's in Hannibal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with Consul.
Moved from second to first mention.
  • "weakened by the mutiny of mutiny of part of its army" I assume only one mutiny is needed?
They were very mutinous. Done.
  • "The contemporary historian Polybius considered this act of bad faith" State his ethnicity so we know he was of neither side?
Done.
  • "to expand Carthaginian holdings in south-east Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" Who controlled it prior to this?
A rag bag of petty tribes, some loosely organised into unstable confederations. I am not sure that going into this would be helpful to a reader.
  • "in 229 BC} and" What is that bracket for?
A Typo, well spotted.
  • The Hannibal caption could state his role, per "establishes the picture's relevance to the article".[16]
He's Hannibal! But done.
Sure is, ever thought of doing biographies? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hannibal arrived with 20,000 infantry, 6,000 cavalry and 37 elephants" You say no elephants in the blurb here, so what happened to them?
ORing, I would guess that Hannibal considered them unsuitable for a fast moving reconnaissance role.
Excellent stuff FunkMonk. I am eagerly awaiting your next instalment. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many were from North Africa, ans are usually" And?
Sorted.
  • Link javelin in first instead of second mention in article body?
Done.
  • Link and introduce Livy at first mention instead of second.
Done.
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, of the same name, leading a small group, cut his way through to his wounded father and escorted him away from the fight, saving him from being either captured or killed." Where is the movie about these wars?
Don't start me! But I am happy to work up an outline script if you can interest an agent.
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son" and "In 204 BC Publius Cornelius Scipio, the same man who had fought as a youth at Ticinus" is confusing, as the first is an easter egg, and the reader doesn't know it's the same person from just reading the article. Add more of the name first mention and remove duplink?
Sorry, but how is it an Easter egg? And there is not a prohibition on duplinks, and I think that in this case the benefit for the reader merits one.
Well, my main point is that without actually clicking on the first link without the name, I have no idea the two are the same from just reading the article, which is unfortunate. So either name him the first time, or state more explicitly that it's the son mentioned earlier at second mention. Just saying he fought there as a youth doesn't really make the connection clear to the general reader. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed the "of the same name" part, but there is something about how it is written that is confusing, which I see the two other reviews also remark on, so it seems something should be tweaked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk. Ok. Changed to "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, also named Publicus Cornelius Scipio"... I have also tweaked the rest of the sentence a little. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, not seeing the edit yet, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Carthaginians moved south into Roman Italy." A bit of a cliffhanger in the intro, should it be stated here that he campaigned in Italy for the next 12 years? Would perhaps round it off better.
Fair nuff, done.
Hi FunkMonk, back and your issues addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too many tabs open! Well reminded. Now clicked. Thanks for both the support and the trust. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPA

[edit]

Just a random comment here.

It may just be me, but I don't find it blurry at all. Eg, compare the two maps at the top of this page where (to me) "File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN (cropped).jpg" seems the crisper. As well as considerable other advantages. That said, if your map manipulation skills are better than my non-existent ones feel free to tweak the map in any way that you feel improves it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias

[edit]
  • The end of the second paragraph of Iberia gets a bit repetitive with how often the year is mentioned, particularly near the start of sentences. Could some of these be made relative?
Done.
  • Also, it is a bit confusing that the last two sentences aren't in chronological order.
Sorry, but which two sentences are you referring to?
It was "In 218 BC a Carthaginian army under Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum. In early 219 BC Rome declared war on Carthage." You've now merged them, and changed "in early 219 BC" to "and early the following year" – should it originally have been 217 BC? Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should have. A demonstration of my sad inability to count backwards.
  • "..who were finally defeated in 222. In 218 the.." Both BC I assume?
Added.
  • "The Roman Senate detached one Roman and one allied legion from the force intended for Iberia to send to the region." It is probably just the disjointed way I'm reading this as part of a review, but I initially struggled to work out which region this referred to, as the last mentioned region was Iberia itself. Maybe just for me, but could you make it clear where they were sent in the prose here.
No, you're right. Sorted.
  • "At the same time a Roman army.." Might "another" work better than "a" here?
Ok. Done.
  • "..then taking an inland route.." "took", not "taking".
Done.
  • "..Publius returned to Italy." This feels like it could do with a little more context on why he returned to Italy.
Excellent point. Done.
  • "With his scouts reporting.." Avoid the 'noun plus -ing' construction.
Fixed.
  • "Next day each commander led out a strong force to personally reconnoitre the size and make up of the opposing army, things of which they would have been almost completely ignorant." I don't like much about this sentence! Personally, I'd prefer it to start with "The", and I find the "things of which" to be awkward; how about "..opposing army, about which they.."?
No "The", but good point re "which", so changed as you suggest.
  • "..referred to by Livy as "steady".." This is the first mention of Livy, introduce him please.
Done.
  • "..and a 40 centimetres (1 ft 4 in) shield." This should be hyphenated and singular, surely? "..and a 40-centimetre (1 ft 4 in) shield."
Bleh! Thank you. Done.
  • "..of the 4,500 or so available light infantry javelinmen." The velites?
Changed.
  • "..camping one to seven miles (2–12 km) apart.." In the other two places distances are used, the article uses metric (imperial); switch this for consistency.
Oops again. Thanks. Done.
  • "Then the Carthaginian light cavalry.." Feels odd starting a paragraph with "then", but I think it's just me.
I agree with you.
  • "..attacked from both sides, routed and suffered.." Surely this should be "was routed"?
Nope. (That is, "was routed" would be grammatically correct, but so is the current usage, which is the one I want.)
  • "In the confusion Scipio's 16-year-old son, of the same name, leading a small group, cut his way through.." I don't like the sentence construction here with two subordinate clauses back-to-back, can it be rephrased?
Rephrased. See what you think.
Much better. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..some 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) away." No need for the precision of ".0" in the conversion.
Oops. Fixed.

A good interesting read as usual. Nothing major to deal with here, mostly nitpicking and disagreement of minor wording. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias and many thanks for that. One query - your second point - one "rout" left and one "The" not added. Otherwise I have gone with all of your suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on those, one clarification requested. I realised that I skipped the lead, just a few points here I think:

  • "..with many cavalry dismounting to fight on foot and some of the Roman javelinmen reinforcing.." Avoid the 'noun plus -ing' construction.
Done.
  • The article text refers to the "River Ticinus", while the infobox refers to the "Ticino River"; is Ticino the modern name? If so, I think this is worth mentioning, as you've done for other places.
Fair nuff, done.
  • The article text says that the precise location of the battle isn't known, but the infobox gives coordinates: if we don't know the precise location, surely we can't provide coordinates?
Bleh. Nicely spotted. I inherited it and have something of a blind spot for coords. Removed.

Right, nothing more after that. I think. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "This continued indecisively until the Numidians swept round both ends of the line of battle and attacked the still disorganised javelinmen; the small Roman cavalry reserve, to which Scipio had attached himself; and the rear of the already engaged Roman cavalry, throwing them all into confusion and panic." I am not sure whether this sentence can be simplified, but I had to read it two or three times to understand it.
Ah, yes. Split into three sentences.
  • "3,200 talents was approximately 82,000 kg (81 long tons) of silver". Worth approx $50 million today.
I sincerely doubt that attempting to convey comparisons in purchasing power over 2,260 years is meaningful. Eg $50 mn is the smallest of change to a modern government; 3,200 talents was intended to financially cripple Carthage for a decade.
  • "south-east Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" This is ambiguous whether "(modern Spain and Portugal)" refers to the whole of Iberia or just the south-east.
Fixed.
  • "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted their reserve, and obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, in order to build up their army to a size with which it could effectively take on the Romans." This seems a bit clumsy. Maybe "The Carthaginians needed to to get supplies of food, and recruit additional troops among the north-Italian Gallic tribes in order to effectively take on the Romans."
It is a little clumsy. Amended to "The Carthaginians needed to obtain supplies of food, as they had exhausted their reserves. They also wished to obtain allies among the north-Italian Gallic tribes from which they could recruit, as Hannibal believed that he required a larger army if he were to effectively take on the Romans."
  • "the small Roman cavalry reserve, where Scipio had positioned himself. They also threatened, and threw javelins at, the rear of the already engaged Roman troops". "They" appears to refer to the Romans until you read that the attacked the Romans.
Good point. Specified.
No. "routed" is a correct and appropriate use.
  • My Oxford Dictionary of English defines rout as "defeat and cause to retreat in disorder". It gives the example "in a matter of minutes the attackers were routed". There is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated, which is how you are using it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley Miles, I am a little confused here. You say that "[t]here is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated ..." while two sentences before seeming to agree with the definition of rout as "defeat and cause to retreat in disorder" (emphasis added). The definition you quote seems to settle that to be routed means to first be defeated and then to retreat in disorder. Or am I being dim and you mean something else?
Re your suggestion that "were" be added, "rout" can be used as an intransitive verb, which is how it is used here. My (sliightly on-standard) OED gives "... 2. intr. To break into rout; to flee in disorder." which is how I am using the word. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the same suggestion (well, "was" rather than "were"). Even if you are technically correct that this usage is acceptable, it seems that for improved readability, it would be better changed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for misremembering your suggestion. The readability seems fine to me. (I am not sure why you feel the need to use "technically" in your response.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also confused. You quote me as saying "[t]here is no definition of rout as meaning being defeated ...", and then you appear to disagree, saying "The definition you quote seems to settle that to be routed means to first be defeated". But both are saying the same thing. To rout is to win, to be routed is to be defeated, to cause to retreat in disorder is to win decisively. You use rout in the article in the opposite sense as to lose.
You cite OED as using rout in your sense, as to lose, but that meaning is described as rare since the 17th century. My paper Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE not OED) and the online Merriam Webster only define rout as to win, not as to lose as you use it. I do not think it is helpful to readers to use a definition which is not in standard non-specialist dictionaries. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, the online OED gives "rout, v.11: b. intransitive. To take to flight in disorder and haste, after being defeated by a superior enemy force. rare after 17th cent." Given we live in a post-17th century world, it suggests this usage is rare. It is one that both Dudley Miles and I are uncomfortable with; personally I found it awkward when I read it the first time. As a reviewer, I'm extrapolating that a good percentage of those reading the article would find it similarly awkward or even confusing. For the sake of a minor rephrase I think this is an odd hill to die on. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response Dudley; thanks for chipping in Harrias. It would see that consensus and the sources are in favour of "was", and so added. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am away for a week Dudley. I shall attend to your comments once I am back. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - Have you been able to return to here? Hog Farm Talk 00:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: thank you for the nudge. Dudley Miles, thank you for looking this over and apologies that I have let it slip. I have now addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 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) 26 September 2022 [17].

Homo antecessor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. This is the article's 2nd time here because I was forced to go inactive all the way back in January, and the nomination of course had to be archived. Now that I (finally) have the time, I have re-nominated the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will review but I did not get the ping. Any idea why? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I've been getting some bot errors @Dudley Miles and Jens Lallensack: are you getting this ping? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. I once had the same problem and I was told it was because I had edited a previous message instead of creating a new one with the 4 tildes, but you seem to have created a new message so I do not know why you are having the problem. Do you get this Dunkleosteus77? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Despite being so ancient, the face conspicuously parallels the morphology seen in modern humans rather than other archaic humans". "conspicuously parallels" is jargon and I am not sure what "conspicuously" means in this context. "more similar" would be clearer to the reader.
conspicuous as in it's unexpected Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. antecessor was predominantly manufacturing simple pebbles and flakes out of quartz and chert, although they used a variety of materials. This industry may represent a precursor to the Acheulean industry, which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa." This is not quite right. The African Acheulean long predates antecessor. The Wiley-Blackwell Enclopedia of Human Evolution dates it to 1.6 million years ago. Your source at [18] says that the unnamed TD6 technology may have evolved into European Acheulean, but I am not sure what this means if Acheulean came first.
Though the Acheulean in Africa is first identified that far back, the Acheulean in Europe wouldn't pop up for a little under a million years later. It's unclear how these early sites relate to the later Acheulean traditions of Europe, because the Acheulean could've been independently developed in Europe after Africa (which means these early European traditions are ancestral to all or at least some European Acheulean traditions) or it could've been ported up from Africa and diffused through Europe (so the contribution of these early sites may have been largely marginalized). I've added a bit more on it in the relevant section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, they are postulated to represent the ancestor of the Acheulean industry, wherein these and several other techniques would evolve further predominantly in sites across Western Eurasia and Africa." You suggest here that Gran Dolina tools may have been the origin of Acheulean in Africa as well as western Euroasia. I do not think anyone says that it is the origin of African Acheulean and it is now fringe to suggest that it was the origin of European Acheulean since, as you say, antecessor is now thought to be an offshoot without descendants. The paper you cite at [19] says that the Acheulean reached the Levant by 1.4 to 1.2 ma and was probably brought to Europe by Homo heidelbergensis. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added that study's conclusions and removed the part from the lead, but that study isn't saying all those early European industries were dead ends, it's saying that they didn't invent the typical Acheulean by themselves. While the typical European Acheulean is really only associated with H. heidelbergensis, it's impossible to rule out if antecessor and the makers of other similar early European industries were not interacting with other Eurafrican populations Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The known skeleton comprises elements of the face, clavicle, forearm, digits, knees, and a few vertebrae and ribs." I do not know whether "known skeleton" is a technical term, but it will not mean much to most readers. I suggest using plain language such as saying that the parts of the skeleton which have been found are...
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opting to leave it at Homo sp." Homo sp. needs explaining and linking.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014, 50 footprints dating to between 1.2 million and 800,000 years ago were discovered in Happisburgh, England, which could potentially be attributed to an H. antecessor group given it is the only species identified during that time in Western Europe." You cover the footprints extensively, but surely in that case you need to cover the Happisburgh stone tools as well. Are they the same as the antecessor tools?
I wasn't sure where to draw the line in the sand, because similar stone tools were manufactured across Western Europe (as mentioned in the text) which conceivably were also manufactured by H. antecessor given chronology, but I can't give a detailed writeup about every million year old Western European stone tool Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluvially deposited fossils (dragged in by water)" Fluvial does not mean any water, it means related to a stream or river.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESR should be linked.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that two teeth in TD6 were dated palaeomagnetically after 780,000 years ago and then TD6 itself to before 780,000 years ago. This is presumably possible if the teeth were brought in by debris flow, but the list of dates in this paragraph does not tell us anything useful without giving some context.
In 1999, it was dated to sometime before 780,000 years ago, and in 2013 it was also dated to before 730,000 years ago but further constrained to after 930,000 years ago Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find the paragraph starting "In 1999, two ungulate teeth from TD6 were dated" confusing. It would be easier for readers to follow if you left out findings which are no longer considered valid. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made it a bulleted list like I did in Solo Man Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The face of H. antecessor is conspicuously more similar to that of modern humans than to other archaic groups, so in their original description, Castro and colleagues classified it as the last common ancestor between modern humans and Neanderthals" In the lead, you imply that the face of antecessor was more similar to moderns than Neanderthals, which seems inconsistent with being the common ancestor based on face morphology. Also what does "between" mean here? Do you mean "of"?
I mean it wasn't exactly the same face as modern humans, there were still several archaic features as detailed later on. I believe the idea was the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals should have a largely unspecialized face, not leaning too far to one side or the other, but Neanderthals align more closely with H. heidelbergensis than modern humans and vice versa considering the Neanderthal face is quite different from the modern face Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing "between" to "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may or may not be a modern human ancestor, although if not probably split quite shortly before the modern human/Neanderthal split." Maybe "In 2017, Castro and colleagues conceded that H. antecessor may or may not be a modern human ancestor, although if it was not then it probably split quite shortly before the modern human/Neanderthal split."
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ATD6-69 is strikingly similar to modern humans (as well as East Asian Middle Pleistocene archaic humans) as opposed to West Eurasian or African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans or Neanderthals, although African Middle Pleistocene humans (the direct ancestors of modern humans) would later evolve this anatomy." I do not understand what you are saying here.
African Middle Pleistocene archaic humans retained an archaic face for a while (like Homo rhodesiensis, but since they're the ancestors of modern humans, some populations would eventually evolve a modern face by 300,000 years ago during the Middle Pleistocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add by convergent evolution for clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed that last part, it wasn't really adding much anyways Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is exceptional as this bone is rarely ever discovered for archaic humans". I would leave out the word "ever" as it does not say anything.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The shoulder blade is similar to all Homo with a general human body plan," What does "with a general body plan" mean here?
as opposed to Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis which had general australopithecine body plans Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "typical body plan" would be clearer. "general" is vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medial (toward the midline) and lateral (toward the sides) facets for the knee joint are roughly the same size in ATD6-56". Same size as what?
clarified, as each other Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which may be related to how H. antecessor transmitted body weight". I do not know what transmitted body weight means here. Please clarify.
I changed it to walked Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the relation is true, H. antecessor had a prolonged childhood, a characteristic of modern humans in which significant cognitive development takes place." It is interesting that prolonged childhood came so early. There is nothing about brain size in the article unless I missed it. If no information on brain size is available due to lack of suitable fossils, perhaps worth spelling this out.
I can add that the measurements of the frontal bone ATD6-15 are notably bigger than some H. erectus specimens whose brain volumes are estimated at less than 1,000 cc Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have started making the amendment and stopped in the middle of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consequently, they are postulated to represent the ancestor of the Acheulean industry, wherein these and several other techniques would evolve further predominantly in sites across Western Eurasia and Africa." The source does not say this. It says "might have". This is more cautious than postulating. It says European Acheulean, not Acheulean generally, and it does not mention Eurasia and Africa. I would leave out the sentence as too speculative in view of the gap of a million years, but this is just a personal view.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to remove the statement from the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the lead says now is "This industry has some similarities with the more complex Acheulean industry" and then a small gloss for the Acheulean "which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see where "which later became ubiquitous across Western Eurasia and Africa" is supported in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests they were butchering humans for nutritional purposes (presumably under dire circumstances)". The comment that cannibalism was only under dire circumstances seems contradicted by the statement that homo is the second most common species showing evidence of butchering.
removed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "There is no evidence they were using fire, and they consequently only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods": this is in the lead, and is more definite than the body. I think this should say something like "There is no evidence they were using fire, so they probably only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods".
    Well we can demonstrate occupation sequences coincide with warm periods, hence "Human occupation seems to have occurred in waves corresponding to timespans featuring a warm, humid savanna habitat", but the part I believe you're references only remains unsure about what they did in cold periods, hence "presumably retreating to the coast otherwise" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm concerned about is just the sentence's structure, not the assertion. The currrent sentence in the lead says that because there is no evidence they used fire, we deduce they only went inland in warm periods. The second part can't be unconditional if the first part is conditional. It would be too long-winded to say "There is no evidence they were using fire, and if they were not using fire they probably only inhabited inland Iberia during warm periods"; I was proposing a shorter sentence structure that avoids the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed consequently to similarly Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A MoS issue; you are using spaced em dashes. I like spaced em dashes, but the MoS only permits spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manufacturing simple pebbles": would read more naturally as "manufacturing simple stone tools".
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph beginning "Human occupation seems to have occurred", is the intended structure that the first two sentences are an assertion that is supported by the remaining sentences? That connection isn't explicitly drawn, and you don't say that the time periods into which the dating methods have constrained the finds correspond to "a warm, humid savanna habitat".
    I start off by saying proposed dates correspond to a savanna habitat, then say what the proposed dates are. Otherwise I'd have to repeat after every date "this also corresponds to a warm, humid savanna habitat" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it can be done more economically than that, and it would be kind to readers who don't see those don't ranges and immediately think ah, yes, MIS 19. How about starting that paragraph "Dates obtained from the human fossils or from their context have been shown to correspond to transitions from cool glacial to warm interglacial periods, after the climate warmed and before the forests could expand to dominate the landscape, with a warm humid savannah habitat (although the riversides likely supported woodlands). This implies that the human occupation came in waves, corresponding to these climatic periods. For example, in 1999, two ungulate teeth..." and you don't need to repeat "for example" before each sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end of the par Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus], originally "Atlantanthropus mauritanicus"': I think this is too compressed for a Wikipedia article. How about a footnote where you can devote a few more words to explaining this?
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the thickness of enamel and the proportion of the tooth covered by the gums are conspicuously variable to a degree on par between the males and females of modern humans and many other apes": I can't parse this. Does it mean that the amount by which those two elements vary is the same in the fossils as in modern humans and many other apes, with the variable presumably being similarly bimodal, since otherwise there's no reason to mention the sexes? From the following sentence I think that must be right, but it could be more clearly phrased.
    The average enamel and gum thickness are different between males and females of a lot of animals are different. The degree to which these differ in H. antecessor, is the same as the degree to which these differ in modern humans and many ape species Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's clearer than what's in the article. How about "Based on two canine teeth (ATD6- 69 and ATD6-13), the thickness of enamel and the proportion of the tooth covered by the gums vary to same degree as for males and females of modern humans and many other apes, so this may be due to sexual dimorphism, with females having smaller teeth, relatively thicker enamel, and smaller proportion of gum coverage." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stature estimates are roughly consistent with those for H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, and Neanderthals": since the stature estimates are for H. antecessor, presumably this should either read "Stature estimates for H. antecessor, H. heidelbergensis, and Neanderthals are roughly consistent with each other", or "Stature estimates for H. antecessor are roughly consistent with those for H. heidelbergensis and Neanderthals".
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "vastus" to [vastus muscles].
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article in British or American English, or some other variation? I see "savanna", which as far as I know is only AmEng, and "standardisation", which is definitely not AmEng.
    British Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is largely unclear if these early European sites would evolve into the European Acheulean industry independently from African counterparts, or if the Acheulean was brought up from Africa and diffused across Europe." I don't think "largely" adds anything, and why "would evolve" instead of just "evolved"?
    done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they are badly preserved as the area was also used by hyenas as a latrine": why would this affect stone tools?
    urine is a corrosive acid Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have realized that, but if I miss it other readers may. Could we make this "but they are badly preserved as the area was also used by hyenas as a latrine, exposing them to the corrosive acid in urine"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you using "the" before several of the animals recorded at Sima del Elefante? To indicate that these are the same species as found at Gran Dolina? If so I would suggest rephrasing, perhaps like this: "The Sima del Elefante site records many of the same species found at Gran Dolina, including fallow deer, bush-antlered deer,..." It reads oddly with the "the"s in the list.
    because I say things like "the extinct horse Equus stenonis" so I should also be consistent with definite articles and say "the wild boar" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the list in the paragraph starting "The Sima del Elefante site records", not the list in the paragraph above, which is fine. I think this second list can be rephrased; I see you want to make reference to the first list, but this isn't a transparent way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitive articles serve a function, "records the fallow deer, the bush-antlered deer, rhinos" here "rhinos" is lacking a definitive because it's not referencing a specific rhino species, but an or multiple indeterminate species of rhino(s), in contrast to the aforementioned species of fallow deer Dama vallonetensi as opposed to some unspecified species of fallow deer in the genus Dama Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which historically have been used for their medicinal properties more than satiating hunger considering how little flesh these berries provide": suggest "in historical times have been used..." to make it clear this is a comparison with non-archaic human behaviour, and "satiating hunger because these berries provide very little flesh" as more direct.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not everything above is fixed the way I would fix it, but the differences that remain are stylistic, not substantive. I think the article is FA standard. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens

[edit]

Comments from Edwininlondon

[edit]

Although I find the evolution of Homo fascinating, I am no expert and can only comment on prose:

  • a productive archaeological site, --> I would remove this to keep first sentence of the lead to the point
someone earlier said I should add that in Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of MOS:FIRST is different. I agree it is good to have this detail in the lead, just not in the first sentence. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • hence, the name --> comma really needed?
"hence" is a dependent clause so yeah Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • formally described --> may I suggest you include formally in the link? Makes it a bit more obvious where the link points to
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern humans --> link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the more conventional H. heidelbergensis --> I wonder if the lead would be more accessible if H. was simply spelled out
that's pretty unconventional Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • H. antecessor has since been reinterpreted as an offshoot, although probably one branching off just before the modern human-Neanderthal split. --> a bit cryptic for me this offshoot. Of what?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brain volume could have been 1,000 cc --> how does this compare with sapiens?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This industry has some similarities with the more complex Acheulean industry, an industry --> repetition
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • archaeologist Francisco Jordá Cerdá --> link archaeologist
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • palaeontologist --> link
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • field seasons from 2003 to 2007 --> plural here seems fine but why singular season for "first field season, 1994–1996"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • opting to leave it at Homo sp. --> any updates since 2011?
no Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the stone tool --> Additionally can be removed
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the only species identified during that time --> the only homo species?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dating attempt of H. antecessor remains are --> attempts?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Age and taphonomy --> taphonomy only appears as section header, which is fine normally but I have no idea what it means. Could it be used somewhere in line and then linked?
  • Electron spin resonance dating (ESR) --> Electron Spin Resonance dating (ESR)
why caps? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was under the impression that we handled acronyms with caps, but a little search led to MOS:CAPSACRS which says what you have is fine and what I wanted is wrong. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • usually classified as Homo ergaster [=? Homo erectus] --> is that ? a mistake or meant to be there? it looks odd
it's supposed to be there, as in, "maybe equals?" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • modern human/Neanderthal split --> why use a /?
it's a split and a slash is used to divide, as opposed to a hyphen which conjoins, and a dash which indicates a range. Looks like someone earlier changed it to a hyphen in the lead for some reason Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SLASH says "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash". Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how" and then it gives an example which isn't relevant to here Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lingual, or tongue, side --> do we lose anything if we just say "the tongue side"?
it's nice to have the actual term there Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • first use of palaeoanthropologist should be linked
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption Excavation of the Gran Dolina in 2012 --> link Gran Dolina (to help the picture scanners)
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption The mandible ATE9-1 --> link mandible
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris Stringer Caption --> what I don't get is where H. ergaster is in the diagram. Is it just below the erectus on the right?
it would be the erectus at the bottom as opposed to the two erectus branches which are supposed to represent mainland East Asian and Island Southeast Asian erectus Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption Map of Gran Dolina and Western European sites --> link Acheulean
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption H. antecessor may have moved along the Ebro river highlighted above (the Sierra de Atapuerca --> link Sierra de Atapuerca
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image Trinchera_Atapuerca2.jpg does not really work without the user clicking on it to enlarge as none of the labels 1 2 3 4 are readable.
I don't know what I can do about that. The image would have to be ridiculously big to see the tiny white numbers Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a new version with bigger labels and more contrast. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find. Interesting read. Thank you for bringing it here at FAC. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • "from 1.2 to 0.8 million years ago". I see this claim in the body regarding footprints, but it is more qualified there - is the simple statement here supported by sources?
The 1.2 date is the Sima del Elefante site, and 0.8 is rounding up 0.77 for Gran Dolina, which are mentioned in the bulleted list of dating attempts in Age and taphonomy Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first fossils were found in the Gran Dolina cave in 1994". Text mentions other archaic human remains found there much earlier - were those determined not to be this species?
The Sima de los Huesos hominins are classified into H. heidelergensis with strong affinities to Neanderthals, and are much younger than the Gran Dolina Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no intact braincase has been discovered" - don't see this claim in text?
A bit less direct in the text, in cannibalism I have "There are no complete skulls, elements from the face and back of the skull are usually percussed"
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |URL=
I don't understand Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you're already linking to a particular site using an identifier like PMC, S2CID, etc, you should not repeat that using the URL parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about s2cid. Are there anymore I have to check? I'm not too familiar with these kinds of identifiers Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PMC/PMID. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I checked all the pmc's, and just the pmid's alone don't link to the full article, only the abstract Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 is missing language.
it's in English Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sourcing issue, but also noted in passing that some style editing is needed here - eg hyphenation of compounds. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, more needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific? The hyphens seem fine to me Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, "20–25 year old" - the dash is correct but hyphens are missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally use hyphens like that, but done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, any update on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 26 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) 25 September 2022 [20].

1997–98 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if everyone is thoroughly bored of these by now, but here's my 17th nomination of a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C. - this one will (fingers crossed) complete an unbroken run of FAs from 1985 to 2001 (no idea why I left this one till now......). In this particular season the club came within the thickness of a goalpost of reaching the play-offs and sadly a fan died in fighting outside the ground, the only time I can recall such a tragic event happening at Priestfield Stadium...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but the Southall image is of quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - Southall image removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

[edit]

I'll leave this as a placeholder and add some comments soon. I have an FAC right above this one in case it interests you to review it. Regards.--NØ 04:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Results improved in the second half of the season and with one game remaining Gillingham were sixth in the table, which would be sufficient for a place in the promotion play-offs." - This could use a comma after "season"
  • I have been discouraged from using the word "however" in the past so I think this could be safely removed from the one sentence in the lead where it's used.
  • "The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, was 10,507 for a game against Fulham in March; the game was marred by fighting between rival supporters which resulted in a Fulham fan dying." - Pretty long sentence here so the part after the semicolon might benefit from being split.
  • There seem to be a bunch of overlinks, not sure if these are intentional but I still thought I should point them out: Preston North End, midfielder, Bristol City, Promotion and relegation.
The article is really well-done so I think that will be all from me.--NØ 08:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all done I think. I have left the first use only of both "promotion" and "relegation" linked to promotion and relegation as I think it is valid to link both, even though it's to the same target article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "and with one game remaining Gillingham were sixth in the table" - maybe place a comma after remaining.
  • "The club's first-choice kit consisted of blue shirts, blue shorts, and blue socks" - can we find a way to not repeat blue three times? Perhaps "blue shirts, shorts, and socks" or "shirts, shorts, and socks that were all blue"?
  • "Gillingham played five matches in October and won four of them, defeating Bristol City, Wycombe Wanderers, Wigan Athletic and Plymouth Argyle" - comma before Plymouth since you are using oxford commas throughout the article.
  • "Akinibiyi, Butler, Ashby, Andy Hessenthaler and Galloway" - oxford comma needed per above.

Support - aside from the few nit-picks above, I don't have much else to add. Another worthy candidate to add to your series of Gillingham F.C. season. FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review, all the above fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review by Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a question about this part, a decision which led to a lengthy and acrimonious court case between him and Scally. Do we know the result of this case? Would it be relevant to briefly mention here?

This is my only comment regarding the prose so I will also do a source review to get that out of the way.

  • It is not required for a FAC, but I would encourage you to archive web citations, such as Citation 70, to avoid any potential future headache.
  • The citations are all appropriate for a FA and an article on this topic, and everything is structured well.
  • I'd say Nottingham is worth a link in the "Works cited" section. It is a recognizable enough city, but I could see some readers not being familiar with it, as opposed to a place like London.

Again, there is not much to comment on. It looks like everything regarding the prose as already been addressed by the above reviews. Once my question about the court case is answer and the Nottingham link is added, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose and pass its source review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your review, all addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion and this passes my source review. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - might I now launch another nom...? You may be able to hazard a guess at the general topic :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire away... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:40, 10 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) 24 September 2022 [21].

Bleed American

[edit]
Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American. We had previously taken this to FAC, but the nomination stalled after only receiving one support, so this is the second attempt. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For any passer-bys, I can't seem to remove the error message with ref #116, even though it is defined. MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Very familiar with the album, one of my favorites.

  • I am somewhat surprised not to see Andy Greenwald's book, Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, used as a source, since it includes discussion of Jimmy Eat World and Bleed American. You should be able to get the relevant parts from Google Books preview. Sellout: The Major Label Feeding Frenzy That Swept Punk by Dan Ozzi may also have something.
Ping me when you're ready for me to continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Added.[22][23] MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trombino offered to work for free during the recording sessions, confident he would be reimbursed by the album's predicted commercial success.[13] " If I read this right, he wasn't working for free, he was just deferring payment until the band had cash.
  • ""various popular songs". The source does not say popular.
  • The music video for "The Middle" is described twice in the same paragraph, probably better the second time.
  • "The music video for "Sweetness" shows the band in stationary " in stationary?
  • "The band supported on Blink-182 and Green Day" strike "on"
  • ""the Promise Ring" is double-linked.
  • Greenwald's comments about "music, any music, equals salvation" as a theme of the record (page 107) seems worth including.
  • "Greenwald said Bleed American going platinum was one factor in emo reaching mainstream media attention in mid-2002, alongside Vagrant Records have significant sales figures on its releases and Dashboard Confessional appearing on MTV Unplugged.[141] " Should "have" be "having"?
That's what I got.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images given are appropriately licensed, but could a sample be included under a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily could, we just haven't decided on which to use. "The Middle" is probably a good bet. dannymusiceditor oops 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Danny and myself were wondering, does the sample have to be of a certain section? For example, we were thinking the intro/first verse would be a better selection instead of, say, the chorus. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, we think the song's opening riff may be its biggest defining part. Unusual, for sure, but we firmly believe this kept the song memorable over the years. dannymusiceditor oops 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally you're going to want to pick something that is the subject of sourced commentary. See WP:SAMPLE for additional guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, has this been resolved? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A sample has been added, but it appears to exceed 10% of the original (see WP:SAMPLE) and the FUR is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've shortened it and updated the FUR. MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Although Guerillero has passed the source review, I see that a formal SR was still requested at WT:FACSR. I have some concerns.

  • What makes Punknews.org a high-quality reliable source that it's been used so prominently throughout the article?
  • Source 44 - what makes Alternative Press a high-quality reliable source?
  • Source 53 - the title is América Sangra not America Sangra. Plus, it needs translation using |trans-title=.
  • Source 135 - a recent a discussion at WT:CHARTS found that Irish-charts is not a reliable source (at least not up to FA standards).
Thank you for the detailed response to my questioning of the reliability of some sources. It's a pass from me. I'll probably try to conduct a general review sometime later, should this fail to get enough attention. FrB.TG (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: We may need your help with that general review in order to have this get any chance of passing. dannymusiceditor oops 05:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

For a general review. In the meantime, I would appreciate a source review for my FAC, but that is not required. FrB.TG (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on when you'll get to this? As for yours, I believe it has a strong chance of passing without my comment, and have nothing of note to contribute. dannymusiceditor oops 04:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I have the following suggestions:
  • "It was recorded with Mark Trombino and the band serving as producers in October and November 2000 at the Cherokee and Harddrive studios in Los Angeles." The -ing placement is odd. I would just use "served". Also, I would add a "respectively" at the end of the sentence to clarify that the October recording was at the Cherokee and the November recording in LA.
  • "coinciding with tours of Australia and Japan" - whose tours?
  • "Each single from Bleed American managed to enter the top twenty" - "managed to enter" -> "entered"
  • "The most successful was "The Middle", which reached the number-one spot"
  • "As of September 2016, the album has sold over 1.6 million copies." Worldwide or just in the US?
  • "by the likes of Addicted to Noise, CMJ, and Kerrang!, among others" - "the likes of" makes "among others" redundant and vice versa.
  • "As a result of this, any trust the band had"
  • Los Angeles, California should be de-linked per WP:OL.
  • "In order to save money" - prose redundancy
  • "and as such that theme "runs throughout the entire album."[30]" The full stop should be placed outside the quotation mark as per MOS:LQ.

Down to the end of overview section. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all of these. MusicforthePeople (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • including "Crimson and Clover" by Tommy James and the Shondells, "Our House" by Madness, "Kickstart My Heart" by Mötley Crüe and "Don't Let's Start" by They Might Be Giants - need an oxford comma here to maintain consistency.
  • The new wave-esque "The Middle", includes - no comma needed.
  • "The drum parts were played in unison by Lind, Adkins and Trombino" - oxford comma. Check other instances as well - either do it everywhere or don't do it at all.
Removed them across the article. MusicforthePeople (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The whoah vocalizations were intended" - maybe put whoah in quotes.
  • "it features the inclusion of a piano" -> "it includes a piano"
  • "It deals with being half-open, half-closed with a person" - I'm not sure what "half-closed" means.
  • "DreamWorks Records' A&R member Luke Wood" - A&R has been used twice but not written out in its first instance. Its use without writting it out first is rather colloquial.
  • Lind said the label had a solid working relationship with their artists, "[t]hey understand what a career is, like how fragile it is". Full stop before the quotation sign.
  • the second half of Bleed American was "quite strong, and really fleshes out the musical ideas from the record." MOS:LQ
  • The reception section suffers from "A said B, C said D" structure where one opinion is listed after another without much cohesion. I would do some rearranging and summarizing so that each paragraph, for example, focuses on certain aspects that were praised/criticized by reviewers (see WP:RECEPTION for a better explanation). For example, the emo elements could all be organized in one paragraph. As it stands, it is mentioned several times at random places.
  • "30,000 copies", "July 2002", "173,000 copies", "March 2002", "September 2016", "1.6 million" - WP:NBSP needed. Check thoroughly to find other instances I might've missed
  • "The Middle" reached number five on the Billboard Hot 100. I would mention that the Hot 100 is an American chart.
  • "Sweetness" peaked at number 75 on the Billboard Hot 100.[124] It also charted at number two on Alternative Songs -> "..peaked at number 75 on the Billboard Hot 100,[124] number two on Alternative Songs"
  • "Greenwald said Bleed American going platinum" - "going platinum" sounds a little colloquial. FrB.TG (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of these except the reception part, which I'll do next. MusicforthePeople (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Done my best with reception; those kind of sections aren't my forte, Danny is better at those, but he's away. Everything has been addressed. MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks better but it needs some more work as it's still quite repetitive at places. For example, the second paragraph begins with "Multiple reviewers praised the songwriting quality and guitarwork", which already clarifies the aspects picked up for praise. Then we have quotes like "compelling lyrics, driving guitar work", which is almost tautological at this point. The summarizing part can be done better in my opinion. You don't need to name and quote every reviewer. For example, when mentioning the guitar work, I would mention all the positive parts said instead of listing one opinion after another. Something like The guitar work was praised as "driving" and "uplifting" by some reviewers, although Blender felt it undermined the album's mainstream potential. There are better ways to do it than my suggested phrasing, but I hope this gives you an idea of what I'm looking for. The same could be done for the the songwriting part. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear - the example you provided suggests to me like you are requesting we cut substantial amounts of material; are you sure there will be enough left over if we begin making these types of changes? I reworked that paragraph substantially, and parts of the other two. I will give songwriting a look next. dannymusiceditor oops 06:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major cut-down, but I was suggesting it be done in summary style instead of "Guitar work was praised. A called it great, B said it was excellent and C thought it was marvelous". I like what you have done here, but you could restore some of the quotes as examples. Something like "The songwriting and guitarwork was praised by ..., with comments on the 'catchy melodies', 'bouncy rhythms' and 'a tacklebox of hooks'". FrB.TG (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have thought of that approach without you! Appreciate it. I've attempted to address it accordingly. dannymusiceditor oops 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for your patience. I think the reception section is much better now. Supporting mainly on prose and sourcing. FrB.TG (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PerfectSoundWhatever

[edit]

Unfamiliar with FAC, so will only leave comments, no support/opposing. Please trout me if I say/do anything stupid :)

  • Acclaimed Music seems to just be a list aggregator. Why is it reliable, and why are you using it? It makes more sense to link to the individual lists instead and this feels like an impediment to verifiability.
Looking over the WP:ALBUMS archives, there's a discussion where Dan56 has given various pieces of evidence for reliability. We would link to the original, individual lists if they were online/still existed. I've replaced links for two of them. MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • odd jobs linking to wiktionary:odd jobs is MOS:OVERLINKING. Any English speaker who knows the meaning of the 2 separate words but not the phrase can infer the phrase's meaning from the following descriptions of the jobs.
  • Taking a look at genres:
    • pop punk is unsourced. Ref 26 backs up pop-punk but not power pop, ref 29 backs up power pop but not pop-punk. Distribute the citations accordingly.
    • Synch infobox genres with prose genres. Emo pop is missing from the infobox.
    • "performed with punk energy and alt-rock smarts" from the Allmusic source (ref 21) implies the album having aspects of alt-rock, not being alt-rock, so I would remove it, especially since there are 2 other citations.
    • Absolutepunk's (ref 26) quote for emo is not great: "[the album] is infused with their now-unmistakable brand of angst-ridden emo, making it a pop-punk sound no other bands have successfully duplicated". A sound being infused with emo does not mean the album is emo.
      • Personally, I disagree and believe that saying a whole album "infused with" emo is strong enough language; however, you pointed out the second clause of the sentence which seems to undermine that very same initial statement. Whatever you're more comfortable with. dannymusiceditor oops 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, not happy with citing PunkNews for emo (ref 27). The quote is "If you hate emo, or the poppier side of things, you'll hate this". This does not explicitly attribute the album as emo; it equally says pop music haters would dislike the album, but one wouldn't cite the album as pop.
    • Per the 2 above, I would remove emo, as the claims are flimsy. Besides, we (correctly attributed) cite emo pop, which is a subgenre of emo anyways. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: Made the changes. MusicforthePeople (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PerfectSoundWhatever, 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) 20:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'd love to help, but I'm really just not that comfortable with the FAC process and wouldn't be confident enough with applying support/opposes. I am trying to learn more about FAC, hence which is why I left comments, but I can't in good faith vote at the moment. Good luck in your promotion though! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:31, 23 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) 25 September 2022 [68].

Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Anarchyte (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After an unsuccessful (albeit low participation) first attempt back in 2018, I am nominating Monaco for FA status again. I have gone through it several times over the interim years to ensure that it meets the criteria. Everything is up to date with the announced sequel, and all the other sections have all the relevant information. I look forward to any suggestions you may have. Anarchyte (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The storyline link in the lead seems unnecessary to me as it is a concept most readers will already know.
  • Xbox 360 should be linked in the lead.
  • I have a comment for this part, with critics complimenting its ability to feel harmonious with the gameplay. I would avoid the sentence construction (with X verb-ing). It is a note that I have received and I have seen often in the FAC space. I have been repeatedly told it is not appropriate for a FA writing so I would remove any instance of these in the article.
    • I've removed the one mentioned, but just to note, are you referring to all instances of "verb-ing" or just "with x verb-ing" (i.e., "saying", "stating", etc)? I will go through and reword some of the reception section "ing"s now regardless.
  • Is the part about the game being originally conceived as a "combination of The Sims, Diablo, and Hitman" notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? While it is interesting information, it seems more like a detail best left in the article. If anything, it may be more noteworthy to mention this was originally envisioned as a Xbox Live Indie Games.
    • Reworded that portion: After a hiatus, Schatz returned to the game and continued development, initially with the plan of releasing it as an Xbox Live Indie Game. Let me know what you think, and strike if you think this is suitable.
  • I am not entirely convinced the quote box in the "Development and release" section is necessary, especially since there is already quite a bit in that section. It looks rather cluttered to me.
    • I quite like quote boxes in development sections as they provide the reader with insight into why the game was developed, straight from the developers in a way that paraphrasing and encyclopedic writing can't. I do appreciate your opinion here though, so if others also think it's not necessary, I'll cut it. One way around the cluttered right side of the article could be to align the award image to the left, but I wanted to avoid any MOS:SANDWICH concerns.
  • The "they were crazy" quote does not seem particularly useful or informative to me.
  • It is not necessary to have the citation after this part, a level designer and producer for Monaco, since the same citation is used at the end of the same sentence.
  • I would include a link to the porting article for the first mention of "port" in the article.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes such as "bold", "wonderful", and "sloppy" as they are not particularly informative and take away from the other quotes in the article.
    • Removed all from Reception. I've kept "gold" in Development and release as I don't think the same message could be conveyed without it.
  • This idea, Reviewers compared Monaco to other games and films, is mentioned in the lead and the article, but I only see a connection being made to Ocean's 11. What are the other connections being made?
  • Why not put the information about the sales together? There is currently information on it in the first and last paragraphs of the "Reception" section, and I think it would be better to have it all together.
  • I am not sure the awards should have their own sub-section. It looks choppy to have such a short sub-section and it may be best to integrate this information in the main "Reception" section.
  • Why not just use Monaco II instead of Monaco 2 if that is the announced title?

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments on the prose as I will leave the images and the sources to other reviewers. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Aoba47. I've replied above. I'll just note that in 2018, JimmyBlackwing conducted a review of the reliability of the sources and not much has changed since then (except for the removal of Metro and Softpedia). Assuming that is sufficient, the sources just need a spot-check review, which I'd been conducting myself while I rewrote portions. Anarchyte (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left some responses to your responses. I think a separate source review has to be done for the FAC and I do not think it cares over from a peer review (although that is only my understanding). Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the reception section to incorporate the awards, so I think that's everything. I've left aligned this image in #Development and release to try to reduce the amount of white space being {{clear right}}ed in #Sequel. I don't think MOS:SANDWICH will have any issue with this arrangement. Anarchyte (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I'm not sure, I had a look at some other FAs in various topics and it looks like as long as the images aren't large, this sort of placement is fine: 1, 2, 3, 4. I think MOS:SANDWICH is for when you place two wide images are directly beneath each other in the wikitext, making it impossible to unsandwich the text regardless of the screen width. If you zoom in on this article, the text gets unsandwiched (zooming in on MOS:SANDWICH results in one image directly following the other). @Gog the Mild: As a coordinator, perhaps you could shed some light onto how sandwiching is handled? Anarchyte (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two clear cases of sandwiching in the article which need resolving. Or I would be happy to do it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for clarifying. I assume they're the screenshot and award images? What I don't understand is how these are violations when the articles linked above passed without issue. I'm fine with relocating the award image, but left aligning screenshot images parallel with infoboxes is something present in pretty much every video game FA. I clicked on a few from WP:VG/FA and found these immediately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Anarchyte (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know when sandwiching became part of the MoS; the FAC criteria have changed over time; not everything always gets picked up at FAC; images often get added or moved by drive by editors after promotion.

I see no sandwiching in numbers 3, 6 or 7; I would not personally have promoted any of the others. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, is this not sandwiching: Imgur album? If not, is it because the images are smaller, and if so, what size do you or Nikkimaria suggest to avoid this issue? Upright 1.4 might work, or we could revert to the default and add a "(click to expand)" at the end of the caption. Otherwise, how do you suggest I rearrange the screenshot? I've collapsed part of the infobox to reduce the length of the right-hand side already. I've also played around with the concept of center aligning it and adding another screenshot using {{multiple images}} but that template forces px size. Anarchyte (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. My comments were primarily focused on the prose so I will leave images to whoever does the image review and to any other interested editors, and that does not prevent me from supporting the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Now that I've removed the pull-quote, do you think the sandwiching could be avoided by reducing the screenshot to upright ~1.4 and then aligning right? Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if you put the image in "Gameplay" on the right you should be fine re sandwiching. I don't see any need to reduce the image size, but that is up to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

[edit]

Review in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Oppose for now. I think the biggest stumbling block I have with the article is prose. In general, there's a lot of unnecessarily long or confusing sentence constructions when something shorter and clearer could do. Lots of passive voice, etc. In addition, the gameplay section at this point feels like it presumes too much knowledge of the game to be easy to follow. I don't feel like I actually have an idea of what it really means to play this game, what the loop is like.[reply]

  • Prose:
    • The game features both a single-player and cooperative game modes. The former sees the player explore Monaco's storyline, which consists of four acts: The first three follow various characters' recollections of prior experiences and the final act is played from the perspective of the police. Separate from this, Monaco's cooperative mode allows up to four players to partake in heists and robberies in different locations.—Why bother explaining there are two modes if you're going to mention them sequentially? You could just say "In the single-player mode [...] A separate cooperative mode [...]"
    • Wintory's soundtrack also received a positive reception, as critics complemented its ability to feel harmonious with the gameplay.
    • Players must traverse the stages You mention stages before they're actually explained in the next sentence.
    • Given fog of war is talking about the more general sense, not video games, I think you need to do a better job explaining that for the purposes of people who don't know what it is.
    • Maps, stages, levels—if these are the same thing than you should probably use the same word consistently so it's clear.
    • What is a "condensed" version? Is Enhanced just a shorter campaign?
    • It's unclear that the player is controlling the characters, and if they can only use one per stage or you have access to more.
    • The quantity of the gun's ammunition is limited — do all the guns have a collective ammo counter? Or is this talking about a single weapon?
    • The third paragraph of gameplay mostly seems to consist of material that feels like it should belong elsewhere. The line about characters in the second paragraph detailing characters, for example; or the bit about cooperative play where you talk about the differences in modes.
    • They discuss the characters' imminent deportation — so the Locksmith and Voltaire are escaping together?
    • whose murder had been altered by the thieves — altered is a really weird word here. Do you mean that the murder was staged?
    • The Pickpocket claims the Gentleman has assumed Davide's identity - But two sentences ago you said Davide was the Gentleman.
    • He asks about the Mole, whom she says has already been caught. - Unclear pronouns.
      • The Lookout is female, but as that hasn't been established I've swapped the pronouns for names. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I performed a light line edit on the plot, but I'm still running into issues. I get that part of the idea of the plot is that it's twisty, but the different timelines and events make it really hard to grok what's going on, and I'm wondering if part of the solution is radically simplifying parts of it. In particular, the Lookout's section gives us a bunch of details about the characters but since we don't know if any of it is actually true it seems weird to dwell on it. Is there any reason that section can't be reduced to "Inspector Voltaire interrogates the Lookout for information on the thieves' backgrounds, in exchange for an offer of asylum." or similar?
        • " To further confuse the police, the thieves plant evidence with Davide's fingerprints at a different crime scene. " — the tense here is also confusing, I presume they did this prior to their capture? But the tense suggests it happens concurrently.
        • I'm left confused why the crooks would blow up the boat and how that would confuse Interpol, how the Gentleman could receive a phone call from Davide if he was actually the Gentlemen, and stuff like that—there's so many twists to this plot that I cannot actuall tell what are real events.
          • That's kind of the point of the game's storyline. Because it's delivered through different alibis, the series of events is not sequential. Each paragraph is a different recount of the events. Anarchyte (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • On second thought, I wasn't satisfied with the Davide reveal in the Locksmith section either. Based on the dialogue in the levels Scorpion And The Frog and Securitech Corp. (you can find transcriptions online if necessary), the Gentleman identifies the person that called him as Davide, rather than the caller identifying themselves. I've reworded it to account for this. Anarchyte (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a side note, why are there citations to the game in the plot? Presumably the game's plot is being used to cite it already, and I don't really see what the quotes add (should probably be doing a better job summarizing without needing to quote the game so directly.)
    • I don't think the pull quote in development meets with MOS:PULLQUOTE.
    • To publish the game on Xbox Live, Schatz partnered with video game publishing company Majesco Entertainment.}} Wait, so it got rejected twice, but the next we hear it's being published? What changed?
    • Wintory later persuaded Schatz that a complete original soundtrack was warranted. is immediately followed by Wintory was excited by the request and both these statements feel like they cancel each other out; did Schatz ask for a full original soundtrack unprompted, or did Wintory convince him, in which case the "request" language makes no sense?
    • Why does the article use present tense for "Pocketwatch Games has updated the game" when the next sentence says that it's no longer under active development?
    • Repeated overlinking (e.g. Xbox Live Indie Games, Xbox Games Store)
    • I'm left a bit confused as to what the development of Monaco actually looked like. Was it just developed by Schatz with help from Nguyen?
      • Yes, from what I gathered from my research and emailing Schatz, he was the lead developer until he met Nguyen, after which they both worked on it together, but Schatz maintained the lead developer role. MobyGames confirms this on the credits page. Which aspects of the Development section cause confusion? I thought the Nguyen content made it obvious that he was a secondary developer behind Schatz.
    • Reception section starts with restating an award we've already heard about in development.
    • Weird we go from talking about critical reception to talking about a platform's sales, then back to reception, and then back to sales. Should be rearranged.
    • The reception section seems to be missing overall impressions of the game, beyond the metascores; it also seems weird to end with "oh yeah reviewers compared this game to these other pieces of media" instead of dealing the the game's actual reception.
      • I can add the numerical ratings given by each reviewer, if this is what you mean. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My thrust was that "hey this reminds of this thing" seems like something you would lead off a section, instead of ending the reception with it, and that while it has a part-by-part breakdown of the critical response to music, modes, etc., there's not really anything besides the meta score telling us how people thought about the game as a whole. There's some of it in the coop section, but I think it could be evinced further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I've rearranged the section to start (after the first para) with the comparisons. By "game as a whole", do you mean something like Alex Navarro (Giant Bomb) proposed a similar viewpoint and held the opinion that some of the later levels turned into "tedious exercises in trial-and-error", however ultimately awarded the game a 4/5 rating and commended the rest of the gameplay. (see final para for how this currently reads)? Anarchyte (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media:
    • Images seem appropriately sourced and licensed.
  • References:
    • Doesn't seem like There is currently no release date established and only a PC release has been confirmed. can be effectively cited to a news article dating to the initial news that's now several months old.
    • Spotchecks forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, David Fuchs. I should be able to get these resolved within the next couple of days. I'll strike as I go. Anarchyte (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't strike my comments, as that makes it harder for me to check things off myself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I've removed the strikes and I'll just comment underneath each dotpoint instead. I've left some comments above and I'll address the rest soon. Anarchyte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's taking me a little bit longer to get around to this than I thought. I'll definitely have it done within another day. Anarchyte (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've left comments above. Thank you for your patience. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any other issues you wanted addressed? Anarchyte (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do another pass through the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, any update on this? I think Gog wants this FAC to resolve itself soon. Anarchyte (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Fuchs, just checking to see if your oppose still stand? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I've struck my oppose as I think my main issues have been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]
It needs a source review pass and a minimum of one further general support, ideally more. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll ask around. Thanks for the extra time. Anarchyte (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Will there be anything else required for this nomination once the outstanding spot-check is complete? Anarchyte (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. I will have a proper check as and if the spot check is signed off. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheJoebro64

[edit]
Extended content

Marking my spot. Review should be up within the next few days. JOEBRO64 00:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some initial comments:

  • "Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine is a 2013 stealth and action video game..." This is tautological. All stealth games are action games—stealth is a subgenre of action. I think you can remove "and action" from both the lede and the Gameplay section.
  • "The campaign is offered in two modes: "Classic" and "Enhanced", with the latter being a more condensed version." I think this needs more clarification. I had to read the source to understand that "Classic" is the unmodified campaign and "Enhanced" was a shorter version released in an update. (I think it would help to note that Enhanced wasn't in the initial release and was added in an update.)
  • Regarding the two references in the plot, I'm guessing they're there because of the quotations, but I don't think they're necessary. Per WP:VG/PLOT, "Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources."
  • "... Microsoft Game Studios twice rejected the game with marketability concerns." I'm noting this part of the lede because I don't think it's made clear within the prose itself. It's mentioned that Microsoft rejected the game and Schatz tried to improve its marketability the second time he pitched it, but not that Microsoft rejected it because it wasn't marketable. I'd either spell this out in the development section or chop this from the lede.

I'll be back for more, this is just to get started. JOEBRO64 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final round of comments:

  • I think the reception section, as it stands, is structured a bit weirdly. After the MC/awards/sales paragraph, you've got a summary paragraph, and then three paragraphs dedicated to specific points. I think it'd be better off if you had summative statements to start each paragraph, then get into the specifics. I think this is what David was referring to when he suggested structuring it more like Donkey Kong Country's. This is a pretty simple change; I just did this test edit to show off how it'd look.
    • Right, happy to make this change. Just want to clarify one thing beforehand: are you suggesting the second paragraph of Reception (The cooperative gamemode was highly praised...) be removed and have the summaries present in that paragraph prefixed to their relevant paragraphs? Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • More or less, basically just how I did it in my test edit. Once that's done, the only other change I'd make would be to relocate the comparisons to somewhere that makes more sense (once my comment below has been addressed). JOEBRO64 01:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I've merged the paragraph into the rest of the prose. I attached the comparisons to the end of the soundtrack and changed the leading sentence to be more about the soundtrack/game comparisons than the soundtrack's reception. Anarchyte (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd make sure you have direct refs to back up the summative statements like "The coop was well received" and "The soundtrack was well received", as these are generalizations that could be challenged
  • I think the comparisons to films/other games need a little clarification. Were they positive? Negative? It's not entirely clear
  • This is just personal preference, so if you don't want to make this change you don't have to, but I think the review box would be better off without the PC/Xbox division. In addition to thinking the normal, single-column one just looks better, platform differences are virtually indistinguishable for modern games. Most reviewers don't (and didn't in the case of Monaco) distinguish between the Xbox and PC versions. Just use a break to separate the MC scores in the style of Grand Theft Auto V#Re-release.
  • I'd say you have enough content for a separate "Release" section in between Development and Reception, using the last paragraph of Development and release and the sales information in the first paragraph of Reception.
    • I've split Development and release into two sections (Development, and Release) but I've not moved the sales information. I can't find an example of an article that has sales outside of reception.

And that's it. Nice work JOEBRO64 14:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I'll have these done by the end of the day. Anarchyte (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheJoebro64, I've replied above. Most are resolved, just want some clarification on how you want the reception changed. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's all done, TheJoebro64. Thanks for the review and your patience. Anarchyte (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely done. JOEBRO64 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Also, not a sourcing comment, but I noticed the Sequel section in particular would benefit from copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review. I've also reworded the sequel section as requested. Anarchyte (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the replies. I've responded above. Anarchyte (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

  • Usually work and publisher are only linked on first instance, not on repeat (Engadget & Yahoo are linked in ref 2 so don't need linked in ref 7, etc)
  • Ref 11: Destructoid is listed on WP:VG/RS as situational. Its usage here verges on game guide-y - I'm not sure that "Due to each character having different abilities and strengths, players are encouraged to consider the objective of the mission when selecting their character, as some may be more or less useful." is strictly encyclopedic.
  • Ref 19: Thank you for including specific timestamps and quotes.
  • Ref 21: However I see no timestamps here. Why?
  • Ref 23 & 24: I'm going to assume there's no secondary source available for this. In that light, do you think it's significant enough to merit inclusion at the FA level?
    • The purpose of the paragraph was to highlight the remixes, not the release date. I don't mind whether it stays or goes. What do you think? Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, actually, the Kotaku ref talks about the release on bandcamp so I'm fine to leave it.
  • Ref 28: Destructoid again. In this case it's being used to support a fact, which VGRS says is okay if the author can be established as reliable. So: how is Jordan Devore reliable at the FA level?
  • Ref 29 & 30: Is the primary source needed given that there's also a secondary source cited? Actually, the secondary source has inconclusive reliability on VGRS - is there nothing better in general?
    • On review, the Gamereactor source is useless. I've swapped it for Kotaku. This article was published on the date of release, but it does not explicitly state the release date, so let me know if you think this is enough to warrant cutting the primary source. I could not find anything that referenced Humble Games that wasn't primary. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, that is annoying. Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. It's pertinent and factual so I don't see an issue with it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: EGMNow should be spelled out as Electronic Gaming Monthly I think, since EGMNow is just the URL of the website. It also doesn't need the publisher as the publisher is effectively the same as the work
  • Ref 38: This is an oddity, but I think that review typo'd the guy's name! Fairly certain it's this guy. We're allowed to fix typos, so I think we should correct the guy's name.
  • Ref 44 & 47: Destructoid again. Seems to me the award in question is more like a yearly best-of list. Can you justify the relevance as an award?
    • I don't really have a justification other than when I introduced that source VGRS listed Destructoid as reliable, so I considered the award to be relevant. Destructoid is a popular news outlet, so there is some relevance, but let me know if you think it should be cut. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'd be fine mentioning that Destructoid named it as such in the prose, but would avoid calling it an "award" per-se, and might take it out of the review box.
  • Ref 56: GameFront is not listed at VGRS at all, and from our article on it, I'm struggling to see it as a high-quality reliable source.

I edit conflicted with Nikkamaria in starting this source review, but as our comments didn't seem to overlap much, I figured it was fine to carry on with mine as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for taking the time to review. Hope everything's okay irl. I've left some replies above. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything's good, fortunately :) Cats were acting weird and it seemed like it could've been serious, but turned out not to be. Anything I didn't reply to above is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear that everything's fine. I've replied above. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All comments resolved one way or another, happy to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Blue Pumpkin Pie

[edit]

I couldn't find too many issues. The only thing I might clarify is why the Nintendo Switch is called "the complete edition".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only called that because it contains all the extra content that wasn't available on launch for PC. I'll make a minor adjustment to the prose to note this (supported by the primary reference to eShop). Anarchyte (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed my vote to Support. On a side note: In my opinion, I don't think it's easy to read the Reception section with so many of the reviews starting with the name and sidelining the publication/website they represent. But if other editors so far don't see a problem with it, then I will chalk it up to personal preference.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check by Lazman321

[edit]

Currently in progress here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:07, 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2022 [69].

Gurl.com

[edit]
Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Prose review by Anarchyte

[edit]

Lead

  • female sexuality - link to Human female sexuality (also link first instance in #Zine).
  • teen magazine - link to Teen magazine (also link first instance in #History).
  • Unlike teen magazines in the 1990s - thoughts on Unlike the teen magazines of the 1990s? Just an idea. Alternatively, given the article has already established the 1990s, Unlike the teen magazines of the era/decade?
  • unconventional approach to teen-related topics compared to mainstream media - "unconventional" implies a comparison with the mainstream media, no? Could consider cutting the second half.
  • contributions from its audience - not sure what this means. What type of contributions? Perhaps provide an example.
  • anti-pornography advocates - link to Opposition to pornography (also link first instance in #Critical reception).

History

  • as the Internet lacked communities for girls in the 1990s - as the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s.
  • as a property - as an asset or as property, or simply cut and leave was included in?
  • As the article notes an "undisclosed amount" for the PriMedia sale, do you have the numbers for any of the other sales? Out of curiosity more than anything, but it might be useful to include, especially for the initial Delia's purchase.

Content

  • the website allows contributions - change to the website allowed contributions. The site is defunct.
  • One of Gurl.com's notable contributions was its comics section - Not sure "contributions" is the correct word. My first instinct was that this is supposed to say "section" or something like that.
  • Try the Prom Dress Selector - this sounds consumerist to an onlooker. Maybe cut and only have the other two examples.
  • It also had personality quizzes, with one well-documented personality quiz being - repetition of "personality quiz". It also had personality quizzes, with a well-documented one being.
  • During Delia's acquisition - During Delia's ownership.
  • Many users used Gurlpages to host zines, one example being about female sexuality - if the source allows, Many users used Gurlpages to host zines about a range of topics, including female sexuality.
  • Consider moving and incorporating the final paragraph of #Zine into #Features. Registration is more of a feature than commentary on the zine portion of the site.

Will look over the rest later. Anarchyte (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

As this nomination has been open for almost a month and has yet to attract a general support, it is liable to be archived within the next couple days if considerable movement towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 18:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A month further and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless there is significant movement towards this in the next three or four days this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "as the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s": This is said in Wikipedia's voice, which means we would need good sourcing for it. It may well be true but I think the intention is to say that this was the opinion of the three women, so perhaps this should read "as they felt the Internet lacked such communities in the 1990s" or something similar.
  • 'The name of the website combined the "g" with the acronym "URL."' I'm not sure what we are trying to communicate with this sentence. The website name is a pun that refers to both "URL" and "girl"; I think you've phrased it this way because all readers will understand the "girl" but some might not know the "URL" acronym. I can't see the source you're using, but if it will support it I'd suggest phrasing it like this: 'The name of the website combined "girl" with the internet acronym [or just acronym] "URL".' The "G" at the start isn't the point.
  • "Odes, Drill, and McDonald continued to work on the website with Delia's": The sources may not specify, but do we know if they were taken on as employees of Delia's, or if Gurl.com continued to exist as a corporate entity, as a subsidiary, with the three women continuing to work for it?
  • "Gurl.com was included as property in Delia's online subsidiary, iTurf, in an attempt to launch an e-commerce market targeting Generation Y": what's the significance of "as property"? Was iTurf a subsidiary company that owned Gurl.com? Or was Gurl.com essentially a brand, rather than a company, that iTurf was given control of?
  • "topics such as female sexuality, which was often overlooked in traditional media aimed at teenagers in the 1990s": This is sourced to The Cut, which I don't think is good enough to have this in Wikipedia's voice. As above I suggest either finding another source for "was often overlooked", or changing this to assign it as an opinion.
  • "as the website was intended to be a counterpoint against aspirational fantasy": something can be a "counter against" or a "counterweight against", or a "counterpoint to", but I don't think it can be a "counterpoint against".
  • "Content on the website was organized based on topics, with regular sections named": would this lose anything if it were shortened to "Content on the website was organized into topics such as"?
  • I tried going back through archive.org to find old issues of the zine. Do your sources say how many issues there were? This, which is dated the some month as the acquisition by Delia's, implies there were only four issues, which is a bit of a surprise as the third was apparently up by January 1997 -- see here. (And any idea why they were hosted at NYU? Not important if the sources don't cover it; hosting was a bit Wild-West-ish back then.)
  • I think the content section needs a few dates. For example, from checking a few archive.org pages, it appears the presentation as a zine lasted a year or two past the acquisition by Delia's but not much more than that. The site lasted twenty-two years, and changed dramatically in that time, but the Content section speaks about the zine topics, features, games, and comics without making it clear what time period these apply to. Gurlmail.com and Gurlpages.com are given a date range, which is what I'm looking for. The sources may not let you be very specific, but we should convey whatever we can. Unfortunately digging through archive.org would be primary research so we can't do that.
  • "While Gurl.com could be accessed without an account, registration was required in order to submit content and participate in the chat room and message board, enforced in order to protect its community": The last clause is a bit disconnected from the rest of the sentence. And if the source permits, can we be less vague than "protect"? E.g. from harassment, trolls, online predators?
  • 'Early game content satirized beauty standards, such as "Hairy Gurl."' Is "Hairy Gurl" a game, or a character/game content? And as written this says that all the early games satirized beauty standards; is that really the case?
  • "some critics advised the book should be read by older audiences": surely what they meant is that it was not suitable for younger readers, or that it should not be read by younger readers, not that it should be read by older readers?
  • The critical reception section suffers from the A said B problem and needs to be reorganized for a more narrative flow.
  • "In 2005, scholar Sharon Mazzarella noted that Gurl.com was among the websites that helped girls be creative and empowered, though it was later overshadowed by moral panic surrounding their vulnerability online": what was overshadowed? As written it says that Gurl.com was overshadowed, but I think Mazzarella is probably saying something more general about how websites that encourage girls to interact online were affected by the moral panic, and not talking only about Gurl.com.
  • "creating a paradox on constructed norms and downplaying individual sexual agency": I think this is a little too academic in its phrasing.
  • "It was named as one of the websites associated with the growth of websites owned by teenage girls, creating a potential advertising market worth $150 billion USD in 2000": I don't follow this. It was never owned by teenage girls, was it?
  • "Duncan and Leander discovered that Gurl.com created spaces of both "resistance and conformity", as people who had websites on Gurlpages both expressed themselves in creative writing yet also listed personal information identifying their demographics and consumer habits": I think "discovered" is the wrong verb; it makes it sound as if their analysis is undoubtedly correct. Suggest rephrasing to use a verb like "described" or "considered".

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've made a few grammatical edits based on your suggestion and will get back to you on the parts with clarification and rewording. lullabying (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've struck the points I see you've addressed so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this point: "It was never owned by teenage girls, was it?" This is referring to the fact that Gurl.com inspired many young teenagers to start their own websites as well, particularly through Gurlpages. As for Gurl.com's zine (before it became an online community), the number of issues were not documented. lullabying (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the name of the website: I changed it according to your suggestions but the original source did state that the name originated from the letter "g" with the acronym "URL." lullabying (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a couple more above. I think "mentioned" still isn't right -- a verb like "mention", "note", or "discover" implies that what follows is undoubtedly true. I think we need a verb that makes it clear this is the opinion of Duncan and Leander. It looks like you haven't addressed the unstruck points above: some at least I still think need to be addressed, such as the organization of the critical reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "noted" to "observed" but I will change it back if it's not clear enough. I reworded Mazzarella's statement about the vulnerability of girls online and the source states that the moral panic is mostly surrounding how the youth were subsceptible to being exposed to harmful messages in online content. I will get to the other stuff once I review the sources. lullabying (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "topics such as female sexuality, which was often overlooked in traditional media aimed at teenagers in the 1990s": This is sourced to The Cut, which I don't think is good enough to have this in Wikipedia's voice. As above I suggest either finding another source for "was often overlooked", or changing this to assign it as an opinion. I reworded this. lullabying (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re The Cut, I'm not sure the new version really works either. The problem for me is that The Cut is just not a very good source for the assertion; putting the source in the article as you've done eliminates the issue of a general statement that is cited to a weak source, but now we have a statement in the article that is not very useful, because we're explicitly saying "a poor source said this" and a reader is going to wonder why we bother to mention it. I would have thought that the statement itself is accurate and could be sourced to something more authoritative.
I think the wording of the sentence about Mazzarella is improved, but it's still not clear what "it" refers to in "it was later overshadowed". Does Mazzarella mean that Gurl.com specifically was later overshadowed? If so I would make it "Gurl.com was later overshadowed" to remove the ambiguity. If Mazzarella means that the positive effects of "websites that helped girls be creative and empowered" were later overshadowed, I would make it something like "the positive effects of these websites were later overshadowed". As it stands I can't tell which meaning you intend.
Incidentally, I don't know if you're aware, but at FAC it's OK to intersperse your answers to reviewers' comments, replying to each bullet point with an indented comment. You can see this in other FACs at WP:FAC. You don't have to do it that way -- replying at the bottom as you are doing here is OK, and some prefer to do that -- but I didn't know if you were aware that it was an option. Some people prefer to do it that way because it makes it easier to see which points have been responded to and which are still outstanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a few more points based on the most recent changes. That's taken care of the main issues that were preventing me from supporting. Do you have any comments on the unstruck points above? In some cases there may be no change you can make to the article, since I'm asking whether the sources give more information about something, and they may not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a seat; I will be reviewing the prose, and have no connection to the subject. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • I believe what is meant by Gurl.com is known for being one of the first major websites aimed at teenage girls in the United States during the 1990s., but I am confused by the construction of this and other sentences stating this. I believe it means "Gurl.com was one of the first major websites aimed at teenage girls", and it was so because of the time of its launch. The construction as is, however, could support the interpretation that it was one of the first in the 1990s itself, which would be correct but perhaps not intended. If my interpretation is correct, I would advise pulling mention the 1990s from the highlighted sentence and As one of the first major websites aimed at teenage girls in the United States during the 1990s, [...].
  • Why is every instance of "internet" capitalized?
Lead
  • Clothing retailer Delia's purchased the site in 1997; it was later sold to PriMedia in 2001, who in turn sold it to iVillage in 2003. Alloy (later known as Defy Media) acquired it from iVillage in 2009. The separation of the purchase of the website by Alloy in 2009 into another sentence implies some special significance. Aside from Alloy being the final owner before the website went under, that doesn't seem to be the case from the article body.
  • Unlike teen magazines in the 1990s, [...] This clause would imply that Gurl.com was not itself a 1990s teen magazine. I advise a wording like "Gurl.com distinguished itself from other 1990s teen magazines with its [...]".
  • [...] and contributions from its audience. What form did this take? Editorials? Artwork?
  • Gurl.com was also met with criticism from conservative and anti-pornography advocates for its sex-positive stance and sex education resources, as well as privacy concerns. We know from the article body that it was not conservatives criticizing Gurl.com about privacy concerns, but this sentence would suggest that they were.
History
Content
  • Gurl.com drew inspirations [...] Should be singular "inspiration".
  • Unlike other online communities aimed at young women [...], I recommend "communities for young women" here; when a community takes aim at something, it is hostile to that something. I would also change "other" to "contemporary" here as the former could be read as comparing Gurl.com to all online communities for young women, without respect to time period as is intended here.
  • [...] Gurl.com had an edgier appearance [...] This doesn't communicate much. It lacks context for relative edginess, and I doubt Gurl.com had crying anime characters and blood splatter decals on the homepage. I would cut this clause and change the sentence to Unlike contemporary online communities for young women,[10] Gurl.com used a frank [...].
  • "The Boob Files" had first-person essays written about breasts. By whom?
  • Other notable comics [...] Recommend cutting "notable" here.
Hi Vami_IV, 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) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel comfortable supporting now, but my above quibbles stand. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed.

User:Lullabying, could you address the outstanding oints as a matter of urgency please? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anarchyte and User:Lullabying, have you read the instructions at WP:FAC? This nomination is filled with templates that shouldn't be used at FAC or FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to ping me, ma'am? Every one of my bullet-points thus far uses Template:Tq. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've swapped them for their respective colour templates. Anarchyte (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vami IV, FYI, {{tq}} is one of the templates that should not be used at FAC, per the instructions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted; I've already made the switch to Template:Green. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done should also not be used, also per the instructions. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support for Yolo4A4Lo

[edit]

Hi, I really like this article and found the subject interesting. I have some of comments though:

  • Weinstein's photo caption should be "pictured in 2017"
  • "Gurl.com drew inspiration from teen magazines and its initial launch used a zine format." needs comma after magazines
  • Awards table needs caption and scope row and col for accessibility per WP:DTT.
  • Source 7, 28, 34. Name of publications need to be linked so it's uniformed with other sources.

- Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I did everything requested. lullabying (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Changed my comments to support. I found the article very informative. If you have time and interested, maybe you could check out our FAC on Yuzuru Hanyu here? We need fresh perspective as many as we can. Thank you. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:30, 14 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) 22 September 2022 [70].

W. Somerset Maugham

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following successful FAC nominations or co-nominations for George Bernard Shaw, Hugh Walpole, P. G. Wodehouse and Arnold Bennett I've been working on another British writer, and hope his article will be found worthy to join the other four at FA. I had excellent input at peer review, and as ever, all comments on content, prose, structure or anything else will be gratefully received here. Tim riley talk 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Mostly a placeholder as yet, but why is the full name bolded at the start of the body? If I may be so bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't it oughter? Shows my mastery of the MoS after all these years. Happy to unbold it, which I shall forthwith do. Tim riley talk 20:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now done. Thank you, Wehwalt! Tim riley talk 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also in footnote 2?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've only been editing for 16 years, so I can be excused (ahem!). Fixed. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maugham never greatly liked the name, and was known by family and friends throughout his life as "Willie"" Which? William or Somerset?
  • "He successfully sued for divorce in 1916, citing Maugham as co-respondent.[11][61]" The birth of the child served to establish adultery, I assume? (after a hasty glance my notes re divorce from the Earl Russell's article) It might be well to cite the grounds.
  • "Samoa" Greater detail on this trip and why it was felt necessary (given that Samoa had been occupied by New Zealand at this point) might be interesting.
  • The source says "Germany had controlled Western Samoa until New Zealand occupied the island when war broke out in August 1914. The British had a strategic interest in Samoa, a turbulent and potentially troublesome island. The efficient German administration had been abruptly replaced by the government of New Zealand ... Vital information was needed about the use of the island's powerful radio station, the threat of German military forces and installations, and the danger from German warships still cruising the Pacific." That's about it – nothing more there, really, one can add to the article. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. Most interesting. I think I can safely Support--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as always, Wehwalt, for your input and support. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dudley

[edit]

Support. I read this at PR and Tim dealt with my niggles. A very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dudley, for your support here and v. helpful suggestions at PR. Tim riley talk 20:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • The lede says "Three years into an affair that produced their daughter, Liza." but the infobox says "Mary Elizabeth Wellcome", which confused me. Suggest replacing Liza with Mary or Mary Elizabeth.
  • "Shortly before the birth of the Maughams' fourth son the government of France proposed a new law" suggest a comma after son
  • "Maugham's biographer Selina Hastings describes as "the first step in Maugham's loss of faith" his disillusion when the God in whom he had been taught to believe failed to answer his prayers for relief from his troubles." The grammar is a little weird in this sentence. Perhaps, "Maugham's biographer Selina Hastings describes as "the first step in Maugham's loss of faith" was when God failed to answer his prayers for relief from his troubles." It tightens up the language and makes the sentence grammatically correct.
  • "While still in his teens he became a lifelong non-believer." I don't think still is needed and can be deleted.
  • "From 1892 until he qualified in 1897," What does qualified mean in this instance?
  • "In his work as a medical student Maugham met the poorest working class people:" Suggest a comma after student
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn so far as commas are concerned, but a hyphen would be an improvement in "poorest working-class people" I now notice. Duly done. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on his 65-year career as a man of letters." -> "on his 65-year career as a writer." to avoid MOS:IDIOM
  • I agree. I inherited this sentence from earlier versions. One is loth to change more than one must of earlier editors' contributions: one has a duty to avoid saying grandly "This is how I would phrase it", unless one can conscientiously say the existing phrasing is wrong or doesn't do the job properly. Your comment salves my conscience about imposing my preferred wording here. Now "career as a writer". – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless he had a wish to marry, which he later greatly regretted. Looking back, he described his early attempts to be heterosexual as the greatest mistake in his life." Suggest combining these two sentences together as "Nevertheless he had a wish to marry, which he later greatly regretted and later described his attempts to be heterosexual as the greatest mistake in his life."
  • "a Bildungsroman with unmistakably autobiographical elements." Remove unmistakably as an opinionated, POV term: it is possible that others might "mistake" and not notice the autobiographical terms, and the word isn't necessary.
  • "According to some of Maugham's intimates, the main female character, the manipulative Mildred, was based on "a youth, probably a rent boy, with whom he became infatuated", but Raphael comments that there is no firm evidence for this,[11][55] and Meyers suggests that she is based on Harry Phillips, a young man whom Maugham had taken to Paris as, nominally, his secretary for a prolonged stay in 1905.[56]" This is very long sentence, and I suggest putting a period after the quote and removing "but"
  • Good. Done.
  • "When the book was published in 1915 some of the initial reviews were favourable but many, both in Britain and in the US, were unenthusiastic." Put a comma after 1915.
  • No. See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn.
  • "In 1915 Syrie Wellcome became pregnant, and in September, while Maugham was on leave to be with her, she gave birth to their only child, a daughter, Mary Elizabeth, known as Liza." If Wellcome had a child, then we can assume that she was pregnant, so that detail is not necessary to include unless there was something notable about the pregnancy. Suggest: "In September 1915, Maugham was on leave to be with Syrie Wellcome while she gave birth to their only child Mary Elizabeth, known as Liza." I also think that the readers will assume that this is a daughter by the name, so this cuts down the sentence some more.
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn so far as the punctuation is concerned. As to the sentence, I agree we can lose "a daughter", and have blitzed it. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 1920 Maugham and Haxton set out on a trip that lasted more than a year." Comma after 1920
  • "which Maugham despised from the first, but found highly remunerative" -> "which Maugham despised but found highly lucrative" the article doesn't need to specify that he did not like it from the start, and I think lucrative is a more common word than remunerative.
  • In my experience – possibly an EngVar thing – there is a shady overtone to "lucrative" that "remunerative" doesn't suffer from. WSM's immediate dislike is worth mentioning. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maugham, as always, observed closely and collected material for his stories wherever they went." Delete as always as unnecessary
  • "In Maugham's absence his wife found an occupation, becoming a sought-after interior designer." -> "In Maugham's absence, his wife became a sought-after interior designer." To reduce the number of words necessary
  • "During the 1920s Maugham published one novel (The Painted Veil, 1925), three books of short stories (The Trembling of a Leaf (1921), The Casuarina Tree (1926) and Ashenden (1928)) and a travel book (On a Chinese Screen, 1922)" Either all of these years should be in brackets, or none should.
  • "Germans and remained at the villa, securing it and its contents as far as possible, before making his way via Lisbon to New York." Should this be "as long as possible"?
  • No. He secured them as much as he could. (And did a pretty good job, hiding paintings etc so that the occupying Germans did not get their hands on many of them. Can't quantify his success/failure rate from the sources, unfortunately.) – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As always, Maugham wrote continually. His daily routine was to write between an early breakfast and lunchtime, after which he entertained himself." -> "As always, Maugham wrote continually. His daily routine was to write between an early breakfast and lunchtime, after which he entertained himself." I don't think the first sentence is necessary if the article states that his daily routine involved writing.
  • "and his influence for better or worse on his employer." Delete "for better or worse" as the sentence already says that biographers differ, so describing the two options for influence is not necessary.
  • "was an adaptation by other hands" by other hands might be considered an MOS:IDIOM. Is there a more specific way that these people can be described?
  • In the first paragraph of "Plays" it is weird how it says the majority of the plays were comedies, names his dramatic plays, then lists the comedies. Suggest putting the information about the comedies first then talk about the dramas.
  • "A few of Maugham's plays have been revived occasionally. " I don't think this sentence is necessary and can be deleted.
  • " In the 1928 volume Ashenden features in sixteen stories;" comma after 1928
  • It is. Not sure what to do about the middle initial. The article is clearly ascribed to Robert L. Calder, but our article omits the L. I have piped with the middle initial, and might add a redirect from Robert L. Calder to Robert Calder (writer). What do you think? – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the Maugham article, I would have the prose reflect the name that Calder used in the byline of the source, which in this case would include the middle initial, and pipe it to the wiki article (as has already been done in the article). I'm also tempted to move Robert Calder (writer) to Robert L. Calder because sources seem to always use the L. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that, if you like to propose it. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Calder's view Maugham's "ability to tell a fascinating story and his dramatic skill"" comma after view
  • "but his liberal attitudes, disregard of conventional morality and unsentimental view of humanity led adapters to make his stories" comma after humanity
  • Unnecessary, and I should say ungrammatical. Fowler (p. 166) says "The subject of a sentence should not be separated by a comma from the verb it governs". In this case the eleven words from "liberal" to "humanity" are the subject, and "led" is the verb it governs. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in "The Ant and the Grasshopper" a young adventurer marries not a rich old woman who dies soon afterwards but a rich young one who remains very much alive." -> " in "The Ant and the Grasshopper" a young adventurer does not marry a rich old woman who dies soon afterward but a rich young one who remains alive."
  • "A rising critic of a younger generation, Cyril Connolly," is this Cyril Connolly? If so, wikilink.
  • "Marking Maugham's eightieth birthday The New York Times commented" comma after birthday.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Z1720, thank you for your suggestions. Some useful stuff there. Actioned as described above where appropriate. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thanks for your responses. Sorry that you had to repeat about the commas. I added a comment about Calder above, but that won't change anything in the article. Feel free to ping me if there are other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support as well as for your helpful suggestions. Do ping me if you want support for moving Calder's article. Tim riley talk 14:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Ambassade_Royaume-Uni_Paris_1.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Once again, thank you, Nikkimaria for your help. Tim riley talk 06:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

What can I say? It takes me back to that summer sometime in high school when I read Of Human Bondage and Naipaul's Miguel Street (which had won the Somerset Maugham Award) among other books. So with that in mind as much as anything else, here's an appreciation, a list which I have scribbled on a dentist's bill—an anesthetic I hope for viewing it, and the nice touches for the commonplace book:

  • "his disillusion" (i.e. the condition of being freed from illusion)
  • "arranged accommodation for him, and aged sixteen he travelled"
  • "made himself comfortable there, filled many notebooks with literary ideas, and continued writing nightly,"
  • "From 1892 until he qualified in 1897, he studied ..."
  • "a reprint was quickly arranged"
  • "Lifelong, Maugham was highly reticent ..." (i.e. the comment adverb)
  • "providing a convincing domestic cover"
  • "despised from the first (noun as an adverb phrase)
  • "In M's absence his wife found an occupation ..."
  • (quoted) "materialistic determinism that discounted any possibility of changing the human condition"
  • (quoted from M): "words have weight, sound and appearance"
Fowler&fowler, many thanks for your support and the piquant comments above: they are greatly appreciated. I confess I was, and still am, not 100% convinced by "Lifelong, Maugham was highly reticent ..." but I couldn't think of a better way of putting it concisely. The grammar is all right but somehow the tune sounds a little off-key, if that makes sense. Be that as it may, can we, I wonder, look forward to Mandell Creighton at some point? It would be good if he were to get to FA. You will, I hope, be pleased to see that I have twice quoted your namesake in my replies to User:Z1720, above. − Tim riley talk 10:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me, but if you'd like you could change it to "All his lifelong he ..." I see Saul Bellow (whom I ran into once in the stacks of the college library in Chicago and was rendered speechless) has "All his lifelong he sold nonexistent property, concessions he did not own, and air-spun schemes to greedy men." (He might have life long.) Your choice. There's also Sterne: "all his lifelong he had made it a rule, after supper was over, to call out his family to dance and rejoice; believing, he said, that cheerful and contented mind was the best sort of thanks to Heaven that an illiterate peasant could pay."
And that brings me to the neglected Right Reverend, me being the peasant, that is. (I just finished Darjeeling at FAR, and have achieved some peace at Lion capital of Ashoka, a start class, so yes, I'm very much thinking of Creighton.) Have been tinkering, taking the load off James Covert (his only real biographer) by mixing in Fallows (1964), MC and the English Church. Fallows, slightly dated but OK, has a lot on the later years which I hope to use. There are the ODNB articles on MC and L(ouise)C. There is Lytton Strachey's sketch, or mis-sketch, and there are a few new articles. All will be grist. Surprisingly, there is still not a whole lot. I will then pass on the article to you. Will keep you posted.
Yes I saw the references to F. I have my grandfather's copy from the 1920s lying somewhere, as is the F brothers' The King's English (written in Edwardian times). Gifted they certainly were. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. I've carried the episcopal thread over to your user talk page. Tim riley talk 13:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Ref 95, "Mander and Mitchenson, pp. 252–252", strikes me as odd :)
  • Ref 160, McCrum, could use a retrieval date
  • Isn't it either/or? Publication date or failing that the retrieval date? For the purposes of WP:V either does the job and adding both seems superfluous. Where a full publication date is known (not merely the year), my practice has always been to stick to that. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 118, Sutherland, appears to be missing a publication year. Same with 187
  • In both cases I have ducked a question I can't answer. The Who's Who entry was put online in 2007 but of course derives from WSM's entry in the printed version, which came out during his lifetime at an unspecified date. Adding 2007 here would be rather misleading, I feel. For the Sutherland article, the OUP page says that it was written in one year (1996) and published online in a different one (2005). I think we can do without either date here, but I'm happy to add one of the two if pressed, though I'd be unsure which. Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were using the online sources, I see no issue with adding the dates which they were uploaded, I rather think of it akin to citing using a book's second edition, so citing that edition's year (you could even put |edition=Online). Without a date of any kind, I would be quite hesitant Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC's web pages refer to it variously as "BBC Genome" or "BBC Genome Project". As with, say, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, I think the shorter and more familiar title is probably better for general purposes. Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT ref 145 is missing a retrieval date as well, and should include the author's name, Anita Gates
  • I understand the intent of ref 2 to world cat, but I don't think this is the right way to go about demonstrating the prevalence of the use of 'Somerset Maugham' over 'W. Somerset Maugham'. Perhaps something simpler like "in many the titles of some biographies and studies he is referred as Somerset Maugham tout court, see the that of Raphael, Meyers and Hastings for instance", then a ref would not be needed.
Reliability
  • I would be remiss to not mention the use of Maugham's own writings. I checked a few uses and found them largely appropriate, being primarily used for quotes and such Given that they are heavily outnumbered by scholarly references, this doesn't stand out as an issue to me. However, if any of them are indeed replaceable with secondary sources, you might consider doing so.
  • There are 15 citations to WSM's own writings: 12 are verbatim quotations of his stated opinions and the other three are my paraphrases of them. I have not relied on his writings so far as matters of fact are concerned: quite apart from Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, it would in this case be rash to rely on Maugham's versions of events, which are, to put it politely, questionable. The only borderline case, I think, is Footnote 3, which I inherited from an earlier version of the article and would be perfectly happy to blitz if nudged towards doing so. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another matter I feel a need to address would be the use of rather old sources. These seem generally appropriate; refs 31–34 and 76–78, for instance, I cannot find genuine fault with in those contexts. But again, if any of these can indeed but substituted for newer sources, that would be best.
  • As you say, 31–34 and 76–78 are the original sources for contemporary press quotations. The only book source I have drawn on extensively that dates back to Maugham's own time is Mander and Mitchenson. There wasn't a second edition of that, but it may give you comfort to note that when their successors brought out a second edition of M&M's 1957 Theatrical Companion to Noël Coward in 2000 there were updates and additions to production details but I have not spotted any corrections of the first edition in the second. (And alas, new productions of Maugham plays are so rare that a second edition of that Companion will never be needed.) Of the three biographies I have most drawn on, Morgan's 1980 book is the oldest, but Meyers (2004) and Hastings (2010) cite Morgan repeatedly, and his is still probably the most important biography of WSM. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
Thank you, Aza24 for your thorough review. I loathe doing source reviews and am always grateful to editors who undertake the task; I found your layout in three separate sections particularly helpful. I have dealt with most of your suggestions and left questions about the others, above. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Again, I am curious and want to learn something new. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC and infobox

  • I can imagine to begin with upper case (Travel) after "1920s: " unless the year goes to the end (which I have seen).
  • I am not all happy with a header of only years.
  • I believe that the headers for references - which create a lot of white space - might be reduced, replacing them by bold titles.
  • I'd prefer the occupations in the infobox as unbulleted list {{ubl}} - we have all that space.
  • These stylistic points are a matter of personal preference. I do not think your suggestions a particular improvement but I should have no strong objection to your altering the existing version if you insist on it. Tim riley talk 10:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background ...

  • Can we first read what the oldest son did, and then what The Times thought?
  • After having read about the children I conclude that William is the third or the fourth son, or what did I miss? I also wonder which child(ren) did not survive.
  • I have added Henry's dates to make it unmistakeably clear that he was the third son. Details of the babies that died in infancy vary from source to source, and I have not thought it necessary or desirable to bring them into the article. Tim riley talk 10:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next para, I begin to think he could be the fourth, but only when born I can be sure ;)
  • "He later said that for him" read strange the first time, it's ambiguous. Yes, the second reading made clear what's meant.
  • "Two and a half years after Edith's death, Robert Maugham died, and Maugham was sent to England ..." - I'd call them his mother and his father, to avoid calling an adult woman by only her first name, and also the repetition of Maugham.
  • Perhaps French being his first language could come sooner with life in Paris?

Secret service ...

1920s ...

  • The long sentence about the trip to U.S. and Honolulu ... might profit from a split, to avoid "before ... before".
  • "had taken lovers of her own" - not sure we need "of her own"
  • In the list of the works he wrote, I see too many brackets. All these works have articles, so the years are possibly not needed for this overview?
  • I do not disagree, but I know at least one editor, whose views I respect, who is a stickler for dates in such cases, and I am inclined to leave it as it is unless the balance of opinion is in favour of the change. Tim riley talk 10:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is a play from 1915 from the 1920s decade? - performance yes

Second World War

  • "had already chosen a replacement as secretary-companion" - perhaps English is different but in German to say "replacement" of a person would seem disrespectful

I finished reading the Life section, will turn to Works later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I now read Works and like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally: the lead. I like it all, but think to have first life, then work titles might provide background to the works. Perhaps fewer titles, and a bit of style? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an equally valid way of laying out the lead, but I do not think it would be noticeably better than the existing version. All above points now addressed. Thank you for your contribution. Tim riley talk 10:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time for detailed explanations, and I learned again. I still believe two sentences about his style in the lead would be good for someone who doesn't know his work, but up to you. Support. Excellent image layout, btw, which I don't see often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken about mentioning WSM's style in the lead, and now done. Tim riley talk 17:24, 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) 19 September 2022 [71].

2022 Welsh Open (snooker)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may surprise you to learn that I don't get to see a lot of professional snooker live. This was the second event I managed to get to in the last five years. A superb week in a great venue - with some images taken during the event in the article. The Welsh Open is often a good but minor event, but for two years straight has had a great narrative. The previous year's winner Jordan Brown won his first event, ranked 80th in the world. This year, perennial journeyman Joe Perry won the event, defeating the majorly in-form Ricky Walden in the quarter-finals, Jack Lisowski (who had won a match of the season contender against Ali Carter in the round prior), a serial winner Judd Trump in the final to win his second ranking event, the first being a minor 2015 Players Tour Championship Grand Final win. Perry's win was at age 47, the second oldest winner of a ranking event (at the time). A great event, and hopefully a well written and researched article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Prose review:

  • "True Sport in Thailand;" Wikilink to True Sport?
  • "won the fifth on the colours after potting a difficult yellow ball" I am unsure what "on the colours" means, and I can't find the term at Glossary of cue sports terms Perhaps this should be explained in the article or a different term used.
  • "the 31st edition of the Welsh Open," This is mentioned in the lede but not cited in the article

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z1720, I have made the above changes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Sources (not a full source review)

I had a look at the Snooker Scene refs:

  • "in the fifth frame, potting single reds and then playing safe or attempting to snooker his opponent" seems to go beyond the source - unless you can point me to a part I'm missing.
  • The Snooker Scene ref after "stated Vafaei afterward." can be removed as it's redundant (and unlike the Eurosport source, doesn't include the "It was unbelievable" part of the quote).
  • "Perry cited a match he won over Lee Walker at the Turkish Masters qualifying event as a catalyst for his change in form during the event" - maybe add a bit more about what he said? (improved his confidence because he played well, according to him)
  • "The win took him from 42nd to 23rd in the world rankings" - the Snooker Scene ref is redundant. (You could use the WST source there to add in that the trophy is named after Reardon, maybe.)

Format

Final

Infobox and Lead

@Lee Vilenski: that's all I could see; unsurprisingly not very much as I had reviewed this for GA. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've covered the above, BennyOnTheLoose Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those responses are fine, thanks. Three more small points below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the images have alt text/refer to caption.
Added, I think I got them all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caption that has "one of my biggest buzzes since I've been a pro". should have the full stop inside the quotation mark per MOS:INOROUT
I disagree, although I'm sure it's not all that important. If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. The quote is only a fragment of the full sentence in the quote. I might be wrong though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Century breaks, I'd prefer "There were 58 century breaks made.. " to "There was a total of 58 century breaks made".
No problem. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by Amakuru - Passed

[edit]

(ref numbers refer to this version)

Have to head off now, will continue looking later. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now... quite a lot of issues identified, although in fairness many of them are repetitions of the same issue throughout, e.g. BBC Sport articles consistently missing author and date. I will come back for another pass once these are addressed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Sorry for the delay returning to this. I'm satisfied with formatting etc. now. Will move on to spot checks: This version checked.

I might check one or two more when you've responded to these points, but no major concerns. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have covered the above points Amakuru. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: great, I think that's good enough then. You're a seasoned contributor here so I think that's enough spot checks. Passing on sourcing. Also, (and to quote a great Wikipedian) - if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I am awaiting a source check of my own at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coventry ring road/archive1... 😀 Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have done so - not sure what else I can add. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to co-ords

[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, I'm just awaiting Amakuru's response for the source review - any chance I can push another one into the fire when I get a support? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but only if and when Amakuru gives an unambiguous pass on the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 13 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) 19 September 2022 [74].

The Boat Race 2022

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posh Brit university canoes back on the Thames after Covid disruption. Yes, it's not the Super Bowl. The men got it all wrong but the women triumphed, depending on your preferred shade of blue. As I write "short" FAs, I expect this to be a very truncated process and look forward to addressing concerns with incredible speed and guile. And thanks in advance to those of you who make constructive comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • I think the first, or at worst the second, paragraph of the lead should mention who actually competes in the Boat Race. At present we don't find that out until the third para and even then for the women's race we are only told the winner, not anyone else who took part.
  • "The women's senior race was umpired by John Garrett who rowed for CUBC" - you haven't used (or linked) the full names of the clubs in the body, only in the lead
  • The key to the map should probably indicate that the county names shown are historic counties. Barnes, Putney, etc, haven't been in Surrey for decades, and Middlesex no longer exists at all.
  • "He is a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - is there a way to re-word this to remove the present tense, so that it won't need updating when he's no longer with us (which I appreciate may be decades away, but it doesn't hurt to futureproof :-))
  • "Each year before Christmas, each squad stages" - change the first word to "every" to avoid repetition?
  • "and after a further blade clash, extended their" - not sure that comma needs to be there
  • "following warnings to both crews from the umpire to avoid a clash, Style held" - same here. Is this a standard form? It looks a little odd to me but maybe that's just me.......
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Hi Chris, thanks for the comments, sorry for taking so long to get to them. I think I've addressed them all, solvling the final two by adding a comma before as well to bring out those clauses separately if that makes sense. Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe it meets featured quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 thanks for both the previous GA review and this check-up. I've removed the upright parameter as you recommended. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AirshipJungleman29

[edit]
  • Lead needs restructuring.
    • "The Boat Race 2022 took place on 3 April 2022." is a pretty terrible first sentence, considering it only conveys one piece of new information to unfamiliar readers—that the race, whatever it is, takes place on 3 April.
    • The first link is in the third sentence. Why?
    • The Tideway?
    • "resulting in the head-to-head record between the universities being" rather wordy no?
  • Don't particularly like one sentence paragraphs, and one sentence sections even less. Is "The official fixtures to be conducted in advance of The Boat Race were announced on 27 January 2022" really worthy of a section for itself?
  • The 1927 Women's Boat Race is mentioned twice, but not linked.

Probably more to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AirshipJungleman29 thanks for your comments. I've re-written the opening paragraph of the lead and trimmed some of the redundancy. I've fixed the one-sentence para (which I also dislike) and the 1927 WBR is already linked on the first instance (to whit: "... Before 2015, the women's race, which first took place in 1927, was usually ..."). Let me know if you have more thoughts! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I admit I'm a bit oblivious when it comes to rowing, my only exposure being this scene from The Social Network.

That's all. ~ HAL333 16:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 thanks for your comments, I've addressed and/or responded to each of them above! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720

[edit]

Version reviewed, spot checks not done

  • Should be OK, some editors are concerned with differences in ref structure and sfn templates, but I'm not too bothered about it anymore. Since this is the only magazine that has page numbers (The Times has page numbers, but they are a newspaper) it should be OK. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others who are more knowledgeable than me in source reviews have asked for the cite templates to match the media, which is why I bring it up here. The ambiguity of an e-publication probably won't make this a problem. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 thanks for taking a look, responses etc above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru

[edit]

That's about it for now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I'm on it, but it might take a while. School holidays means my concentration isn't what it should be. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Rambling Man, any update? I appreciate that RL is what it is, but it has been more than three weeks since the last set of comments were posted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping to be in a softplay tomorrow afternoon which should give me a chance to address these. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru thanks for the comments, and apologies for the massive delay in addressing (or at least attempting to address) them. I'm sure you'll have further to add, and I promise I won't take quite as long to get back this time. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks, I think I'm done. The prose looks like it fulfils the criteria in all other respects. Happy to Support.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:02, 10 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) 18 September 2022 [75].

Louis H. Bean

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Mr. Bean, not that one, but one who was really good predicting elections, and was the "Lone Prophet" of Harry S. Truman's fantastic victory in the 1948 presidential election.

We don't know much about him, and he would have been a normal office assistant like million others, had he not developed a passion in election predictions. The article is mostly based on secondary sources about his life and career. The article was reviewed for GA by ExcellentWheatFarmer, and was copy-edited for FAC by Baffle gab1978. All constructive comments are more than welcome! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

CommentsSupport from EW

[edit]

Congrats on Abbott, which I never got around to reviewing (sorry)—I'd be happy to review Mr. Bean instead! Some initial comments below; I'll do a full prose review in the coming days.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "According to author Theodore Rosenof" – does this need in-text attribution? Seems like an uncontroversial factual statement to me.
    • Removed.
  • 1936 United States presidential election is linked twice.
  • "accurately predicted Roosevelt to win both the presidential elections" – the source (Rosenof, pg. 68) doesn't really say that: it just says that "he did not argue" that the GOP would win in 1940 and that he thought their success in 1942 "by no means presaged" a 1944 victory.
    • Well, I don't have a fundamentalist approach here. By saying that GOP would not win, he did mean that the Democrats would win. That is my interpretation, and this is more clear that the previous version. If you insist, I can change back to the previous version, "He did not argue that the Republican Party's victory in the 1938 or 1942 congressional elections..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read the source to mean that Bean didn't think the Republicans were guaranteed to win, which is different from saying that he thought the Republicans would lose. Do you have a source that explicitly says "He accurately predicted the results of all presidential elections from 1936 to 1948"? If you do, just cite that source; if you don't, the "he did not argue" version is probably best. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the book, Bean predicted Truman to win the election and the Democratic Party to gain majority in the Congress" – I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on due weight here since the sources are all over the map: the NYT says "he correctly forecast that voters would return Truman"; Campbell (pg. 69) calls the idea "that Bean had predicted Truman's victory" a "minor media myth"; and Rosenof (pg. 69) strikes a middle ground by saying that he "suggested the likelihood of a Democratic victory" but also "set forth more pessimistic possibilities". My instinct is that we shouldn't be saying he predicted Truman's victory in wikivoice, but I'd be interested to hear your views.
    • I remember thinking about this when I published the article the previous year, and yes this is a tricky part. Given the abundance of sources in favor of Bean, we can say that in Wikivoice. The recent Campbell source does says that the book which Bean authored in early 1948 (which would be before the election) contained "passages that suggested a Democratic victory in the presidential election that year wasn’t out of the question". And in the article, we say that he predicted Truman to win in the book. This is supported by the NYT source as well. We also have the fact that, days before the election, he did change his stand. We cannot, for sure, in 2022, know what happened in '48, but almost all modern sources used in the article agree that he is most famous for predicting Truman to win, including NYT, The Washington Post, and partially even Rosenof. We also have in the article the viewpoint the Bean made no clear prediction. Here is where the criteria 1c applies, "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and even perhaps WP:VNT. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand; it’s just that the "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements" part of WP:NPOV gives me pause. Perhaps consider something like this: "In his book, Bean—unlike almost all other observers—argued that a Truman victory was possible; he cited the likelihood of high turnout and the unpopularity of the Republican Congress’s policies to suggest that the political environment was favorable to Democrats. (Cite to pg. 23 of this book by Rosenof.)" Then keep the "On election day...'a major miracle'" sentence. "Bean’s book earned him a reputation for successfully predicting Truman’s victory (cite Rosenof’s article, pg. 69): Life magazine referred to him as the “Lone Prophet” of Truman’s victory, and the Alfred A. Knopf publishing company, which publicized Bean’s book, began advertising: "Oh Mr. Gallup! Oh Mr. Roper! Obviously you don’t know Bean’s How to Predict Elections." Rosenof, however, argues that "the truth ... was somewhat more complicated" (cite pg. 23 of this book) because Bean's personal correspondence suggests that "in the end, however hesitantly", he "accepted the polls that consistently showed Dewey solidly ahead nationally". (cite pg. 72 of Rosenof's article)" The idea is that it describes what Bean said without taking a position on the disputed issue of whether he actually predicted Truman's victory, while still providing both the mainstream view (the book "earned him a reputation for successfully predicting Truman's victory") and an alternative perspective from Rosenof. Hopefully that's helpful; feel free to use as much or as little of it as you like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alfred A. Knopf publishing company" – perhaps "The Alfred A. Knopf publishing company"
    • Sure.
  • "Bean's HOW TO PREDICT ELECTIONS" – I think MOS:ALLCAPS would recommend removing the all-caps stylization.
    • I am not sure of this, as it is inside direct quotations, but I'll make the change anyways.
  • "Pollster Elmo Roper later argued in the book How to Predict Elections, Bean made no clear prediction" – this sounds like How to Predict Elections was Roper's book. "later argued that Bean made no clear prediction in How to Predict Elections" or something like that might be clearer.
    • Done.

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I found this BusinessWeek article (cited by Rosenof) at the Internet Archive; perhaps it has something useful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ, I have been trying to avoid using old sources (generally those earlier than 1960s) unless they are primary sources. This one from '51 is pretty old, but can still be used for uncontroversial information. Have added a line from this in the article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1936 presidential election..." – this sentence is a bit long and clunky. Perhaps "In the 1936 presidential election, Bean projected that Roosevelt would carry all of the states except Maine, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. His prediction of a Roosevelt landslide ran contrary to most of the polls, which believed it to be a close race, but the results..."
  • "confirmed Bean's projection. Roosevelt won" – a colon after "projection", perhaps
  • "projected the victory of Republican Thomas E. Dewey..." – "projected that Republican Thomas E. Dewey would defeat incumbent President Harry S. Truman by a decisive margin" might be a better wording.
  • The article mentions "Bean's analytic methodology", but we don't get much information about what that methodology was. Perhaps incorporate some of the material in pgs. 66–67 of Rosenof 1999 about how he went about predicting elections (his focus on cyclical trends, similarities to Schlesinger's ideas, anomalies, etc.).
  • Is there anything more we can say about The Art of Forecasting? Perhaps you could find some reviews in newspapers or elsewhere. It looks like EBSCOhost in the Wikipedia Library has two: one by Hubert D. Vos in Management Review and one by James L. Bicksler in the Journal of Retailing. (There's also a brief one in BusinessWeek, May 23, 1970, but it doesn't seem to be available through TWL; if you want to see it, you're welcome to email me and I'll send you the PDF.) I see Bean also wrote a book called How to Predict The 1972 Election (reviewed briefly in the NYT here); it might be worth mentioning as well.
    • During his career, Bean wrote many books. I have tried to cover in details only those which are prominent and have significant coverage in WP:RS. Only two stand out: How to predict elections and Ballot Behavior. These are the only two books notable enough for their own standalone article. It might be of concern to someone else if we focus or mention about his publications which aren't even notable per Wikipedia standards, and did not have much impact on his life; and 1b is satisfied. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "later life" section doesn't flow very well. One way to organize it more naturally might be to retitle it "later life and legacy": then the first paragraph would contain the Rosenof quote, a discussion of his later books, and information about his death, while the second paragraph could contain the legacy-related information (everything from "Economist Karl A. Fox mentioned" to "Bean made no clear prediction"). You might also want to mention (per the NYT obit) that "he was a private consultant for various clients until he was in his mid-80's".
  • Perhaps remove the "years active" field from the infobox: it's not really useful in this sort of article (plus he was still "active" predicting elections after 1953).

Hopefully this is helpful; feel free to ignore anything that isn't. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two little things:

  • "Bean refused to make a public projection, saying his method could not 'encompass the newer ingredients'" – these are Rosenof's words, not Bean's. Perhaps just paraphrase ("saying his method could account for new factors" or something like that).
  • There are still two links to 1936 United States presidential election.

Once that's taken care of, everything should be more-or-less satisfactory, so count me as a support. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both taken care of. Thanks for your thorough review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Going to make notes as I read, again about an unfamiliar subject, lead to be last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and TOC look mostly good, I'd just not need four headers for the references, of nine altogether.

Early ...

  • I'd expect a link for Army, otherwise perhaps just army?
  • To get married and have children isn't exactly what I'd call education ;)

Economic ...

  • vice president under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, - I'd assume of the before-mentioned agency, but that could be clearer.

Political

  • Something is wrong with the grammar of the sentence about publishing Ballot Behavior.

That's it, short and sweet. Unusual! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, addressed all comments except the Economic part, which I am not able to understand. Could you please clarify? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
superficially reading, one might think served as vice president of the U.S., - while it's clear from the context that probably not, I think it would not hurt to clarify president of what.
I forgot the lead:
  • I'd like some hint in the first sentence how lonely he was with having that one right, for more prominence and the wish (in the reader) to find out more.
  • I believe adding "President" to Wallace would not hurt, for us foreigners who don't know all U.S. presidents' names.
  • Well, Wallace wan't the President. He was VP.
  • I'm not happy with that sentence, "and ... and also", but don't know what to do.
These are all minor points, and however you handle them, I support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Comments coming soon. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In 1906, during the Russo-Japanese War, " - The Treaty of Portsmouth was ratified in late 1905 and the war was over before 1906 hit. Do the sources even make a causation connected between the war and the move? Lithuania was on the other side of Russia from most of what was happening in the war, so if there's no causation relationship I don't think it should even be mentioned.
  • "During World War I, he served in the Army as a lieutenant and was discharged in 1919." - if possible, indicate when he joined up
  • "He wrote articles including "Relation of Disposable Income and the Business Cycle to Expenditures",[14] "Wholesale Prices and Industrial Stock Prices During and Immediately After the Two World Wars",[15] and "Are Farmers Getting Too Much?"[16] for the journal The Review of Economics and Statistics." - this seems to be a weirdly hodge-podged sentence to me. The purpose appears to be to provide sampling of article titles. Surely some of the sources describing Bean's early work give a broader overview? IMO a couple sentences indicating what topics he wrote about and what sort of publications he was published in would be much more useful than a smattering of article titles
  • " Bean accurately projected Roosevelt to win in a landslide, carrying all of the states except Maine, Vermont, and Pennsylvania. The results confirmed Bean's projection." - this gives the impression that Bean pegged the PA projection, which instead went to Roosevelt. Recommend rephrasing

Intend to look into the sources more deeply tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Hog Farm! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My computer is broken, so I'm going to have to bow out on finishing this review. Hog Farm Talk 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HF, just checking is your PC still down or are you able to complete this? No pressure of course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: - I just got it back on Monday. Several things I'm trying to catch up on, but could probably take a look over the next three days or so. Hog Farm Talk 19:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source-text integrity checks:

  • Albright 1949 - okay
  • Herberich et. al 2009 - okay
  • Penniman 1949 - okay
  • "third-party candidate Henry A. Wallace drew northern votes from Democrats, which reduced their electorate." - recommend rephrasing to make it clearer that this was only an expectation (the cited pages don't say if this actually occurred or not)

Checked pretty much all of the JSTOR refs.

  • After reading through the Businessweek refs, I'm not sure that we're treating his economic forecasting career adequately - there's a reference to a 1927 cotton futures prediction that got him called before Congress, and if I'm reading p. 68 correctly, one of his steel production forecasts of 100 million tons was used by the government. It also says he helped lay ground for a 1946 employment act
  • "and served as the secretary of the committee responsible for preparing the department's monthly price reports" - not finding this on either of the cited pages?
  • Recommend double-checking your pagination in the Businessweek source - at one point you cite pp. 64-65 but page 65 is exclusively an herbicide advertisement, so you really want pp. 64, 66

I think I'm probably at a neutral, as I'm concerned about coverage of the non-political areas of his career. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion on this FAC talk page – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "During the late 1930s, Bean began developing an interest in political analysis. He accurately predicted the results of many presidential elections. After his successful projection in the 1948 presidential election ..." if this is intended to be chronological, then Bean predicted two before Truman, which is hardly many, and there were few late in the campaign in 1940 or 1944 who would have predicted Willkie or Dewey winning. I note that the article doesn't specifically mention a correct prediction in a presidential race after 1948.
  • Is there anything that can be said about Bean's WWI service? Did he go overseas?
  • "That same year, he was graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree a year ahead of his class. " I imagine this was from Rochester. I would strike "was".
  • "During World War II, Bean served on the Board of Economic Warfare as the Budget Bureau's chief fiscal analyst. Wallace later became the vice president under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Bean continued to work for Wallace during his vice-presidency and later during his tenure as the secretary of commerce until 1946." The chronology is poor here and someone unfamiliar with when Wallace was VP might be confused.
  • "until the dissolution of his position" I might say "until his position was abolished"
  • "Secretary Wallace encouraged this initial spark" I might toss a bracketed [Henry A.] in there before "Wallace".
  • "Bean accurately projected Roosevelt to win in a landslide, carrying all of the states except Maine, Vermont, and Pennsylvania." I might delete "accurately". The measure of correctness of Bean's prediction is in the next sentence.
  • "at his home in Arlington County, Virginia.[5][6]" I would strike the word "County". What we know as Arlington takes up the entire county.
That's all I got.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, All done, except for what is mentioned above. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

(Noting spotchecks in HF's review)

Thanks for the source review, Nikkimaria! Is there anything else required? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: : Just two things: (1) Can I nominate another article in a few days? (2) How is this one going? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate another one. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - @Kavyansh.Singh:

Hi Pendright, that is very kind of you. Yes, I think that another pair of eyes on this would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Courtesy ping to Gog the Mild. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pendright

[edit]

Start soon! Pendright (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead:

  • After receiving his preliminary education and graduating college with a Bachelor of Arts degree, he entered Harvard Business School in Massachusetts and in 1922, he received his Master of Business Administration degree.
  • Suggest: Delete the comma after 1922 and add a comma after Massachusetts
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • graduating "from" college has more acceptance in use than graduating college
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1923, Bean became a member of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he worked on estimates of farm income and price indices.
Replace the comma with a semicolon
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wrote articles for the academic journal, The Review of Economics and Statistics.
The link describes it as a peer-reviewed general journal
Done: removed 'academic' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the late 1930s, Bean began developing an interest in political analysis, and predicted the results of many elections.
Add "he" after and or drop the comma after analysis
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Note: I should think that the lead would include Bean's death. Another item that could be worth mentioning in the body and lead is when Bean became a citizen.
Done the first part. The sources don't tell when he became a citizen. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • Louis Hyman Bean was born on April 15, 1896, in Lithuania, Russian Empire.
If availabe, add the names of his parents.
Not done: Information not available in the source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After receiving preliminary education at several schools in Laconia, he enrolled at the University of Rochester in New York.
Do yoo mean New York state or city?
We already have it linked to the state article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<->Adding the state to your text wouod make it clear, concise, and reader friednly. Pendright (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • During World War I, Bean joined the United States Army in 1918 and served as a lieutenant until 1919.
Could you tell readers whether Bean was a Second lieutenant or a First lieutenant and the specific dates of his service?
Not done: Information not available in the source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That same year, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree a year ahead of his class.
Did he interrupt college to join the military, if so say so.
Not done: The sources I have doesn't specify that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He [then] enrolled at the Harvard Business School in Massachusetts and [earned[ received his Master of Business Administration degree in 1922.
Consider the above suggestions
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bean married Dorothy May Wile in 1923, and they had a daughter called Elizabeth and a son named David.[5][6]
Consider the above suggestions
Done, sure! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Note: When and whete did he become a US citzen?

Economic analyst:

  • In 1923, Bean joined the newly formed Bureau of Agricultural Economics at the United States Department of Agriculture.[2]
Is it Bureau of Agricultural [and or / or -] Economics?
Not done: Well, the name is "Bureau of Agricultural Economics" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bean's work in the Department of Agriculture was based on the use of statistical analysis as a basis for formulating policy.[7]
  • Show an example of his work
  • As an economic analyst, Bean worked on estimates of farm income and price indices, and served as the secretary of the committee responsible for preparing the department's monthly price reports.
  • Add "he" after the second and
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show an example of how he did some of his work.
  • During his tenure, he made many successful forecasts about crops, business, and commodity prices.[2][8]
Could you provide an example
For all three points, replied below. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charts prepared by Bean were used when the McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill was being discussed in Congress.
Could tell readers the bill did not pass.
Not done: Unnecessary as its passing or not has nothing to do with Bean. As for those "curious readers", we already have a link to the bill. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1933, Henry A. Wallace, the Secretary of Agriculture, appointed Bean as the economic advisor of the Agricultural Adjustment Act; Bean advised Wallace on economic issues and also worked on several of Wallace's books.
the [new] Secretary of Agriculture
Not done: I don't think that'll be helpful. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bean continued to work for Wallace during his vice-presidency and later during his tenure as the secretary of commerce.[2][9][11][5]
In what capacities
As his official duties in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He often wrote for many books, pamphlets, and magazines,[14] and authored articles on topics including disposable income and industrial stock prices for the journal The Review of Economics and Statistics.[15][16][17]
Suggest somethig like this: He also wrote many books, pamphlets, and magazine articles. In addition, Bean's work appeared in The Review of Economics and Statistics, a journal, on such topics as disposable income and industrial stock prices.
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>When he retired from the government seems to be missing.
We have: "... until his position was abolished in 1953" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<-> Abolished is not necessarily synonymous with retirement. Just add that he then retired. Pendright (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political analyst:

  • In 1940, Bean published a book titled Ballot Behavior.
Bean wrote the book, but it was probably published by some publishing house.
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same year, he published How To Predict Elections, which Spencer Albright of the University of Richmond called "even more valuable than the excellent Ballot Behavior.
The same year, he published How To Predict Elections -> Same as above
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his book, Bean, unlike almost all other observers, citing the likelihood of a high voter turnout combined with unpopularity of the Republican Congress's policies, asserted that Truman's victory was possible.[25]
  • with [the] unpopularity
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • citing or cited
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bean's earned a reputation for successfully predicting Truman's victory.[30]
  • Bean's or Bean?
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Unnecessary as we already have a link to Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign in the "See also" section. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1952 presidential election, Bean refused to make a public projection, saying his method could account for new factors.[32]
could "not" accunt for new factors?
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and legacy:

  • Bean is best known for his prediction in the 1948 presidential election.[6]
for his [sucessful] prediction
Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Kavyansh.Singh: Pendright (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Pendright, for the thorough review. I have done all I could do, but there are quite a few points where we don't have any information in the available sources, so I really can do anything. As for the examples you ask me to give, I'm not sure if they are really needed. The article is well comprehensive without them, and we don't really have to mention facts for our readers which don't have any major significance (same as my reasoning here). As I say in my nomination statement, "he would have been a normal office assistant like million others, had he not developed a passion in election predictions". I have previously worked at another obscure topic, Margaret Abbott, and had written it the same way. Feel free to let me know if you have any other comments! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Understand!
(2) Simply put, I was suggesting that you "show" readers what Bean did rather than "tell" them what he did. This is an effective technique and commonly used in article writing.
(3) I've left a few responses to yours above.

@Kavyansh.Singh: None of the above are deal breakers - I support this nomination. Pendright (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have implemented so of your suggestions. Thanks for your review and support. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:11, 18 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) 18 September 2022 [76].

R2K: The Concert

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After working on Philippine-related BLP articles and bringing them to FA, I've decided to explore other interests within music by working on a concert article and take a bit of a break from another biography. This article is about a concert event staged by Filipina singer Regine Velasquez. It went through a GAN and has undergone a copyedit to address MoS, flow, punctuation issues. I feel ready to bring this to FAC. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "which she performed during the opening set." - normally the term "opening set" means that the artist performed two distinct sets (not including any encores) with an interval between them. Was this the case here? I can't see any mention of the show comprising two separate sets......
I've revised and went with "opening number" instead to be more specific. Let me know if that reads better.
  • "Velasquez performed in small venue tours" - I think just "Velasquez performed in small venues" would be better
Done
  • "In January, Velasquez's publicist" - I suggest saying January 2000 just to be completely clear
Done
  • "During that time," - unclear what "time" this refers to. I'd be tempted to just delete these words
Removed
  • "The show featured a 360-degree configuration with an end-stage setup" - what's an "end-stage setup"?
That would be the stage positioned on either ends of the the arena/stadium (basketball/football venues converted for a concert set-up), instead of being in the middle of the field/court. Should look something like this.
  • "long skirt panels to let it flow with the wind" - don't think there's much wind in an indoor venue......?
Good point! I meant to write wind machine, but I've scrapped this line otherwise, as it would be clunky.
  • Does the concert synopsis cover one specific night or was the performance the same both nights?
The setlist was the same on both nights, but I referred to the media source/broadcast (and the article/reviews referenced), which was that of the last night's performance.
  • "a performance of the Carpenters's "One Love"" => "a performance of the Carpenters' "One Love""
Fixed
  • "The setlist continued with the Isley Brothers's "For the Love of You"" => "The setlist continued with the Isley Brothers' "For the Love of You""
Fixed
  • "The film featured previews of multiple snippets of live performances from the show" - I think just "The film featured multiple snippets of live performances from the show" would work better
Done
  • Something appears to have gone wrong with the formatting of the personnel - Vic del Rosario and Hotlegs do not seem to be in the right place?
I think I was able to fix it now. Following this format

Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude. I have addressed the above points. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Thanks --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Apologies for the ping, I understand you may have been swamped on and off wiki, and busy reviewing FACs/FLCs too I was wondering if you got a chance to look at the changes made based on your commentaries and if there are something I may have missed. Thanks as always. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that another editor had added comments as well and figured I might as well wait until you'd addressed everything. I'll take another look shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Ahh that makes sense, did not mean to rush in anyway ;) and thanks for having another look. Very much appreciated. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]

Reviewing this. Apologies for being a bit late with this one!

  • "held on April 7 and 8, 2000" - There isn't a comma after the year "2000" here but you seem to have included one everywhere else for dates mid-sentence.
Done
  • The second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph both start with "it", optional but you could introduce a variation here
Done
  • "Marc Lopez and Louie Ignacio were chosen as musical director and television director, respectively" - The repetition of "director" could be eliminated with, let's say, "Marc Lopez and Louie Ignacio were chosen as musical and television directors, respectively"
Done
  • "The designer's inspiration was Dolce & Gabbana's" - Maybe "The designer was inspired by Dolce & Gabbana's" instead
Done
  • The last two sentences of the Background section look a bit similar to me so could they be merged? "Other outfits worn by Velasquez included a yellow gown embellished with butterfly appliqués, accentuated with long skirt panels;[18][19][14] and a black backless long gown patterned with sheer fabrics that bared the singer's midriff, upper thighs, and legs."
Done
  • Is there a reason the original artists for some of the covers she performed are not included?
This actually came up during GAN as well. All covers include the original artists, except I believe for the cover versions of duets and the encore covers which was a medley of 4 songs. Reasoning is, I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, if that is acceptable.
Good to know this has been addressed already.--NØ 13:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Velasquez] made good on every promise she made before the concert" - Do we have any information on what these promises were that can be added to Background? Readers will probably be curious after this sentence
I have added a couple of sentences in the second para of the Background section.
Satisfied by the information added. Great job finding this so quickly.--NØ 13:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are three critics enough to conclude unanimous agreement? Might be safer to remove that word
Removed word, but also added another review from one critic to support.
Removed the duplicate link from the Reception/Recordings section.

Thank you very much for doing the review MaranoFan. And no one's ever late to the party! :) I have addressed the above points. Let me know if I may have missed anything. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina

[edit]
  • "with a show title yet to be confirmed" unnecessary
Removed
  • I think rumors or premature information like "It was initially revealed that American singer-songwriter Brian McKnight was in talks to appear as one of the guest acts alongside Sharon Cuneta" can be safely removed
Removed
  • I think the bit explaining her anxiety and nervousness is a little wordy; we can cut down the quotes as the remaining part suffices
Removed the second quotation and paraphrased
  • Just a suggestion, but adding release years for the songs could be helpful
I have added the year of release where possible, with a few exceptions, in cases of a medley
Looks good to me. Ippantekina (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try paraphrasing some quotes in the reception because it currently looks a little farm-ish
Paraphrased and trimmed
Reads really nice now. Ippantekina (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a big fan of quote boxes and their use is discouraged per WP:LONGQUOTE, but you can consider yourself if it is helpful to keep the box or not.
Removed quotebox

That's all I have. Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for providing your review Ippantekina. I have addressed the above points. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose-- Ippantekina (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias / Your Power

[edit]

A pop music-related article? A Filipino pop music-related article? Well it seems like I'm gonna enjoy reading this. Don't mind if I do - will be back with comments about prose within the week. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Background and development

  • "The cover album contains" -> "A cover album, it contains"
    Done
  • "and was issued" -> "and was" there can be easily removed, I feel
    Done
  • "It was a commercial success" -> which one? The VCD or the album? Obvious question with an obvious answer, but professional prose to me is free of any possible ambiguities
    Changed to album
  • You consistently refer to R2K with "show" in the singular form, but there is one sentence here where you say "shows".
    Fixed
  • "show(s)" appears in three consecutive sentences here as well
    Tweaked to avoid repetition
  • I'd clarify that Velasquez presented the concept of an automated flying rig to whoever was going to build it
    I went with "presented the concept to her team", since the succeeding clause mentioned "custom-built" which would perhaps imply they hired and worked with folks who eventually got pitched with the idea too. If that makes sense.
  • "Laurel also produced" is the "also" necessary?
    Removed
  • I wonder if "spaghetti strapped" is meant to be hyphenated
    Agree

Concert synopsis

  • "While two female dancers lifted by wires performed aerial acrobatics, Velasquez" -> "As two female dancers..."
    Done
  • The "with" in "continued with the song" can be safely removed
    Done
  • "It was followed by a duet of 'I Believe' and 'The Prayer' with Ogie Alcasid and Janno Gibbs." -> The "with" there suggests that Regine performed with Ogie and Janno, and that goes against the "duet" descriptor
    Removed "duet"
  • "Velasquez was lifted by wires revealing long skirt panels" Did the act of lifting her reveal the long skirt panels, or did the wires reveal the panels? If it's the former, I'd put a comma after "wires"; if it's the latter, I'd change "revealing" to "that revealed"
    Should be the former, and changed as suggested
  • "Velasquez returned onstage introducing the song she interpreted during the millennium television special 2000 Today, and proceeded to perform 'Written in the Sand'." Was "Written" the song she interpreted during 2000 Today? The wording makes it unclear
    Rephrased

Will take a look at the critical reception section after some merienda ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your initial review Your Power. Comments above have been actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Have a lovely merienda! --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: no problem, and thanks for the well wishes! This afternoon I had scrambled eggs on top of pancit canton. While an unorthodox combination to some I think it works really well :") Back on topic - I have made a couple (hopefully) minor copyediting to the article. Feel free to revert any of the edits if you don't agree with them. Plus I have striked all but one of the comments listed above.
Unfortunately I'll have to leave the "reception" comments after I go to bed as it is getting late here. Have a nice rest of your day, ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your Power, Goodness, that is mouth-watering. Def not unorthodox, I go for hard boiled eggs with a semi-soft yolk as a preference. Gotta get one of those when I have a chance. No worries, I have addressed the remaining item above and thank you for your edits they look great. --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and recordings

  • "He continued to" - the last two words are extraneous to me
    Removed
  • Several quotations here seem paraphrasable. For instance, "He continued to praise her team's 'meticulous preparations'" -> "He appreciated how much work went into preparing for the show", or "also deemed it 'the concert to beat in terms of vocal quality and production values'." -> "considered its production and vocal performances a benchmark against which other Philippine concerts can be measured", or "Velasquez's vocal power and camp appeal'" --> "Velasquez's theatrics and vocal talents"
    Paraphrased as suggested
  • I read the Manila Standard review and I didn't get the impression it was "enthusiastic" like The Philippine Star reviews were - often after Isah Red lists down praise they follow it up with some sort of critique or bone-picking. Can we change it to "Despite what he perceived as flaws in Velasquez's spiels mid-concert" or whatever criticism works best ?
    Reworded to "Writing for the Manila Standard" so it comes across as neutral and took your suggestion of paraphrasing the quotation. Since Red's review had both praises and critique, I wanted to separate the positives which are listed in the first para, as the criticism is mentioned in the second para.
    Fine by me
  • "noted 'the most iconic image' of the singer years after the concert" Two things. You might want to be careful with using "noted" this way. "Argued" seems like the better choice here. Second, there seem to be missing words before "the most iconic image" quotation. Might I suggest changing to ".. while in a 2017 retrospective, Elvin Luciano from CNN Philippines argued that it was one of Velasquez's most memorable moments"
    Done
  • The "while" in "while adding that the colors..." can be cut
    Done

Set list looks fine. Same goes for Personnel although I feel like "Dancers" should be on a separate line.

Fixed, let me know if it looks ok on a separate line.
Good enough to me

That's all from me @Pseud 14. Interesting read. I have only heard of Regine through occasional glimpses at TV talk shows, and while she always struck me as a fascinating figure, I never really got to listen to any song of hers. That might change today. Anywho, once all of my remaining concerns are addressed, I'll look through the article prose once more. If I can't find any more nits to pick, I'll be glad to support on grounds of the writing ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Your Power. All additional comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the prompt replies @Pseud 14 I read through the article, and I have nothing else to say; its prose looks solid enough to me. I'm happy to support this for promotion on grounds of the prose. If you have time to spare and are willing to QPQ, I have a FAC open for Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles -- seeing as you take interest in popular music, I figured I'd ask you for input. Thank you for the work you've done to the article, and have a good day! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your support and comments to help the article get in shape Your Power. Sure, I'd be happy to have a look at your FAC in the coming days. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

Version reviewed. Spot-checks not included.

  • Source 3 needs a page number (E2).
Added
  • How do we know for sure that source 4 is the actual newspaper entry? I'm not sure what I'm looking at. An image with a pink background and the supposed prose of the post does not look very legitimate. Is this "screenshot" (if that is what this is) captured by a verified/authorized user?
I believe this was a snippet of transcribed articles in 1999. My search yielded this page. Is this something that can alternately be used? I couldn't find an archive at Wayback and only used this sourcing to support that she in fact did the show on those dates and what the show title was. Also, could this be used as an alternative high-quality source to support that? Otherwise I can remove it.
This indicates that it is a fan website so I wouldn't use it. The alternative is much better IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken I have removed the source and replaced with the alternative.
  • Source 5 - see directly above.
Used this poster as a secondary source to support source 4 (show title and dates). Alternative I could find is this same source listing shows and dates where the poster is also included. Otherwise I can remove it too.Pseud 14 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see there are six other snippets from the fan site. If you can somehow verify the legitimacy of these articles, simply removing these links from the refs (not the entire refs, just links) should do. Some articles just aren't available online. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I remember you had suggested this at one of your reviews at FLC re sourcing for articles that aren't really online. But since it's FAC, I'd be more inclined to just remove this one as well. Since the alternative suggest above also has the same information Pseud 14 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Source 10 needs a page number (G1).
Added
  • Source 11 needs a page number (B6).
Added
  • Source 22 - the "author" is Isah V. Red, not Isah Red. (Using "author" in scare quotes because Red is the editor, not the author; use |editor-last1= and |editor-first1= parameters instead. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters used
Thanks for doing the source review FrB.TG, I have addressed the above and provided my responses on two items. Let me know your thoughts and I'll can action accordingly. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and insights FrB.TG, I have addressed two remaining points and have replaced with the suggested alternative. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would archive the source link for File:Regine Velasquez R2K Concert 2000.jpg to avoid any potential future headaches. This may not be necessary, but I would also an author link (here) with an archived version just so all the information is readily available to anyone interested.
  • Since Velasquez has been on multiple concerts, would it be helpful to include a concert chronology in the infobox similar to the one used in The Breeders Tour 2014?
  • I have a question about this part, Rajo Laurel, drawing inspiration from Dolce & Gabbana's "print-on-print" collection. When I first read it, I thought Velasquez had some role in this inspiration, but the article attributes this entirely to Laurel. If it was all Laurel's ideas, I would say something like "Rajo Laurel who drew inspiration ..." to avoid this misinterpretation.
  • I found the opening number bit in the lead to be a little confusing. On my first read, I thought the Jennifer Lopez medley was the opening number, but it is really the Backstreet Boys (at least from my understanding). Are all these songs part of the opening number? I was further confused by this as the article and set list put the "Larger than Life" part as separate and before the Lopez medley.
I revised it, as the first two numbers were consecutively performed, so I used the term "opening set" instead to refer to both back-to-back numbers.
  • Sorry in advance if this is a silly question. Was there a physical release for this concert similar to Back to Basics: Live and Down Under? I was curious after reading about the show being broadcast.
There was a limited VHS release from the same footage during the Viva TV broadcast but it was recalled because of poor audio, which was a shame. Though I do not have an available source online to back this up, so I excluded it.
  • Should popular music be pop music? If not, then pop music should be linked in the "range from pop, ballads, rock and even rap" quote. I would also link rock and rap because if one genre is going to be linked, then they should all be linked for the sake of consistency.
  • I am curious about the context of the "I'm not out to prove anything" quote. Maybe it is because I am not familiar with this singer but it sounds rather defensive. Was there criticism of her performances in the past? This part and reading about her not feeling ready in the past for larger venues makes me wonder if parts of the story are missing.
I believe her saying "I'm not out to prove anything" is a response to media and perhaps public pressure leading up to the arena concert, since she's already an established artist at that time and did not need to prove anything to her audience but just give them a good show. Velasquez has been used to performing in theater scale venues, but at the urging of her label, and they believed that it was time for her to do a show in a larger venue, she agreed to do it, even if she felt at that time that she wasn't ready just yet.
  • I have some citation overkill concerns with four sources being used for this sentence: Critics agreed that the highlight of the night was Velasquez's aerial performance. I would either consider citation bundling or removing them as the information is already supported by the rest of the paragraph where the sources are already used.

Wonderful work with this article. I love that you are doing so much work on Filipino topics because it is great to see more representation on Wikipedia that is outside of the English-speaking world. I really should try my hand at a tour article one of these days as you have definitely inspired me with this kind of article. If this FAC passes, this would be one of only four tour FAs! Plus, random side note, I love how much Velasquez was inspired by Paula Abdul's Under My Spell Tour as I feel like a lot of people forget about Abdul's music. Either way, once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion! Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and review Aoba47. I have made the changes per your comments and provided explanations to those where you sought clarification. Let me know if I may have missed anything. I've been trying my hand in improving and contributing to Philippine-related articles. I took a break from BLPs for now and dabbled into tours/concerts as they are less stressful undertakings ;) I actually only know one Paula Abdul song tbh, (Straight Up. And had only known it was her tour that was the inspiration when I watched the interview. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Your responses make sense to me so rather than address them individually above, I just wanted to make a general response here. I really enjoy Abdul's music, but it is definitely from a particular time so I can see why people would not enjoy it anymore lol. I support your FAC for promotion based on the prose and best of luck with your future FAC work! Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from mujinga

[edit]
Linked in lead and first instance in the body
  • "I never realized that one day, I would be able to sing the theme songs of my own movies", before she sang a medley of her movie themes - perhaps "of her movie themes" is redundant?
Thanks for this, revised.
  • linking to "Aerial suspension" doesn't seem quite right, but then Aerial acrobatics is a disambig, tricky
Removed link
  • "some were critical of her spiels;" - what does spiel mean here? her between song comments?
Correct. There is no wiki article I could link and I could not think of an alternative term that can be used for such.
  • "This set list is representative of the last performance on April 8, 2000" maybe "This set list is representative of the second performance on April 8, 2000"?
Done as suggested
  • "Dancers - Hotlegs"" - only once dancer? Or maybe hotlegs is a troupe?
Yes, name of a dance troupe. Unfortunately, there is no listing of individuals names in the credits.
That's right, I only linked on the first instance of the work parameter (which I think is also acceptable as long as it is consistent)
Thanks for your review Mujinga. I have actioned the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All my queries are answered satisfactorily, so switching to support Mujinga (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Ian Rose. Did you mean ‘sure’ as ok to promote? Sorry for any confusion. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was multitasking and misread your note as a request to start a new nom. Regarding promotion, I'm expect I or one of the other coords will look it over before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, much appreciated. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the second ping. I understand things might be busy on your front. Just wanted a status update for this nomination as it has received a good deal of attention from reviewers already and much earlier FACs seem to have been promoted in the current batch of promotions. Thank you for your time and apologies again for being impatient. I hope everyone is having a good weekend so far! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:58, 18 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [77].

Our Song (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We may know about Taylor Swift the pop star, the serial dater, or the climate criminal with 170 private jet flights from January 2022 so far. But back in 2007 she was just a country-music goody-two-cowboy-boots singing about boys, boys, boys. This song, the sweetly titled "Our Song", is packed with yeehaw-esque banjo and twang and was number one on the country chart for six weeks. After months-long work, I believe this article is now up to FA standards. Looking forward to comments, Ippantekina (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (full review to follow)

[edit]

More comments

[edit]
  • What's a "freshman year"?
  • It's a term for first high school year in the U.S. Linked to avoid confusion for non-US readers.
  • "Swift wrote and co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks" => "Swift wrote or co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks" (you can't both write and co-write the same song)
  • "which made she think" => "which made her think"
  • "and uses Southern accent," => "and uses a Southern accent,"
  • "brought by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager" => "brought about by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager"
  • "it employs a conventional narrative and a "massive pop hook [sic]"" - why the "sic" here?
  • I would add the year of TMcG's hit to his photo caption for context
  • "and twenty-four weeks in total" => "and twenty-four weeks in total on the chart"
  • "which had predominantly seen the domination of" => "which had predominantly been dominated by"
  • BTW, unless I am missing something, the source on that sentence just says male musicians and doesn't say anything about their age
  • The source said that Swift's music was atypical for the adult audience. Reworded to keep source integrity.
  • I'd also add a timeframe to that sentence, as the source only mentions country music being dominated by males during the 00s
  • "including the Red Tour (Pittsburg, July 2013)" - Pittsburgh spelt wrong
  • That's what I got - great read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

  • The lede repeats that Swift wrote the song in the first and second sentences.
  • The "Release" section is quite short and I believe would benefit from being folded into the "Writing and production" section (á la "Style"). I would go that route instead as it makes the prose more cohesive and engaging (at least in my opinion).
  • I would expand the WP:FUR for the audio sample, specifically for its purpose of use to better justify its inclusion.
  • For this part ("Our Song" recalls the little moments), I would use a different verb than recalls as it is anthropomorphizing the song a bit too much in my opinion.
  • I am not sure about this wording (the lyrics are about a young couple using the regular events in their lives to create their own song). It seems a little too wordy.
  • All of the credits and personal should be discussed in the prose. There are some who are only mentioned in the separate section, like Rob Hajacos and Bruce Bouton, and not in the "Writing and production" section.

I hope these comments are helpful for now. I will post a review sometime later next week as I am trying to balance my time on Wikipedia with off-Wiki work, but I thought I should help here since I have some experience with song articles. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I look forward to the full review soon. Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Let me know when all my comments above have been addressed. Apologies for the delay in my review. I will try to get to a full review later this week. It is a matter of scheduling and time management on my part, but I also want to make sure I do my full due diligence as a reviewer by reading through the article very carefully multiple times. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know I will post my review tomorrow. Apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede says positive reviews focus on the hook and lyrics, but the "Critical reception" section does not make these trends obvious (at least to me).
  • That still does not really address my concern. The "Critical reception" section does not have a sentence that specifically says the "conversational lyrics" were praised by critics. I would recommend including some sort of topic sentence or a sentence saying that this was something praised by critics. Right now, the lead and the article do not really match. If the hook is praised in multiple reviews, you could also do the same for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Taylor comment on Big Machine re-releasing this song on vinyl in 2019?
  • I would link refrain to help readers who are not 100% familiar with music terms.
  • In the "Music and lyrics", I would attribute the "a playful tone" part as that is more of a description applied by a critic than an objective fact and it would be best to avoid any potential confusion that Wikipedia is presenting this in its own voice.
  • This is more a clarification question, but what is the intended structure of the "Critical reception" section? I get that the first paragraph focuses on contemporary reviews and the second on retrospective ones, but how did you structure the information within the paragraphs?
  • Because reviews are universally positive, I only divided them into contemporary and retrospective. I do spend more time on reviews from more reputable critics (Frere-Jones, Sheffield, Johnston etc.) and less on lesser-known ones (NME, Vulture). Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would look to my response to my above point on the lead. I think pulling together the positive reviews about the hook and then the lyrics might be something to help bring this some more structure. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Billboard described it as, the author should be attributed in the prose as the article has consistently named the author and work. I have the same comment for this part, Reviews from NME and Vulture highlighted. For me, it is a matter of consistency.
  • There are a few areas where numbers over ten are spelled out ("seventeen at the time", "at fourteen years old", "seventeen years old at the time", "and twenty-four weeks in total") and I thought they were supposed to represented as numerals.
  • In the "Chart performance" section, there are two sentences in a row that start rather similarly: "In August 2014" and "By July 2019". I would change one of these instances to avoid having the prose appear like a list.
  • I think "neighboring" in this part "In neighboring Canada" is unnecessary.
  • The prose does not mention the song's appearance on a South Korean chart in 2012. Also, is there any information on why that song charted several years later in South Korea?
  • I am curious to know why it charted in 2012 as well! I chose not to mention it in prose because throwing in the chart position without a backstory is potentially confusing, but I'd like to hear what you and others think. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the full context is not known, the South Korean charts should still be present in the prose. All of the charts should be represented in the table and in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the "Music video" section repeats "directed" twice.
  • For this part, as part of an iTunes-exclusive live EP, I would link extended play and spell out the acronym.

I hope my comments are helpful. I believe this should be everything. Once everything has been addressed, I will check through everything again. Apologies again for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your comments above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have c/e'd the "Critical reception" section and added the South Korean chart in the prose. Let me know if the article needs further work. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and apologies for the amount of comments in my review. You have done a wonderful job with this article so I hope my review does not come across as too much or rude. I think it is worth saying in the prose that the South Korean chart appearance was in 2012 to avoid any potential confusion that it was at the same time as the other charts. The "Critical reception" section looks good to me, but I would prefer to wait to see how other reviewers respond to it before giving my support. Apologies for that. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it is my concern also that the prose is up to the highest standards. Ippantekina (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. I will keep a close eye on this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for keeping me updated about this FAC on my talk page. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • All of the sources seem to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
  • Billboard should be italicized in the titles for ref 44, 46 51
  • Isn't AllMusic usually in the publisher field? (ref 35, 93)
  • JSTOR is italicised in ref 30 but not in the prose.--NØ 18:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review.--NØ 12:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (Pass)

[edit]
  • File:Taylor Swift - Our Song.png is perfectly fine.
  • File:Taylor Swift - Our Song.ogg is of appropriate length and is effective in demonstrating the caption.
  • Source link for File:Tim McGraw.jpg is dead and I couldn't locate an archive on Archive.org. File:Tim McGraw Dallas 2009.jpg seems alright for a replacement. Also it might help for accessibility purposes if the alt text was a bit more detailed and described what he is doing in the picture
  • This just needs an alt improvement now, and please put it in a conventional Information template with description, date, source, author, etc. fields.--NØ 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot that imported File:Taylor Swift (6966861583).jpg seems to have copied over a lengthy description from the flickr page. It could probably be done away with in favor of a 1-2 sentence description as I am unsure what the copyright status of this text is.--NØ 07:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image review. I added an archive-url to Tim McGraw's photo. Not sure if the bot's direct copy of text from Flickr affects copyright, but I assume that text is also available under the same license as the photo. Ippantekina (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other problems with this text than just copyright, like the shouting, an unverifiable quote from Taylor, quotes from secondary sources (Billboard?), and promotional links (which might signal the text was copied from Music News Australia?). An image that will be displayed on the main page one day should have a succint one-two line description that readers can easily understand.--NØ 04:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy if this were to be quickly resolved as I'm about to get a bit busy and do not want to cause another "Out of the Woods"-type hold-up.--NØ 05:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved all on Commons. Ippantekina (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Lead

  • "Music critics lauded Swift's songwriting on "Our Song" for creating conversational lyrics a memorable hook" - something is odd about "creating controversial lyrics a memorable hook". Should it perhaps be "making" instead of "creating".
  • "The song featured on Rolling Stone's 2019 list of the best country songs by female artists since 2000." The word "song" repeated twice here.
  • "A success on country radio, the single made Swift the youngest person—seventeen at the time—to single-handedly write and sing a number-one single on the Hot Country Songs chart" - maybe write seventeen as a numeral. The word "single" is written thrice here.
  • ""Our Song" peaked at number sixteen on the Billboard Hot 100 and was certified four times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)." Since the abbreviation RIAA is not used elsewhere in the lead, you can remove it.
  • The abbreviation for Music Canada (MC) should be removed from both the lead and body as it is not used beyond these two instances.
  • "The video won Video of the Year and Female Video of the Year at the 2008 CMT Music Awards." The word "video" is repeated thrice in close proximity.

Production and release

  • I suggest not duplicating captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply "refer to caption".
  • "Pennsylvania-born Taylor Swift moved to Nashville, Tennessee at fourteen years old, in 2004, to pursue a career in country music." - just "at 14 years old" should suffice. I would move "in 2004" to the beginning of the sentence to avoid placing two numbers so closely.
  • "She wrote or co-wrote all of the album's eleven tracks, including three by herself—"The Outside", "Should've Said No", and "Our Song"." After "wrote or co-wrote", it becomes clear that she wrote some tracks all by herself so it becomes a little repetitive to see "by herself". I would mention the three tracks right after writing about her solo songwriting.
  • "She conceived the song as an upbeat track with lyrics relatable to her classmates, writing it within twenty minutes." Numerals should usually be used for numbers 10 and above.
  • ""Our Song" was later included on the track list of the international version of Fearless, Swift's second studio album, released in March 2009." It's not clear if it was the album or the track that was released in March 2009.

Music and lyrics

  • "In the song, Swift sings with twangy vocals[23] and uses a Southern accent, brought about by her move from Pennsylvania to Tennessee as a teenager; Swift pronounces the pronoun "I" closer to the monophthong "ah", sings the words "car" and "heart" with a non-rhotic accent, and plays on the lack of verb agreement in Southern American English in the lyric "your mama don't know"." This is an incredibly long sentence. It has too many commas and too many and's. I suggest ending it where the semi-colon is placed.
  • "Music critics debated whether "Our Song" is country music." This sentence begins and ends with "music".

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for the review. At MOS:NUM integrals larger than nine "may be expressed either in numerals or in words", so I don't think it's necessary to switch all to numerals as long as they are consistent throughout the article. Other than that, I have addressed your issues and improved the prose accordingly. Looking forward to the full review-- Ippantekina (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for resolving these although my point about not repeating captions in alt is still unaddressed.

Critical reception

  • ""Our Song" was one of the "Award-Winning Songs" at the 2008 BMI Country Awards." I'm not sure what "award-winning songs" means. Did it win any specific award? If so, it's better to mention the category. Or is "award-winning song" an award in itself?
  • "Critics praised Swift's melodic songwriting for creating a catchy hook." The way this is currently phrased, it implies "melodic songwriting" is a fact.
  • "Nate Jones of Vulture and Jonathan Keefe of Slant Magazine lauded the memorable hook and melody" - see directly above ("lauded the memorable hook and melody"). It should be something like "...lauded the hook and melody as memorable" or "...called the hook and melody memorable".
  • "In Pitchfork, Johnston selected the track as one of Swift's early songwriting demonstrations for earnestly portraying teenage sentiments, which made her stand out among teen idols who sang music written for them." Who is them here? I assume it's teenagers, but the only noun in form of person mentioned here is teen idols.
  • "Alexis Petridis from The Guardian commended the "snappy, self-referential lyrics"" See my point above about presenting opinions as facts.

Chart performance

  • "It reached number one on the Hot Country Songs chart dated December 15, 2007, giving Swift her first number one on the chart." Repetition of "number one".
  • "The song's jump from number six to number one on the chart marked the biggest jump to the top since Tim McGraw's "Just to See You Smile" (1998), which also ascended from number six to number one." This one uses "number one" and "number six" twice.
  • "August 2014", "July 2019", "80,000 digital" - WP:NBSP needed.

Live performances

  • The section uses U.S. but elsewhere it's US. Be consistent.
  • "Rascal Flatts' 2008 tour" - as per this section of apostrophe article, all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation.

This should be the end of my review. Let me know once you have addressed these. FrB.TG (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all are addressed now. Thank you again for the comments, and let me know if the article needs further work. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on all criteria except sourcing. I didn’t take a look at the sources but the passed source review above indicates I don’t need to worry. Great work as always. FrB.TG (talk) 11:33, 6 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2022 [78].

I Drink Wine

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 11:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "I Drink Wine", a sombre ballad she wrote with her "Hello" collaborator Greg Kurstin in the aftermath of her divorce. The song's original 15-minute version was reduced to a six-minute track for the release of 30. A favourite among fans and critics alike, it reached the top 10 in various countries despite not seeing a commercial single release. The song was also showcased in an acclaimed performance at the Brit Awards this year. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 11:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review—pass

[edit]

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For the profile image, I'd include an archived version of the source link to be on the safe side.
  • Done.
  • The second paragraph of the "Background" section appears rather long (at least in my view) and I think it would benefit from being separated into two. I would start a new paragraph with this part, She announced the album's tracklist on 1 November 2021, as that is a natural change in topic.
  • I believe this is a good idea. Split.
  • I would link Rhodes. The Wikipedia article capitalizes Rhodes so should be it represented the same way here?
  • Linked.
  • This is super nitpick-y, but citation 36 has 30 in italics while most of the other citations do not have it in italics. I'd be consistent with one way or the other.
  • Removed for consistency.
  • Linked.
  • Jon Pareles should be linked in the article and in the citation.
  • Linked.

I hope these comments are helpful. I believe this should be everything. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been addressed. The review was very helpful, Aoba47! Hope you are having a great weekend.--NØ 04:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • English singer Adele – is a song recorded by English singer-songwriter Adele...
  • I am reluctant about this one since her bio addresses her as a "singer and songwriter" instead of a "singer-songwriter" and these types of changes have been contentious in the past.
  • Adele wrote it with its producer Greg Kurstin. The song became available as the album's seventh track – Adele co-wrote the song with its producer [..] It became available...
  • Done.
  • Think it would be worth linking organ to the instrument to avoid confusion
  • I have added a link.
  • A ballad with gospel influences, "I Drink Wine" is reminiscent of church music and incorporates a piano and an organ in its instrumentation. – I think you can start this off with “Musically, “I Drink Wine is a balled with gospel influences which is reminiscent.
  • Done.
  • A suggestion -- The lyrics are about letting go of one's ego and addresses Adele's divorce with Simon Konecki, and the ensuing difficult realizations about the state of her marriage and life.
  • I think I'll keep the present wording if that is okay, the word "ensuing" would imply something not directly stated in the article or sources.
  • some of whom viewed – since critics have been mostly unanimous, perhaps use "many of whom viewed"
  • While many of them were positive, I think "some" is the safer word given the gravity of the wording I have included in the lead.
  • To avoid repetition of "received" I would suggest -- The song’s instrumentation was praised, but some believed that the lyrics were weak.
  • Done.
  • Adele wrote the song "I Drink Wine" -- co-wrote the song
  • Done.
  • The composition and reception section has at least six mentions of "I Drink Wine" each. Perhaps reword some of them to avoid being repetitive.
  • I've used the typical rotation between "[song name]", "the song" and "it" I use on all my FAs.
  • Adele sang it in a lime green chiffon Valentino gown -- not sure if this is necessary to include what she wore, as the other live performances listed doesn’t include it.
  • Given the extent to which sources covered it I deemed it worthy of a one-line mention.
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space between personnel and roles.
  • Done!
If you have spare time or inclination, I would appreciate feedback on my current FLC. Not to worry if things are busy.

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "arduous realizations" - Adele is British so the article should be written in British English and therefore that last word should be "realisations"
  • "She reminisces her childhood" => "She reminisces about her childhood"
  • "reaches arduous realizations" - as above
  • "sometimes the road less traveled" => "sometimes the road less travelled"
  • "its lyrics were swarmed with clichés" => "its lyrics swarmed with clichés"
  • "Graeme Marsh opined the song's lyrics" => "Graeme Marsh opined that the song's lyrics"
  • "Afront a gold curtain" - I don't think "afront" is a real word, or if it is then it's a very obscure one, so I would just say "In front of"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]

Version reviewed. Spot-checks not included.

  • Ref. 1 has 10th February 2020 as publication date, not 25 June 2018.
  • 30 should not be linked in ref. 6 title as you are not referencing the Wikipedia page but the media notes of the album.
  • 25 should not be linked in ref. 7 as per above.
  • Most of the sources are archived but some are not (e.g. ref. 15). I suggest doing it for all to avoid future headache with dead links.
  • 30 should be italicised in ref. 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 54 as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Watch out for WP:QWQ in ref. 18 quote.
  • I Drink Wine in ref. 19 should have apostrophes as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE and MOS:QWQ.
  • Given that The Daily Telegraph offers a month of free trial, I wonder if ref. 22 should have |url-access=limited instead of |url-access=subscription.
  • Ref. 23 should have a |url-access=limited parameter.
  • Ref. 26 should have a |url-access=limited parameter (also for consistency - see ref. 4).
  • Weirdly I'm able to access both the Independent refs without a subscription so I've removed it from both.
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 September 2022 [79].

Dance in the Dark

[edit]
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another nomination of a Lady Gaga song from her EP The Fame Monster by me. Unlike "Bad Romance", my previous nom, this did not enjoy much popularity and was released as a single only in France. Much of my work revolved adding sources (including academic ones) and thoroughly scanning the article for source-to-text accuracy considering it was taken to GA by a user who added fabricated material to Wikipedia articles. I look forward to your feedback on this one. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (passes)

[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not have time in the immediate future to do a full prose review, but I will do the image and media review to at least help somewhat and take some of the burden away from those who always help with these types of reviews in FACs.

This should be everything. I do not see any major issues. My points are mostly about having the ALT text be more consistent, adding archives of the source/author links, and fixing an issue with the Sawayama image's purpose of use. Please let me know if you have any questions and this will pass my image/media review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review, Aoba. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating my review as images in the article were changed. For File:PrimaveraBarcW1Jun22 (51 of 318) (52163776528) (cropped).jpg, I would archive the source and author links. However, this is not a serious issue and does not take away from my earlier review. I'd also like to add that the image does cut across section headings, but I am not sure if that is a serious issues or not so I will that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archived the links on the new img as well. Thank you for updating on your review. (I thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother for something small.) FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Feel free to ping me if there are any further changes with the images and media and I will be more than happy to update my review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias / Your Power

[edit]

Will leave prose comments within the week ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 03:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am out of home right now, so I will have to leave comments via alt. More will follow in a few hours. For responses please ping this account and not the other one Untroubled.elias (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be just me, but right now the first sentence of the lead seems complex and clunky. I read it aloud, and I feel like (1) there are lots of commas and (2) there should be a longer pause between "The Fame Monster (2009)" and "the reissue". Can we change the comma between those to an em dash?
  • The word "song" appears in this sentence as well as the two following sentences. "The song is about a girl" -> "The lyrics are about a girl"
  • Is it due to include the release date for "Alejandro" in the lead? Oh, and the lead mentions the full release date, but the article prose itself excludes the day.
  • "Fernando Garibay co-wrote and co-produced the song with Gaga." the co- prefix there is IMO unnecessary and can be culled in the interest of conciseness
Thanks for your comments. I have done all as suggested above and look forward to the next batch of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prob FrB.TG - continuing. I am open to any justifiable objections to the comments below - please please please do not feel afraid to call me out on an unnecessary suggestion ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still in the lead - I think we can be a biiit more specific wrt the term "formulaic". Was the production formulaic? Were the lyrics?
  • Per MOS:NUMNOTES, please change every instance in the article where chart positions are written in both words and figures in one sentence. For example, "X song" peaked at numbers 5, 39, and 94 in the US, UK, and Ireland, respectively is good, but "X song" peaked at numbers five, 39, and 94... is not.
  • "charted on the UK Singles Chart" seems repetitive - "charted" can be changed to "entered"
    • By the way, is there any tangible basis by which peak positions in certain countries are mentioned in the lead? Right now the relevant sentence seems arbitrary. I could understand mentioning the US chart entries because Gaga is from the US, but I don't know why the lead says it charted in the UK without specifying the peak position like the other countries. Perhaps listing only the countries where it reached top 10/25/40 would be more reasonable (?)
Good point. I have selected the countries where the song reached top ten. - FrB.TG
  • "Other performances of the song included at the ..." -> Other events in which she performed the song included the ..."
  • Completely optional nitpick and feel free to ignore it, but "an intimate experience" sounds better than "the intimate experience". I read the LA Times article, and it didn't really strike me that she was inspired by two specific people who just had sex.
  • The sentence saying that Gaga also struggled with her body image fits better at the end of its paragraph, IMO.
  • "opinion of using stutter in American popular music as a way" -> "opinion that using stutter in American popular music was a way"
  • "Gaga responding to sexism" can be changed to "Gaga's response to sexism" - there seems way too many "Gaga [verb]-ing" type phrases here and we can always switch things up
I noticed that was the case in many sentences in that section. I have reduced the -ing usage a little.
  • "complement moments, where" I don't think the comma should be there
  • When I think of "mixed to positive reviews" I don't get that impression when someone says "this needs to be a single" or "this is an album standout", so I think those parts of the sentence can be split
  • "Campy" is not necessarily negative. There's what folks think is "good" camp ("this is so bad it's good") and then there's "bad" camp. The reviewers were pretty positive about "Dance in the Dark" - even encouraging readers to download it - so I don't know why the review ended up in the paragraph that deals with more negative song reviews.
  • "generic machine RnB" and "a routine and formulaic dance R&B track with retro eighties synth" -> these convey the same idea and can be merged to "or saying that the R&B production was formulaic" to cut down the use of quotations. An aside, but I would expect R&B to be listed both in the first paragraph of the section and in the infobox - the quotations are pretty explicit in calling the song that.
  • On the topic of quotations, I feel like we can easily paraphrase lots of these. WP:QUOTEFARM comes to mind. E.g. called it a "bold and bombastic club banger" can be paraphrased to appreciated its extravagant production or its topic about body images and sound ... made it arguably Lady Gaga's most emotionally potent song to date can become argued that its sound and its exploration of body image made it one of her most emotionally impactful songs
Good paraphrasing suggestions. I have done it for a fair amount of quotes. Let me know if there are any more instances of unnecessary quotes.
We're good here :)
  • "entered the French Digital Singles Chart at number forty and peaked at number thirty" the chart positions should be written with figures, not spelled out
  • The "being" in "while being surrounded" is not necessary - FAs should do its best to uphold conciseness
  • By "electric math grid" do you mean something like a Cartesian plane or graphing paper?
I'm not sure. It could mean either. The source doesn't clarify that so I have removed it for now.
  • I am not sure if the sentence about Jane Stevenson's opinion adds any value to the section. The opinion centers around the song performed after "DitD", not "DiTD" itself.

That should be all from me for now. Tomorrow I will look through the article again to see if there is anything I missed. If you have enough time for a QPQ, I'd appreciate a prose or source review for my open FAC which deals with the concert film Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles. Thank you for the patience with this review! I know I've left a lot to read and I apologize for that. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough review. All very good points that I agree with. Let me know if something needs clarifying. As for your FAC, I'll be happy to review it once I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay these should be the final batch FrB.TG! Once all of these are addressed I will be happy to give my support. Thank you so much for your hard work and patience with getting this the bronze star, and thank you for your FAC contributions in general! You're an inspiration to this newbie :") ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 02:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps we can clarify that the thing women were afraid to speak their mind about, according to Gaga, were their sex-related insecurities. And also that the women she was referring to were "several women who recently got AIDS", to make the mention of the Mac Aids Fund relevant
  • "influenced by Depeche Mode's ..." -> changed to "which was influenced by" because the way the sentence stands, either Robin James was influenced by the song or "DitD" was influenced by the song.
  • "found the song was an example where Gaga uses a" -> "found 'Dance in the Dark' was one of many Gaga songs that use a ...". I assume this is what you mean when you say example, because right now readers unfamiliar with Gaga's discography might ask "an example of what, exactly" when they read the sentence.
  • "The interlude refers to" -> "The interlude includes references to"
  • "the moon liberates her" is this referring to a Gaga or a non-specific woman? I actually preferred the version of the sentence with the quotation.
  • "They called it 'campy' " -> "Some called it 'campy' ". "They" suggests that all reviewers used those adjectives to describe the song ++ it implies the adjectives are a mix of negative and positive, when of course all of them were used positively.
  • Nick Levine's review can go at the end of the paragraph, so that all the review summaries stay on one side and the specific quotations stay on another.
  • The "also" in "Praise also focused" can be moved to the next sentence (i.e. "Reviewers also positively...), IMO
  • "made it her most emotionally impactful song" the original quotation there said "to date". I'd add it back
  • "Reviewing the song" can be removed - given the context we already know everything in this section comes from reviews. I'd rewrite part of the sentence to "Gaga, through the song, was unafraid of pushing boundaries..." - note the change in tense
  • The "then" in "and then to a peak" is extraneous. So is "In France".
  • Add "In the US" before the Bubbling Under sentence
  • Might be worth clarifying that the 2009 leg was the 'original' leg concept-wise, if the sources support it of course.
  • Should there be a hyphen between "laser lit" ?
  • The "as part of a segment titled 'City' " can be moved to the beginning of the next sentence. Currently it reads like there was another original segment in the 2009 leg with the same title.
  • "began to sing" can be simplified to "sang" -> the source suggests the dancers were with her through the entire performance
  • "instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City," -> "instead of Electric Lady Studios in New York City" to cut on the awkward pauses
Thank you for the kind words, Elias. I'm happy knowing that my work has inspired you. And I really like the thoroughness and helpfulness of your review. All suggestions incorporated. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like we are done here Happy to give this my support ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina

[edit]
  • "Gaga's label" it's not her label, isn't it?
  • Infobox introduces the genre as Europop; this should be mentioned in the lead too
  • " .. when the lights are out". the full stop should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:QUOTE
  • I'd add the release date of "Alenjandro" for context.
  • I personally avoid using Musicnotes.com as sources because we cannot be sure if it is the one to the official recording; the source here says "Easy Piano" and the instruments used are "Piano/Vocal/Chords", which makes me rather skeptical because it can be a sheet to a stripped-down version or a cover version.
  • "perform abnormality" this reads awkward
  • I know there will be a source review later, but I am unsure if Digital Spy qualifies as a top-notch source for an FA.
It's cited by several high-quality books here, indicating that it is a reliable source.
  • The same concern for ET Canada, Uproxx and Softpedia. I'd personally go for only reputable music publications (Guardian, Rolling Stone etc.), but I'm open to discussion on this.
Removed Uproxx. ET Canada has been cited by several high-quality books here, indicating it is a reliable source. As for Softpedia, the very review used in the article is cited by the journal Twentieth-Century Music, which is published by Cambridge University Press so I would say this can be used.
Thank you for the responses. I can somewhat feel safe about Digital Spy and ET Canada, but being cited in books does not automatically qualify as reliable. For example, I can use the same reason to justify tmz.com, which is deprecated. Softpedia is a "software and tech news website", so I'd look further into the context of its use in the journal to see how much weights it carry. Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With quite a few unfavorable reviews from NME, the BBC and USA Today, which are arguably more reliable than the sources I raised above, I think it's fair to say that the song received "mixed" or "mixed to positive" rather than generally positive reviews.
  • "after it was released to Australian radio" do we have a source? This can be mentioned in the "Background and release" section.
  • I don't think we need "sortable" one-entry tables, like in the current year-end chart section.
  • I don't think the cover artwork for Rina Sawayama's version is necessary. I'd go for a free-use image of Sawayama and a caption like "The song was covered by Sawayama (pictured)"
I agree with you. GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The song was recorded in Sawayama's home studio and is an electropop composition with production handled by Clarence Clarity. [...] Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sawayama recorded her cover at her home studio, instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City.[69][70] Her version replaces the Europop sound of the original song with nu metal-influenced electropop." somehow the information is repeated twice.
  • Also, "instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City". We need some context; does Sawayama usually record at this NYC studio?
  • Same concern for Stereogum as a top-notch FA-worthy source.

These are all comments that I have. Overall this is a solid article, and I am open to discussion to any of the points I raised above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ippantekina. All very helpful suggestions. Let me know if I have missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose--Thank you for the responses. A more thorough source review may be necessary, but I've left some comments regarding my thoughts on sources which I am open to discussion. If possible, I'd very much appreciate your input at my current FAC. Great work overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella

[edit]
  • "A remix of the song appeared on Gaga's" I would replace Gaga for her, less repetitive.
  • All those famous people are wikilinked, maybe you should do it with Jesus as well.
  • Add which Grammy's edition it was nominated.
  • Why does the revamped link goes to the dates? I think it should go to revamped concept.
  • Wikilink digital download.
  • add (EP) after extended play on Sawayama's section.
Removed extended play and replaced with EP since the abbreviation was already introduced earlier in the article.
Even better! GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink the first electropop.
  • Sawayama Remixed to Sawayama Remixed (2020).
  • Source 23: Pitchfork Media to Pitchfork.
  • Translate sources 63 and 64.
Not possible since the sources are automatically generated by {{single chart}} and they cannot be modified.
  • Source 68: Spotify must not be italicized.

Great article! GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ver much for the comments, GagaNutella. I think I have resolved all of them. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radios" => "issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radio" (in two places)
  • "as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Song." => "as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Songs chart."
  • "Universal Music France issued "Dance in the Dark" on August 25, 2010 [....] Earlier that March," - doesn't really work grammatically as "earlier that March" suggests that the former event also took place in March, which it didn't. Suggest changing the second sentence to "Gaga had released her first remix album entitled The Remix in March of the same year"
  • ""Dance in the Dark" debuted at number 22 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles in August 2010[42] and number 9 on the Hot Dance/Electronic Digital Songs in October 2010" - think you need to add the word "chart" after each chart name to make this work
Replaced "debuted at" with "charted at" to avoid repeating "charted" twice. Hopefully, it works.
Thank you, Chris, as always. All done as suggested. I'll gladly review your FAC as soon I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

Nice writing for this article about this very popular song. Its promising to see the many nice comments left by the editors above who are already supporting, and the article is put together at a comparable level to your other Lady Gaga nominations. It would be of some use to the article, I think, to at least mention at some level the fact that there was no official video to go with the release of this song. Why was this? Did they use up the entire video budget on the other releases on this album, or was the priority of which videos to release made beforehand, before they knew how popular this song would be when it came out? If RS ae hard to find, it seems like you could mention which songs from the album did get official videos along with which order they were actually released in. That is, how many of the songs on the album did get official videos and how many did not? I'm going to ask the same question for the cover version of the song, which you cover in this article, since it also does not appear to have an official video. Another coincidence? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, thanks for your comments. There's (currently) no source for why no video was released/if there was ever plan for one. Saying other singles got videos is a bit POV-pushing IMO as it implies that we think this one should've gotten a video as well. This song was hardly a single (only released to radio stations in one country nine months after the album release). It would be another discussion if it was another song like "Do What U Want" where a video was in talks for months but it never saw the light of the day due to certain mishaps. FrB.TG (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS is imiportant for this; what about simply listing it as one of the list of songs from the album which was not released with an official video? That way there is no POV pushing, it simply states that some of the songs had official videos from the album, and some did not. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could, but the thing is even something like "it did not have a video" needs an RS, which we don't. FrB.TG (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at the album page for this, it appears that only Bad Romance, Alejandro and Telephone received official music videos, and the others did not. Dancer in the Dark looks like it simply was not one of the three songs from the album which were chosen to receive official music videos. It looks useful to the article to say this for readers of this article who could otherwise ask themselves why the article does not cover anything about a related music video. Putting this in neutral language I think might be useful in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but my point is we need a source for this, for which none exists. Even talking about something not existing needs a source. Without a source, it would need a {{citation needed}} tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of moving forward with this; what do you think of adding a column to the album page charts of individual songs on the album to include a column which would indicate the date of the release of official music videos for the individual songs. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a much better alternative. I would suggest it adding it in prose form in singles section instead since all music videos from TFM were for singles. FrB.TG (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its an understanding that in the process of time that you'll add this information to Lady Gaga'a various album pages (the release dates of official music videos for each album of hers), then that looks like it would be an improvement. In the meantime, I'm joining the other editors here who are supporting this nomination. (P.s. I've also listed a FAC for the Olympic champion in popular culture Yuzuru Hanyu above in case you might have some time for any support/oppose comments.) ErnestKrause (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)

[edit]
  • While the release history table provides sources for Interscope and Universal, Streamline and Kon Live are only included in the infobox so is there a reference for those labels?
  • "is about a girl who likes to have sex with the lights off, because she’s embarrassed about her body" seems to be an almost direct quote from LA Times, this could benefit from being paraphrased
  • Ref 15 seems to give Michael Hubbard as the poster but seems to say in the text that Michael Cragg made the notes presented? If this is the same Michael Cragg who also wrote for The Guardian, I guess it should be fine from a reliability pov
Well, it says "Cragg wrote some notes", which doesn't necessarily mean he wrote this article, but rather (possibly) that he made notes about the album and gave it to Hubbard who then penned this article with his help. I'll go by with the official credits. And MusicOH is fine for FA IMO.
  • Tony Hardy (Consequence) seems to have called it a "formulaic dance R&B track", but the dance part seems to be omitted in the article currently. Also, both that source and BBC refer to R&B as a main genre than an influence, so it could be incorporated into the infobox
  • The ref order in the first sentence of Critical reception could be changed to 11 22 23 instead
It's arranged in terms of the opinions/quotes.
  • [80] shows a number 43 debut in Australia, not 93
  • Ref 15 does not seem to confirm DITD was performed during the "City" segment
  • Ref 4 does not open for me so it might need to be marked dead
  • What makes these reliable: IGN, Gay Times
IGN is listed as reliable for pop culture news at WP:RSP
Gay Times has been referenced by several reliable sources, including The Cut, NY Times, a Routledge-published book etc.
  • Mashable should be removed or replaced per WP:RSPSS
  • Not sure "Pitchfork" has to be included in the title for ref 25
  • Author for ref 33 is Christopher Rosa
  • MTV News should be linked on ref 55--NØ 06:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the detailed source review, MaranoFan. I believe these should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! And the article officially passes the source review.--NØ 11:24, 7 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) 10 September 2022 [81].

Wizards of Waverly Place

[edit]
Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed

[edit]

Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • These two terms, wizard (from the lead) and wizards-in-training (from the article), link to different articles and I would be consistent with one or the other.
  • Did any scholarly sources discuss the competition aspect of the series or Max being temporarily turned into a woman?
  • I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
  • I'd revise this part, such as the Quinceañera., into something like such as having a quinceañera. I think the use of the determiner (i.e. the) to be a little awkward, and I'm not sure the italics are necessary. Even though it is a foreign language word, I think it has passed into the English lexicon to the point that it is not entirely necessary.
  • I'm uncertain about "claimed" in Murrieta claimed he changed the family's surname. Unless this claim is more contentious, I'd use something more neutral like "said".
  • Done both above.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes as they are not particularly beneficial in my opinion. This comment is tied specifically to "edgy", "dumb", "weird", and "heartbroken". I think it would be better to paraphrase these and focus on more impactful quotes, and I'd encourage you to look throughout the article to see if I had missed any others.
  • There are a few spots where the quotes need clearer attribution in the prose. This is in reference to "slightly goofy", "comic relief", "sweet and sassy", and "absurdly hilarious". As with my above point, I'd look throughout the article to see if there. are any other quotes without clear attribution.
  • I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
  • I would reexamine this part, Reviewers like Garron described the central characters, as this claim is not supported in the citation. This part claims that multiple reviewers described the characters in this way when it is only Garron doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, after Murrieta left the program in April. Is there any information on why he left the show?
  • I have added a brief explanation on this.
  • I do not really seen an explanation for this in the prose. It now says he left prior the renewal, but that's not really an explanation (and it is okay if one is not available as some people just do not share this information publicly). Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, with the episode depicting the family's wizard competition. I have received and seen the following note in the FAC space a fair bit. I would avoid the sentence structure "with X verb-ing" as I have been told that is not appropriate for FA writing. I'd look throughout the article for any other instances of this and revise where necessary.
  • Fixed a couple of these I think.
  • I have a few comments for this part, while reviewing the video game, Jack DeVries said that the series was not as much of a rip-off as people might expect. This is the first time the article mentions the video game so it is somewhat jarring. I also think the rip-off criticism would benefit from further expansion because it seems more like a brief mention at the moment.
  • I am not sure of the value of this sentence, The show was also compared to Bewitched. It does not really convey that much information so I'd either remove it or go into more detail.
  • I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
  • I hate to be this person, but what makes Plugged In a high-quality source? I also found it a little jarring to have a single, more religious citation used in the article.
  • Fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!

  • Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks great so far. I have left some responses above, and I will read through everything again tomorrow morning (as I have the day off work). Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from LM150

[edit]

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention again! Just some initial comments after a quick scan..

  • There are some short sentences which could probably be combined. Examples: The program last aired on January 6, 2012. The Russo family is depicted as working class. Special effects were typically used in the series.
  • I have fixed these three examples.
  • Is this the right wording? made the children mixed-race. At first, it sounded odd as I was expecting something like "wrote the children as mixed-race". But maybe it's okay.
  • I've decided to go with "wrote as".
  • The series ended to allow its actors to pursue more mature roles[42] - I don't doubt this, but I couldn't find this TV series in the source. -- LM150 20:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great @SatDis:, mostly happy to support, some suggestions –

  • In the Development and Casting section, is it necessary to state that Gomez "moved to Los Angeles" twice?
  • This sentence should be split.. it's quite wordy: Vince Cheung and Ben Montanio became the new showrunners and executive producers alongside Greenwald and Gomez revealed in July that it would be the final season of the program.
  • Also, there might be a better word that "revealed". Maybe announced?
  • "The children attempt to live life normally" - may sound better as "The children try to live normal lives"
  • "During the airing of the fourth season" - may sound better as "While the fourth season was on air" LM150 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from theJoebro64

[edit]

Marking my spot—should get to the review sooner rather than later JOEBRO64 12:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need "portrayed by" in the parenthesis, just (Selena Gomez) should suffice
  • Any reason you're not providing the actors for Justin and Max even though you provide Alex's? I think you should for consistency
  • Fixed both above.
  • ... hones her supernatural abilities while doing so I think this is a little unclear. Maybe change to develops her supernatural abilities over the course of the series?
  • While the series contains fantasy elements, the main themes depicted include the focus on family, friendship, and adolescence. I'm a little confused by this—I'm not sure how it being a fantasy series contrasts with its themes.
  • Addressed both above.
  • I've noticed the article's a tad inconsistent regarding the use of the serial comma. I'd just do a read-through to address it based on your personal preference.
  • McNamara noted the show did not rely on shtick. WP:SAID: noted implies something is a statement of fact, so it's a word you want to avoid when writing a reception section. Not to mention—was McNamara writing this as a positive or a negative?
  • such as the lackluster computer animation of a griffin Likewise, we can't call something "lackluster" in Wikivoice, per WP:NPOV.

Nothing else to say. Good job! JOEBRO64 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support JOEBRO64 13:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • See this discussion re the reliability of IB Times, which you use in a couple of places.
  • The New York Post is also a generally unreliable source.
  • Mashable is also a dubious source, but I think you need to replace it anyway as you have it citing a release date for the Malaysian adaptation, but the article itself only says the release was planned for that date. Releases can get delayed, after all.
  • I'm also concerned about PopSugar -- this makes it sound as if it accepts pieces by non-staff writers, and searching the RS noticeboard comes up with negative opinions.
  • I see some inconsistencies in the cite formatting. For example, [96] has both the website and publisher parameters, [68] has neither, [29] has website but no publisher, and [76] has publisher but no website. Any consistent rule for when to use each parameter is fine, but I can't see what your rule might be here.

Pausing there for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SatDis, I just realized you might have interpreting my comment as meaning I was coming back to this review shortly; in fact I'm pausing because I want to wait till you've responded above before I continue with the review -- I can't tell which citations, if any, are formatted wrongly till I understand how you're intending to format them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thank you, I will address these within the next few days. SatDis (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I have removed sources from New York Post (and a lot of info that went with it), Mashable, PopSugar and IBT (one was an interview with the show's creator). I have removed [68], [76] and [77] as they are unreliable sources. [29] has been fixed: each source should have a website and publisher, if it doesn't, it means I am unsure as to who the publisher is or there is none. I also only wikilink the first appearance of each source. SatDis (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass through; here are some more questions.

  • More reliable source questions: what makes the following sites reliable?
    • MarkRobinsonWrites.com -- looks like a blog.
      • Isn't a blog acceptable in the context of a reviewer? Can remove if needed.
    • TVshowsonDVD.com
      • These are press releases about the DVDs. Can remove if needed.
    • Imagen.org -- looks like a one-person operation
      • It looks to me like this is from the Imagen Foundation which runs a legitimate awards ceremony. If you are saying this is unreliable, I will need to remove all of the Imagen Awards listings in the article. Can remove if needed.
  • For the cites without publisher:
    • The Star (Malaysia) is published by Star Media Group Berhad
    • USA Today is published by Gannett
    • CommonSenseMedia is published by CommonSenseMedia
    • MTV News is published by MTV
    • LA Times is published by Los Angeles Times Communications
    Some nominators skip publishers where they're identical to or easily determined from the website/work title, and if you want to do that that's fine, but I would say USA Today and The Star would not be covered by that exception.
  • You have cite web citations that have no website/work parameter; for example the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards citations, the TV Tonight awards, the Artios awards, and a couple of others.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Mike Christie: Done all of the above. Like I said, I am happy to remove those three sources (MarkRobinsonWrites.com, TVshowsonDVD.com and Imagen.org) but just thought I'd let you know their purpose. SatDis (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look at the formatting again in a moment, but re the reliability, it's not always necessary to remove a source that is questioned. If you believe that the source is reliable, you can make the case -- often I will ask because I'm unfamiliar with the source and can't find evidence of reliability; if you can supply that evidence then the source is OK to use. For the Mark Robinson source, see WP:BLOG -- the relevant criterion is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Is he a well-known reviewer with other publications who covers this genre? If so it might be OK to use this source. For TVshowsonDVD, those look like press releases to me, but is TVshowsonDVD a reliable source for reproducing them? If you can show the site was owned by a corporate entity with editorial control that would probably be enough; or if you can find evidence that it is treated as a reliable source by other sources that are themselves reliable, that would also help. For Imagen, I just can't find evidence that this is more than the privately run website of the woman who founded it; and anyone can create a website and start handing out awards. Are the awards treated as significant by other media sources? Is there an industry group that supports the site? I suspect this probably is a reliable source but I couldn't find proof. We have an article on the awards, but again it only talks about Helen Hernandez as the founder. Perhaps one of the sources at that article will provide enough background to prove it's reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the formatting, I see there are still some missing publishers -- e.g. the Kid's Choice Awards, TVShowsOnDVD, WEBN-TV, Mark Robinson, and there are still missing work/website parameters: Young Artist awards, Imagen Awards, the Emmys, Australian Nickelodeon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Fixed all of the above mentioned. TV Tonight is the website and there is no publisher; same for Mark Robinson. Kids' Choice Awards is the website and I have listed Nickelodeon as the publisher. SatDis (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Mark Robinson, if you read his bio here [82], it appears he has authored several books on TV and is a featured writer for reliable websites such as Playbill. I think this may qualify as evidence.
I can see that TVShowsonDVD was owned by CBS Interactive and incorporated into TV Guide until the website shut down.
After digging into Imagen, I found an article from The Hollywood Reporter (here [83]) which seems to support the awards. It appears here [84] to be a legitimate awards ceremony. Variety covered the 2021 awards here [85].
Please let me know if I can make any further changes. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with Mark Robinson and Imagen based on what you found. For TVShowsonDVD, this page makes it seem a one man operation in 2011, which is when your cites date from. What did you find that convinced you it was owned by CBS? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Ah, I see. This source [86] is from 2013 which means the 2011 source would probably be a "one man operation" phase. If so, I won't be able to use the sources? SatDis (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proving it's reliable after 2011 certainly doesn't help, though I don't see how you make the connection even in that article -- was TVShowsonDVD owned by TVGN? If you want to keep it we would need evidence that it was reliable in 2011. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: All I could find was this post about integration with TV Guide here [87]. If this isn't enough for reliability, I think I will remove the sources as I'm not sure what else to look for. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing it unless we can come up with better proof. Once you've done that I'll go back over the article and check for formatting consistency again, and then check links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: I have removed the source. 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another pass for formatting.

  • The TV Tonight cites have no publisher parameter.
  • The Imagen cites have publisher but no website/work.
  • Fixed.

That looks like it for formatting. I'll check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the links and checking reliability for sites I haven't looked at yet.

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • TV by the Numbers -- looks like it's a hobby site run by two friends, per this page.
  • Removed.
    • Futon Critic -- looks like a personal site again, though it seems the owner may be a professional in the field?

Links look good, and other than the items above I see no more issues with reliability or formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Not a full review, but I think the critical reception needs work. See WP:RECEPTION; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have addressed this and happy to fix anything more. SatDis (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think more is needed. You've tied some sentences together, which does improve the flow, but it's still essentially a listing of one opinion after another, without much structure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: I have added some further structure.
  • Paragraph 1 (First half): Positive reception - ensemble cast and their delivery of humor
  • Paragraph 1 (Second half): Positive reception - concept and themes
  • Paragraph 2: Negative reception - characters, contradictory messages and supernatural concept
  • Let me know if this isn't enough structure and how to improve it. SatDis (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. If I get time for a full review I'll come back and comment again, but the changes you've made are enough for me not to oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "and gave rise to the development of": a little long-winded. How about "Tie-ins included merchandise..."?
  • Done.
  • "when not running the family business with his wife, Theresa, a sandwich shop designed to look like a subway station, on the ground level of their apartment building": needs rewording; as written it's too easy to read this as saying that Theresa is a sandwich shop.
  • Fixed.
  • "Heidi Denzel de Tirado wrote in a journal article": how it was published is less important than what de Tirado's background is. I would suggest making this "Academic [or whatever the right description is] Heidi Denzel de Tirado argued that".
  • Fixed.
  • "and while they celebrate traditions such as having a quinceañera, their culture is not prominently featured in most episodes": suggest "but their culture is not prominently featured in most episodes, with occasional exceptions such as Alex's quinceañera".
  • Used this.
  • "Denzel de Tirado analyzed that the cultural representation is conservative as it takes place within a surreal, magical setting": "analyzed" is not the right verb; it takes a direct object. However I don't understand the point she's making. Why would the setting mean that the cultural representation is conservative?
  • Upon revisiting this, I don't believe it is a strong point and have removed it.
  • "The series' setting is inspired by Waverly Place in Greenwich Village, Manhattan": I'm not sure what "inspired by" means here. It's not just inspired by, it's actually set there, isn't it?
  • Yes. The source also states it is a version of that setting, so I have changed to "the series is set in a fictionalized version of Waverly Place"
  • "Disney executives discovered Selena Gomez at an open casting call in Austin, Texas, at age twelve": this makes it sounds as though she had no prior acting experience, but in fact her first TV appearance was at age ten.
  • I have reworded to make it appear more like she was noticed by Disney at this point in her career.
  • Can we clarify the timeline at the end of the "Development" section? You use TVTickets.com as a source for Gomez being attached to the show in February. This interview was published in July but took place that February, and says shooting was about to start in two weeks. But in March the names were still not settled on? It's hard to believe they could shoot much footage without finalizing the names. Is there anything more concrete about the shooting schedule? She appeared in several Hannah Montana episodes, not just one, and the source you cite doesn't say it was after she was cast in Waverly Place -- the air date (July 2007) of the first episode was certainly after she was cast, but it was probably shot before the EW interview in February.
  • Okay. Yes, the TV Tickets source and EW interview both mention filming commencing in February so I think that is a given. It is possible that the March 2007 Investor newsletter hadn't been updated with the correct names. As the series didn't air until October, that's over six months of filming, so it is possible that elements were reworked (or the February filming was just a pilot with different names). As for Hannah Montana, I have moved the sentence and reworded so that it fits in with the timeline and can be supported by the source.
  • "Her affiliation with the network led to the formation of the band Selena Gomez & the Scene who Disney signed to their label, Hollywood Records, and subsequently, a prominent solo music career." Why would the affiliation lead to the formation of the band? Do you mean that because she was working with Disney, Disney suggested that she form a band which they could then sign to their label?
  • Absolutely, it was standard for Disney to sign their actors to their label. But I understand the source doesn't say this, so I have reworded.
  • Just checking: Bailee Madison would have been barely eleven at the start of the fourth season, and she's the female transformation of Jake Austin, who would have been sixteen? I don't doubt the actress played the role, but just wanted to check that she was really meant to be the same age as Jake's character, as the article implies.
  • You are correct, I have changed the sentence to "transformed into a younger female".
  • "Special effects were typically used in the series to create the magic spells": this tells us almost nothing except that they didn't use real magic. If we can't be more specific I would cut this.
  • Removed.
  • Any reason you mention the renewals for the third and fourth seasons, but not the second?
  • I cannot find any source for the second season renewal and have done a deep search.
  • "Murrieta's own background inspired writing the Russo family as mixed-race": this is sourced to "my agent called and said, 'They want to buy that pilot you pitched them. Something about your dad and family. You've got to call them back.' It was very lucky." The show, revolving around a mixed-race family much like Murrieta's, ran for one season on the WB. When he took on executive-producing, it was called "The Amazing O'Malleys." Murrieta renamed them the Russos and made the family — two brothers and a sister with wizardly powers — mixed race as well." This doesn't support what you have in the article; yes, he was the one who changed the family to be mixed-race, but it doesn't explicitly say his background inspired this. He might have done so just because he thought it worked for the previous show he wrote.
  • Understood, have reworded.
  • "the contentious relationships between the siblings was reminiscent": this is a direct quote from the source; this needs to be attributed or paraphrased.
  • Reworded.
  • I'd like to read the Ackerman article, which you cite quite a bit, but I only have access to a couple of pages on Google Books. Can you send me the whole article, or link to somewhere I can read it?
  • See below.
  • "The series depicts stories about family, friends and growing up": why does this belong in the writing section? It seems to be a restatement of what's been said earlier in the article.
  • Removed.
  • "Greenwald explained that since the unaired pilot, the brother-sister dynamic was the heart of the show; Murrieta explained he enjoyed allowing the characters to age, referencing Justin graduating from high school." I'm not sure why these two sentences are connected; they seem unrelated. I also don't understand what Greenwald is saying -- the brother-sister dynamic was also in the unaired pilot? This whole section seems a bit like factoids strung together. I know that unfortunately that's sometimes all you have to work with, because the sources don't conveniently assemble all the writing/filming information for you to work with, but it's a bit too fragmented at the moment.
  • I have removed the connection and disregarded the second "factoid" (you are right), and clarified Greenwald's comment.
  • I said above I would not oppose based on the critical reception section, and I'll try to stick to that, but I do think it can still be improved. For example, "has received positive reviews for its use of an ensemble cast" seems odd -- some reviewer actually said "it's a good show because it has an ensemble cast", or words to that effect?
  • Have changed to "for its actors"
  • "delivery of humor" also seems an unnatural phrase -- does the review just mean they were good comic actors?
  • Yes. I have changed the sentence to "positive reviews for its actors and their comedic skills"
  • "McNamara believed that Justin and Max did not serve as comic relief, but appear as often as Alex does": I understand what you're getting it, but saying a reviewer "believes" that an actor appears as often as the star isn't a good way to argue that they are "not just comic relief", but presumably costars in McNamara's eyes.
  • In that case, I've removed the "but appear as often as Alex does" fragment.
  • "Reviewers criticized the characters in the series": this could be phrased less generally -- it sounds as though every character came in for general criticism.
  • Have reworded to "Some characters were criticized by reviewers"
  • "Alex was viewed as an ineffective role model because of her rebellious nature": "ineffective" implies the intention is for her to be a role model, but she (or the script) is failing; is that really what is meant?
  • Yes, I believe so - the expectation with a Disney series aimed at children is that the protagonist will be a responsible role model. However, I see what you're saying about the word "ineffective" (of a desired purpose) - so I have reworded to "Paul Asay of Plugged In did not view Alex as a role model because of her rebellious nature" - this is now attributed to that specific reviewer.
  • "the role of the parents was analyzed as them both being too foolish": this is clumsy and needs rephrasing.
  • Reworded.
  • 'Paul Asay of Plugged In referred to the program's depiction of angels as "spiritually misleading"': I think for context we might say that Plugged In is a Christian site; the comment would seem odd to someone who didn't know that.
  • I have added, though it now appears earlier in the paragraph.

Oppose. Overall I think there's some work to do to get this to FAC standards. I'm a bit concerned that the Ackerman article has not been used as much as it might be; a 12-page academic article about the show ought to yield more than supporting citations for the basic themes and a sentence or two more, but I'm not opposing over that since I have not yet read it. The "Writing and filming" and "Critical reception" sections are the weakest, both for the writing and the sense they give of having been assembled from fragments, but some of the earlier sections are weak in spots as well. I am also concerned that a spot-check might be in order -- I've pointed out two places above where the sources don't accurately support the text in the article, and given that I only checked half-a-dozen sources that's a high percentage. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie: I have addressed all of the above and am prepared to make any further changes to improve the article. As for the Ackerman article, I also was only able to view the two pages on Google Books, but still able to use heavily for the amount. As it is not freely licensed on the internet, I don't think it can be used any further. As you have said, some of the sections have been assembled from fragments due to a lack of sources - in terms of the "Writing and filming" section, if it currently isn't acceptable, I believe most of that section can be combined elsewhere and ultimately removed. I am happy to work through any other sections. Thank you. SatDis (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing the points above. I am going to leave my oppose in place, I'm afraid. For one thing I would like another reviewer to go through and support before I revisit, to get a second opinion on whether the issues have been addressed. I'm also concerned that the article was written without reference to Ackerman's paper. It's OK in some cases to not review a source -- even in specialized areas like Anglo-Saxon history there can be hundreds or thousands of articles about an obscure topic, and nominators are expected to know the field well enough to be able to identify the important sources. Here there's only one academic source that focuses specifically on the topic, and I think without consulting it we can't say that the article is comprehensive, which is an FA requirement. I recommend that you withdraw the nomination and request the paper at WP:RX. It might not add much to the article, but we won't know that till you've read it. I don't think this is the sort of work that should be done at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time @Mike Christie: respectfully, I won't be withdrawing the nomination, as I have had several supports so far. If the nomination fails, I will seek your continued suggestions within a peer review. SatDis (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested the paper at WP:RX. SatDis (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mike Christie: I have access to the Ackerman paper now through WP:RX - here is the link. [88] Just checking I can link to this site in the citations? I will ping you again once I have incorporated the source into the article. SatDis (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know -- I'll read through again once you've incorporated any new material. I hope there's something useful in it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mike Christie: now that I have been able to read the full source, I was able to incorporate some new material, but mainly the previous material was able to be consolidated. I have moved the full Ackerman source to a new bibliography section, along with a few other articles, to avoid too many ref links for the book and show the specific pages for each claim. Hopefully you will be able to read through the changes soon. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-review
[edit]

It's been weeks since I reviewed this, so I thought it would be more productive to read the article through afresh and decide whether to support or oppose without reference to my previous comments. I will also spot check a few sources as I go through.

  • "the existence of wizards must remain hidden to the wider mortal world": is "mortal" (as in "not immortal") the right world -- i.e. are the wizards immortal? Or is this just the in-universe term? If the latter, that's OK.
  • "The series ended to allow its actors to pursue more mature roles": I don't think this is properly supported by the source, which says in full "After Wizards of Waverly Place came to an end in 2012, Jake T. Austin totally shaded Selena Gomez on Twitter, claiming that she decided to leave the show to pursue more mature roles. “When an artist’s definition of ‘growing with their fans’ is creating content they aren’t even allowed to see…” he wrote, referring to her role in Spring Breakers." That makes it Austin's assertion only, and it doesn't refer to anyone but Gomez.
  • "The series premiere of Wizards of Waverly Place aired on October 12, 2007 as a lead-out to the premiere of Twitches Too, and attracted 5.9 million viewers.": the source doesn't say anything about WoWP being a lead-out, or even that it was the next program after Twitches Too.

@FAC coordinators: I saw the request for an additional spot-check. I checked about a dozen sources as I read through this time, and two of the three comments above are problems I found in doing so. Assuming SatDis doesn't point out that I missed the appropriate support in the source, I think this is problematic, given that I found a couple of sourcing errors earlier. However, this is the only concern I have left -- Ackerman's work has been integrated and I no longer have any concerns with the writing. If it were not for the source-text integrity concerns I would strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Mike Christie: Yes, "mortal world" is the in-universe term.
  • I've now changed it to see Twitches wasn't a "lead-out", but just aired "on the same night".
  • I have changed to "Austin claimed Gomez left to..." - but I find the following sentence and source from the AV Club also supports this sentiment.
  • I hope you'll find that these technicalities and any further errors can be easily fixed. Seeing as you are now happy with the prose, I'm determined to fix any other issues. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the above as they're all fixed. Re the AV Club cite: I don't think it does -- she says it's time for Gomez to move on, but it doesn't support the statement as it was written, and even if it had, source-text integrity requires that the source is in the right place in the text. I did think about striking my oppose because there are no more specific errors I know of to fix, but I'm going to leave it in place. For the benefit of the coordinators I want to make it clear here that the reason the oppose is in place is because two sets of checking both turned up inaccuracies. I know of no current errors. It's an oddity of how these reviews work: once you lose faith in an article it is hard to recover it without restarting the review. For example, if this article does get archived, and you renominate it, if I (or someone else) finds no errors in a spotcheck I would be happy to support it with only a review of the changes made since this nomination. Anyway, either way, best of luck with this. I don't plan to comment on this FAC again, but do ping me if it is archived and you renominate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Mike Christie: just a note to say that User:Kaleeb18 is completing a full source spot-check below, and I can ping you once they have completed this review and errors have been addressed. SatDis (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Mike Christie: The source review / spot-check below is now complete and has been given a pass. SatDis (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that spot check covered every single citation, I'm happy to strike my oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kaleeb18

[edit]

This is just a look over the reception for now.

  • "Marah Eakin felt that it was a departure from Disney's typical series. While the cast demonstrates exaggerated acting, there is minimal slapstick humor." – The second sentence by itself just sounds like you are describing the show and should go in the premise section. So to make this sound better and flow more as a review you could say 'Marah Eakin felt that it was a positive departure from Disney's typical series, with minimal slapstick humor but still having exaggerated acing.'
  • Done.
  • "McNamara believed that Justin and Max did not serve as comic relief" – I would add 'On the other hand,' at the beginning of the sentence to make it not too basic
  • Done.
  • After looking over all the refs in this section, they all support what they back up
  • "series combined fantasy and comedy seamlessly" – Seamlessly should be in quotes
  • If anything can be added from Ackerman's book, that would be great.
  • I have now gained access to the full article and moved this to the bibliography.

probably more to come...

  • I think there is some from this book that can be added. Other than that there doesn't seem to be any sources I could find that you could add to the article.
  • Have used some.
  • the lead looks great
  • "He had also worked on a pilot for NBC" – why is pilot not linked there but is linked in its second appearance?
  • Fixed.
  • "Justin is sarcastic and Greenwald described him" – According to WP:VOICE, avoid stating opinions as facts. Justin is sarcastic is stated as a fact
  • Fixed.
  • For the ref formatting, Orange County Register should be The Orange County Register and Deadline should be Deadline Hollywood
  • Fixed.
  • E! News and NBC Universal are linked twice in the refs. So remove the links from ref 104. Also NBC Universal should be written as NBCUniversal.
  • Fixed.
  • Done. MTV is already linked in ref 29.
  • Also add |url-access=limited to refs for websites that have a paywall such as the NY Times, LA Times, the New York Daily News, and the Orlando Sentinel.
Great! One last thing I have found is according to MOS:BIB, a section header named bibliography for works cited is discouraged ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: I don't mean to disagree, but I feel like that refers more to sections that could be titled "discography"/"filmography" etc., MOS:BIB also states: "Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used" - I used the title for the Hannah Montana FA - let me know if okay or not... as bibliography is defined as "list of books referred to in a scholarly work". Thanks. SatDis (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a problem. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check
[edit]

I see the concerns Mike Christie has brought up, and I am going to do the long job of looking over all the refs (excluding the critical reception because I have already looked over those). ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither ref 1.D or 2.C mention anything about Jerry winning his own family competition
  • "Alex reveals her secret to Harper in the second season" – nothing is backing this up
  • "she later rejoins to continue dating her werewolf boyfriend" – nothing is mentioned about her rejoining in the ref

The above are not really important as it is just part of the plot.

  • "Disney executives first became aware of Selena Gomez at an open casting call in Austin, Texas" – ref 15 says Austin and ref 30 says Dallas so which is it actually
  • "Wizards as an upcoming half-hour live-action" – nothing in the ref mentions that it was half-hour or live-action
  • "as well as a "wisecracking underachiever"" – I do not see this quote in either ref 1 or 41, but is in ref 11. So ref 11 needs to backing that up
  • "asked for her character to remain edgy and tomboyish" – it seems as though she only asked to be edgy, but was described as tomboyish
  • "Greenwald described Justin as sarcastic and a nerd" – In neither ref 17 or 43 is Justin described by Greenwald as sarcastic but is by the author of ref 17
  • ref 80 does not say Gomez won Fave TV star, but rather nominated
  • ref 81 mentions nothing of Fave TV show
"David Henrie plays the sarcastic Justin Russo" – don't forget WP:VOICE say something more like 'plays Justin Russo, who is considered to be sarcastic'. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over them all now, and this is a pass. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 4: "p. 88–89." should read 'pp. 88–89.' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean now. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:11, 9 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) 9 September 2022 [89].

Interstate 205 (Oregon–Washington)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Portland, Oregon's bypass freeway, which took a quarter-century to build after many, many arguments over where it should go and what it should do. Among its obstacles were rich homeowners, community activists, the city itself, and prisoners at a soon-to-be-closed jail. The article has been a GA for a while and recently went through a GOCE copyedit; it was written to the same standard as my other recent highway FAs, such as Interstate 182. SounderBruce 06:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Sammi Brie

[edit]

This article contains seven images, all of which have alt text and appropriate captions.

All of the pictures are CC or CC0-licensed. This includes a 1980–81 photo of bridge construction. The creator of that image also uploaded two other images of construction, and all three have metadata indicating the "camera" was a 6608, which appears to be a scanner given the other images that have that metadata, so I will assume that the creator took those images and then scanned them for use. There is also a scan from a 1955 Bureau of Public Roads map, which is PD-govt.

The image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "At the hearing, the cities Gresham and Camas, Washington" => "At the hearing, the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington"
    • Fixed.
  • "The section also included the first rest area on I-205, which was built near West Linn, and was designated as a state scenic highway" - wording is slightly ambiguous and could be taken to mean that the rest area was so designated
    • Switched order.
  • "The interchange with OR 99E on the east approach of the bridge was built on fill" - what does "built on fill" mean?
  • "The study concluded an alternative alignment would be infeasible" => "The study concluded that an alternative alignment would be infeasible"
    • Fixed.
  • "it concluded constructing I-205 as originally designed" => "it concluded that constructing I-205 as originally designed"
    • Fixed.
  • That's all I got! Nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

This is my first time reviewing an article of this type. Feel free to challenge any comments, or point me to precedent/consensus if my suggestions are off-track. I ran a general formatting script after looking at the suggested changes - but you can revert this if it created any issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider running IA Bot to avoid WP:LINKROT.
    • Will run it when it does load. The tool seems to be slow at the moment.
  • I'm seeing a "CS1 maint: url-status" message about ref 2 (Multimodal Planning Division (January 4, 2021)) but I think sometimes the scripts I use generate false positives.
    • Not seeing it on my end. It's controlled by a custom template for the route logs, so I'll see if it's throwing up errors on other articles that use it.
  • There are more than a dozen duplicate links (these can be identified with a tool - see MOS:DUPLINK)
    • Removed all that I found were unnecessary.
  • There are a few places where public opposition is mentioned (e.g. " despite opposition from local residents", "drew opposition from the public"); I looked at some of the sources and the level opposition wasn't quantified, so I think the existing descriptions are OK as they reflect sources.
    • For the most part, the opposition wasn't organized (and any groups are named), so I'm not sure if this can be fixed.

Route description

  • Add that Interstate 205 is in the United States.
    • Already mentioned in the lead, but I don't think readers would get this far down and not know that it's a highway in the US.
      • I'm used to seeing all the info in the lead being in the body and cited, but happy to accept that this falls under the "basic facts" part of "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" from MOS:LEAD. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the busiest of the two main bridges" - not sure about in American English but in British English this should be something like "the busier..." (AFAIK, superlative adjectives are used when writing formally about at least three things .)
    • Switched to "busier".
  • "carries a daily average of 138,000 vehicles" - the other figures have a year attached, so I suggest mentioning that this is a 2020 figure.
    • Added year and an additional source since the original doesn't state a year.
  • "but the route was deemed a low priority" - by who? Looks like voters rejected a proposal; and "Oregon officials" seemed set on a different route. Looks more like a rejection than a low priority but I may be missing something.
    • Reworded.

History

  • "In 1943, New York-based planner Robert Moses conceived"
The source doesn't verify that Moses was based in New York at the time as far as I can see - maybe reword to something including "...New York Public Works Director..."?
I have no idea how long such a plan takes, but it might be safer to use something like "presented" (although that's the word from the source) or "produced" rather than "conceived".
  • Switched to "authored"; his position makes it clear that he was based in New York at the time.
  • "The proposed bridge was later shifted west" - optionally, consider rewording as there was no bridge to move.
    • Reworded a bit, but it isn't that unclear.
  • "In 1969, the federal government approved the Mount Hood Freeway as part of the relocation of I-80N (now I-84), which would be partially concurrent with I-205, from the existing Banfield Expressway until it was canceled entirely in 1974." - doesn't quite read right to me, maybe make the "until it was canceled entirely in 1974" into a new sentence?
    • Split.
  • "the cities of Gresham and Camas, Washington, joined the Multnomah County Commissioners"- expand on "cities" per MOS:INSTITUTIONS
    • Fixed.
  • "braided interchange" - the phrase may be familiar to many readers, but it wasn't to me. Could be wikilinked to Interchange (road) or Interchange_(road)#Braided_interchange.
    • Linked.
  • "which approved despite opposition" - "which was approved despite opposition" or similar
    • Fixed, must have been picked up during the copyedit.
  • "development on Mill Plain the City of Vancouver imposed due to traffic congestion" - I think would read better as "development on Mill Plain imposed by the City of Vancouver due to traffic congestion"
    • Reworded.

Future plans

  • "ODOT plans to" - suggest futureproofing this a bit by rewording to something like "In 2021, ODOT announced plans to"
    • Added "In the 2020s", since the plans were not announced at the same time.
  • Could wikilink "seismic upgrades" to Seismic retrofit (I think).
    • Linked.

Exit list

  • MOS:COLOR says "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method" - I'm not sure if the templates used do this; if not, then you could use one of the other methods mentioned at MOS:COLOR.
    • This is covered by MOS:RJL, but it seems that having a note in the last column is sufficient.
  • Are the blanks in the location column intentional?
  • Looks a little odd to have no state/county against the Columbia River section - is this the way such places are represented in Wikipedia (rather than e.g. mutliple states and counties)?
    • It's common for routes that change states at a water body, e.g. Interstate 82.

External links

  • What makes the angelfire.com link suitable?
    • The author is the chief cartographer for the Washington State Department of Transportation and is therefore a subject expert. That website is usually included in Washington road articles.
      • That's fine, then. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
      • That is not a correct read of WP:SPS, which states:
        • Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.
      • If you want to use an SPS you need to show they have published by RS, and you need to show why the inclusion of the material meets WP:DUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't object to the removal of the external link (which is mostly there to balance out the Oregon road site), but it's been used in other Washington FAs. Should it be removed from those ones as well? SounderBruce 23:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, SounderBruce. I'll have another read later, but this is all I have for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review. I had to revert your general fixes script edit due to the change in citation titles (which I prefer to match the original headlines). I have responded to your other queries above. SounderBruce 01:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm happy with the responses, and didn't notice anything else in a further read. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by ZKang123

[edit]

Decided to check through this highway article.
At first glance, this article is pretty comprehensive. Especially in the planning phases, when various alignments were proposed.

  • "In 2000, the Oregon portion was designated as the War Veterans Memorial Highway, and has since been used for an annual vehicle convoy to mark Veterans Day." Question: shouldn't it be "is designated" instead of "was designated", since the name is still being used?
    • Feels natural to me. As far as I understand it, past tense is acceptable here due to its relationship with the present perfect tense used later in the sentence.
  • Side note, who actually designated the labels? (passive vs active voice) Might suggest mentioning the agencies earlier somewhere in the first paragraph.
    • Added "state legislature". Mentioning ODOT and WSDOT early would confuse readers, I feel, since we're also talking about the state governments in the first paragraph.
  • "the freeway has a scenic overlook of the falls for northbound traffic" Wondering if this section is relevant. Sounds like promotional stuff to me.
  • "The freeway passes Oregon City's train station, which is served by Amtrak's Cascades route". I might suggest the segment "served by Amtrak's Cascades route" to be written as a footnote
    • Dropped Cascades, as it doesn't really have much to do with the highway in general.
  • Similarly for "on the west side for the MAX Green Line, a light rail service operated by TriMet". Alternatively "on the west side for the TriMet MAX Green Line".
    • This would create a SEAOFBLUE, so I'd rather not do it. I think the current implementation is fine and could be turned into a parenthetical note instead if it's still disrupting the sentence's flow.
  • "The incomplete interchange is located southwest of Washington State University Vancouver and requires some movements from I-5 towards Vancouver to be made via two half-diamond interchanges on Northeast 134th Street." This sentence is a bit confusing to me; what sort of movements?
    • Switched towards to "to and from"; basically, the south half of the interchange requires using a local street to complete the connection.
  • For the Planning and routing debate, I would have overlaid all the possible alignments differentiated by colour on one map (sketching on OSM)... though that might be a little confusing. Actually, I wonder, can there be some sort of gif showing the progression of the highway alignment over time, like it was done for a couple of metro articles? Or at least a map of the expressway with the segments built by year. Something like File:Singapore MRT Network (1987-1990).svg
    • It would be fairly difficult to create a progression map, but I'll look into it. I don't think I'd be able to produce an alternate alignments map as many of them were not republished in easy-to-access places, so much of it would be guesswork on my part.
  • "In late 1972, the freeway was extended northeast from Oregon City to Gladstone". Suggest removing "was"
  • The history section is pretty interesting to read through, on all various parties involved in the alignment. The public seemed to be very involved.
    • Indeed, that's how things go in the US (and maybe too much because of the NIMBYs).
  • "The FHWA, which had initially opposed the busway but later withdrew their complaints following further design changes, endorsed the third concept.". Might suggest rewording to: "The FHWA initially opposed the busway but eventually approved this concept following further design changes of the busways [in December 1975]." Might also further add that they initially opposed due to "safety concerns" as according to the source, and also why the other two (Portland City Council and Multnomah County Commissioners) eventually approved with the mention of integrated transit component in the highway plans.
  • Just curious, do you know of the construction firms contracted to build the expressway?
    • They're only occasionally named, but never prominent unless there's an issue or incident during construction. Normally, they are local firms or joint ventures that form solely for the project's few years of existence.
      • Ah, in Singapore we normally hand out contracts to established construction firms. Plenty of local and foreign firms. I think for an upcoming highway, segments are being contracted out to a few companies.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other issues pertaining to other parts of the article.

ZKang123 (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the review. I've left my answers to your comments above and will get working on the remaining items. SounderBruce 09:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a small change to the article; feel free to revert if you disagree with it. I will give this a support once you manage to look up the newspaper article.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Added the newspaper citation, which only seems to talk about concerns with the partial interchanges (and lost motorists), rather than the busway. SounderBruce 17:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Support -- ZKang123 (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 18, 25, 28, 35, 105, 110, 125, 142, 236, 250, 254.
      • Ref 3 doesn't link directly to the source, but a search interface. I tried inputting the parameters (WA or OR, I-205 correspondence around 1958) and got no hits, so more specific direction is needed.
        • There is no direct link available to the document, as the URLs generated seem to change between sessions. The document in question can be found by searching for "Interstate" under Route Designation and "WA" for State, which gives two 1958 results.
      • Ref 10 I don't see the 87,800 figure for Stafford.
        • Fixed to 86,800. Just a typo.
      • Likewise, I have no idea where I'm supposed to go for Ref 11.
      • I don't see where Ref 18 can be used for the cited section starting with "North of Gilsan Street..." The map doesn't show that granularity of detail, and doesn't appear to show the MAX lines at all.
        • Added Google Maps, as it shows the transit lines in relation to the freeway.
      • Not sure how a 1971 map can be used to cite "In late 1972, the freeway was extended northeast from Oregon City to Gladstone"

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That addresses my concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I will be starting soon on a two-week road trip, so my availability may be spotty. I'm hoping that this review is far enough along that things can be wrapped up in that time, but please do ping me if there are any issues. I will try to respond if I have a stable connection somewhere. SounderBruce 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: just checking that this is a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:12, 9 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2022 [90].

1963–64 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After my most recent FAC nomination, which was about one of the most catastrophic seasons in the history of my favourite football club, I needed to write about something more positive, hence this one. I don't personally remember this season, as it was [mumble] years before I was born, but it was enjoyable to write about and to take a peek into the heady days when floodlights were a new concept, goal average was used, and players were called things like Geoff and Brian :-) Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

Prose review

  • "in which Gillingham competed in the Football League," Should "the" be included in the wikilink? It's not part of the bolded phrase in English Football League
  • "Gillingham began the season with an unbeaten run of 13 games, the longest such run from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," I'm not liking the repetition of "run". Maybe, "Gillingham were undefeated in their first 13 games, the longest such streak from the start of the season by any team in the Football League," or something similar
  • "The team played a total of 52 competitive matches," Delete "a total of" as redundant
  • "and a total of 18 in all competitions." Same as above
  • After re-reading the lede, I'm surprised that there is no mention of the team leaving the relegation zone during the season in Jan/Feb and the fan's reaction. This feels like a key detail to me.
  • I checked the lede, and all of its information is in the article body.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - many thanks for your review, all points addressed. On point 2, I have used your wording other than the word "streak", which we really don't use in that context in British English. On point 5, I think you have conflated a couple of issues (the team didn't drop out of the top 4 until April, and the fans' anger in January was merely to do with the team's dour tactics) but I think I have covered the points you were referring to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would recommend separating the lede's first paragraph in two. It is a rather intimidating large block of text right at the start.
  • For this part, would not win another for nearly 50 years, in the lede, wouldn't it be better to be more specific and use the exact number of years?
  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. File:Priestfield2.jpg says the image was taken circa 1986, but the image caption in the article goes for a more general mid-1980s. Is there a reason for this difference?
  • This is another clarification question. For this part, 22 players made at least one appearance, I am guessing words are used rather number as you do not want to start a sentence with numbers. Would that be correct?

The article is in solid shape. I am very much a non-expert so I can only comment on the actual prose, but I do not have much to say in my review. Once my comments (and clarification questions) have been addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion on the basis of the prose. Wonderful job with handling a topic that is now over 50 years old. That is impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

[edit]

Trying to expand my horizons as a reviewer. Non-expert review on prose:

  • to overtake Gillingham push them out of the promotion places -- I think it needs an “and” before push.
  • for the first time in September 1963 -- there needs to be {{nbsp}} between September and 1963, per MOS:NBSP.
  • The club signed four new players prior to the new season: Geoff Hudson, a 31-year old full-back with well over a decade of Football League experience, joined from Crewe Alexandra, and Cox signed three young players from Portsmouth, all of whom he knew from his time managing that club until 1961: Rod Taylor, a half-back aged 19, 21-year-old full-back Jimmy White, and Brian Yeo, a forward also aged 19. -- this is quite a long sentence. Perhaps split and separate the 3 Portsmouth players into another.
  • A 1–0 victory two days later away to York made absolutely certain that Gillingham would be promoted. -- This might be a personal taste but I think you could use "guaranteed" instead of "made absolutely certain"

A great read and comprehensive coverage overall. Not much to quibble. --Pseud 14 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review. All the above points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Excellently written. If you have the time or inclination, was wondering if you would be so kind to provide your feedback on my current FAC. --Pseud 14 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Version reviewed. Spot-checks not included.

  • This is optional: I would add a |url-access=subscription parameter to sources from Newspaper.com. Although one doesn't need a subscription to view the clippings, but anything beyond that is limited to subscribers.
  • Inconsistent use of publishers in sources 54 and 55. I would just pipe KM Media Group to Kent Online and remove Kent Messenger Group.

Otherwise sources are reliable and properly formatted. FrB.TG (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - at this point may I open a new nom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:56, 25 August 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) 9 September 2022 [91].

1920–21 Burnley F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I originally submitted this article for FAC just over 12 years ago. Sadly, it didn't pass that time and I kind of forgot about it for a decade or so. But the recent FA promotion of Burnley's other title-winning season in 1959–60 prompted me to have another go at this one. Since last time, I've managed to access the archives of an alternative local newspaper, which allowed me to add a bit more detail about the team's playing style and some more context around some of the matches. These kind of articles might not be to everyone's taste, but hopefully I have addressed the main concerns from the first nomination, so here we go! BigDom (talk) 07:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Burnley's chairman, Harry Windle, had been elected to the position in 1909, and manager John Haworth was marking his 11th consecutive year in charge." - source?
    • Added
  • "The team's last competitive match had ended in a 0–2 defeat" - I would say that by far the most common way to report a football score is with the larger score first, irrespective of the outcome e.g. this source says "Liverpool lost 1-0 to Real Madrid", not "Liverpool lost 0-1 to Real Madrid". I would reconfigure any score shown like this one to show the larger score first.
    • I thought I'd caught all these to be honest, thanks for spotting this one!
  • Shouldn't the bit about Moorwood joining in October and the bit about Bamford leaving in September be in the paragraph starting "Transfer activity continued after the season began"?
    • Rejigged
  • "Bradford City, who had finished 15th in the league in 1919–20" - source?
    • Added
  • "Burnley moved to the top of the table on goal average" - link GA?
    • Done
  • One solitary league attendance is unknown?
    • Yep, not given in Simpson. I had a look at the match report in the Burnley Express archive (where I presume Simpson also looked) and the Lancashire Daily Post (Preston's local paper) but no luck. As you probably know, attendances weren't officially recorded in those days so they weren't always reported in the newspapers.
  • "drawn against Queens Park Rangers at Turf Moor in the Second Round." - no reason for caps on second round
  • Or third round
    • Have changed these in the prose, left them capitalised in the table (but can also change here if you prefer, I tried it and didn't like the way it looked)
  • "the Charity Shield, then known as the Dewar Shield" - are you sure this is true? Our article on the Community Shield makes no mention of it ever having that name, and RSSSF says "The FA Charity Shield was introduced in 1908 to succeed the Sheriff of London (Dewar) Shield"
    • Must have been the Burnley Express correspondent using the old name, deleted that subclause.
  • The tables need row scopes
    • Forgive my ignorance, but what does this do other than just turn the cell grey? (done, by the way)
  • The "Players having played at least one first-team match" table doesn't include the Lancs/East Lancs Cup games, which earlier you categorised as first team games - are the line-ups not recorded for these?
    • I will have to go back to the library to check the newspaper reports, might be after the bank holiday before I get chance though.
      • Managed to get to the library for an hour last night. I've added the ELCC and LSC apps/goals to the table and updated players' goals totals in the prose where appropriate. Even managed to get the attendances for the two ELCC games from the local papers (double checked the Preston league game though and definitely wasn't reported). BigDom (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the aftermath section you use the {{inflation}} template in conjunction with {{currentyear}}, but the documentation for the former explicitly says not to do this
  • That's what I got - great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

I had already posted my thoughts/comments on BigDom's talk page, and the article has only improved since then. It's a well written article which deserves FA status. Well done! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Not necessarily an issue, but why do you have the website/work parameter included for the two 11v11 web citations ([17] and [50]), but not for the other two web citations ([44] and [63])?
    • I think because they were "borrowed" from another article. It makes sense, I think, because the website name and the publisher are quite different, and naming the publisher (the Association of Football Statisticians) helps to give some credibility. I've added it for [63] too (website=givemefootball, publisher=Professional Footballers' Association). I don't really see the point for the remaining one, since the web address and the publisher (the Football League) are basically identical.
  • Both the book sources appear to be published by Burnley themselves. What makes these reliable?
    • True, they were. The Clarets Chronicles at least has been used in several other featured articles (e.g. Burnley F.C., History of Burnley F.C., Turf Moor, 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season) so there is precedent there. Its author, Ray Simpson, was the club's official historian so presumably counts as a subject matter expert. Both books are mostly based on contemporary newspaper reports, Football League records (team sheets, match reports, etc.) so I don't think there's much reason to doubt their veracity. In my experience, although these kind of books are often produced by the clubs themselves in the UK, I'm not really sure they're the kind of thing that WP:SPS is taking aim at (e.g. vanity press publications, blogs, and so on).
  • What's the thinking behind linking to the Gale version of the Times archive? I have a Times subscription, and was expecting to be able to check these easily, but instead it goes to the Gale link.
    • Pretty much the other side of the coin. I have access to the Gale version (through the Wikipedia Library) but am not a Times subscriber, so the only way I had access was through that. I don't mind if the URLs are changed to the Times version, but I don't have the access to be able to do it.

Links are all good, and I see no other formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review, I've replied above. Happy to make more changes if needed. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your answers address my concerns. Source review is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "The team went into the match against Everton on 23 April 1921 needing a draw to clinch the league championship": might be worth mentioning this is an away match? And say how many games were left when they clinched the title?
    • Done.
  • I see the attendance for the game against Preston at Turf Moor is not given; is there some reason it's unavailable? Same question for the missing attendance figures in the non-league match table.
    • Football League attendances only started to be officially recorded from the 1925–26 season, so before this you have to rely on the numbers being given in the match reports in the local newspapers, sports papers, etc. Simpson's book doesn't give an attendance for these missing games, and I have also checked local papers from both teams through the British Newspaper Archive to see if I could find them myself, and got a couple that weren't there before (the ones with their own cites), but not the last few unfortunately.
  • I should really have mentioned this in the source review above, but I didn't notice the fchd.info link in the "Final league position" section. FCHD came up in this review, and the nominator was able to replace it there; can you give additional information about its reliability, or find another source? I can see it's one of those "labour of love" websites, and I have no doubt it's very accurate and thoroughly researched, but I'm not yet convinced it meets our standards for FAs, since it's the work of a single person who is not a professional in the field.
  • A separate point: whether we keep FCHD or replace it, I don't think it's good style to have the external link in the middle of the article. An alternative would be to have a sentence there saying "Data sourced from FCHD" or whatever the source ends up being, with a footnote giving the source and external link. Or you could do it the way the match tables do it, with the footnote attached to the subsection heading.
    • Now formatted as a regular inline reference.
  • Only one match in the East Lancashire Charity Cup is mentioned. There's no link (is it worth a redlink?) so I can't check; was this one of those cups like the Charity Shield that only involved two clubs?
    • This is a good question that I don't immediately know the answer to. This one will involve a library trip, I think.
  • I see Birchenough was acquired in August 1920, and Dawson was injured in the opening match but returned after missing only two matches. Was Birchenough acquired because of Dawson's injury? If the sources don't say then we can't comment, of course, but since Birchenough was let go again later in the season it seems plausible.
    • Like you say, seems likely. Should be able to find a newspaper clipping announcing his signing which should say one way or the other.
  • Again I should have raised this in the source review: what's the source for the player table data? The only citation is for the "Other" column.
    • Added.

Generally this is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • @BigDom: - just to make sure you didn't miss this. Hog Farm Talk 19:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the reminder, I'd seen the comments but then forgotten. I'll hopefully get some time to address them in the next couple of days. BigDom (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Hog Farm and Mike Christie: Hi both. Really sorry, work has been hectic so far this week and I'm away Friday to Monday so it may be next week now by the time I get round to editing again. I haven't forgotten and I really appreciate you taking a look, Mike. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have addressed most of these, I'll try and fit in a library visit sometime this week to have a look into the others. Let me know if you spot anything else. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Just to follow up on my library visit:
            • East Lancs Charity Cup: this was interesting but not sure if there's anything worth putting in the article. So the cup was founded in 1882 and originally had four clubs. The teams taking part changed over the years, with Burnley joining in 1890 after Blackburn Olympia folded, and eventually the tournament expanded to six and then eight clubs as local semi-professional clubs were invited. Seemingly sometime during WWI the cup fell by the wayside until a short entry in the Lancashire Evening Post on 1 May 1920 mentions the "recently revived" ELCC giving both Burnley and Blackburn Rovers a chance of winning some silverware in the forthcoming season (little did they know...). Like I say, not sure we should have an East Lancashire Charity Cup article unless some more in-depth coverage turns up somewhere. Any article I could create would be cobbled together from very short (usually 1 paragraph) articles a few times a year in the local papers.
            • Frank Birchenough: turns out he wasn't signed to replace Dawson. The Burnley News 14/8/1920 announces the signing of the new goalkeeper Birchenough on amateur terms for the reserves after impressing during a trial match the week before. It also mentions how Dawson is set to be fit for the start of the new season in two weeks' time.
            So nothing to add to the article, but an interesting trip nonetheless. BigDom (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Interesting; thanks for doing that research! I would bet that somewhere there is enough information for an ELCC article to be written, but perhaps not yet. Thanks for the update! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The remaining two points are minor research questions that may not change the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the support. BigDom (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Just a heads up that there aren't any outstanding comments left on this nomination. Looks like there are 3 general supports and the source and image reviews have both been passed, let me know if there's anything else required. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, I overlooked the earlier ping... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:09, 9 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) 9 September 2022 [92].

BioShock 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're tasked with creating the followup to one of the most-acclaimed video games of all time. What do you do? In the case of 2K Marin, you create BioShock 2, an adroit sequel that arguably didn't get its due upon release. Article received a good article review by Etriusus and a line edit/review by Ovinus, so thanks to them for their input on this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have fixed the issue with the cover. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I scaled the screenshot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I love this game (even though it couldn't live up to the first). I have some experience with writing video game articles.

  • "He sat next to Alyssa Finley," What is meant by this? I think this might be too much of an idiom, and perhaps "worked alongside" might be better
    • I believe it's literally his workspace neighbor was Finley, but if worked alongside is clearer, there's no problem. Changed.
  • "and presented unique challenges." What kind of challenges? Can this be more specific?
    • I've added an anecdote from the source.
  • I am surprised at how few publications are included in the Template:Video game reviews. Were all of the sites listed there consulted? For example, Jeuxvideo, 4Players, PC Gamer, CNET, Destructoid, to name a few.
    • {{Video game reviews}} requires scores listed to be incorporated into the reception text; I tend to focus on a selective sampling of the more well-known reviewers, rather than trying to cram every mentioned score into the template (especially since that usually leads to text collision or whitespace issues depending on screen sizes.) Looking at the above reviews, I didn't find any sentiments that weren't already expressed in the article. Is there anything in particular you feel those reviews are covering that's not highlighted?
      • I think this comment was out of a concern about which reviews were included and which were excluded. The reception section is already quite long, so I would not make it longer. I took a closer look at the instructions in template:video game reviews and I see that the reception section already includes the most popular and recommended reviews, so I am not concerned about which sources are included. I trust that a search in less popular sites and non-English language sites were already conducted and it was determined that they would not add significant information to the reception section. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my thoughts. Ping ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the look Z1720, and thanks for your edits to the article. Responded inline above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has picked up just the single 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) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to get a prose review in soon. Should have it up within the next day or two. JOEBRO64 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheJoebro64

[edit]
Whole lotta comments

Content-wise, I think this article is there, but could use some copyediting before it's fully ready for promotion. In general, I think the prose needs a little tightening up to remove redundancies and tautologies. My more specific comments will mainly pertain to the lede, and then I'll give some more general copyediting advice for the rest of the article.

  • Minor first sentence quibble, but I don't think you need to say "video game" in "BioShock 2 is a first-person shooter video game". All first-person shooters are video games, so I'd definitely say it's tautological. If someone doesn't know that a first-person shooter is a video game, they can click the link.
  • This is another stylistic preference, but I don't think you need to say that a game called BioShock 2 is "[t]he sequel to the 2007 game BioShock"—this should be self-evident to the reader. I think you can chop this clause and just add a wikilink to BioShock at "eight years after the events of BioShock" in the next sentence.
  • As a general comment, hit Ctrl+F and look for every mention of "the game's" or "of the game". In my experience, you'll find that in almost all cases, it's unnecessary. Some examples include "In the game's single-player campaign, players control...", "... expanded the sonic palette of the game to include more blues and religious music to parallel the game's themes", and "A remastered version of the game was released..."
  • "BioShock 2 received positive reviews upon release... The multiplayer mode was supported with downloadable content upon launch" "Upon release", "on release", or "upon launch" 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.
  • I've noticed several instances of "called" and "titled", such as "...a single-player campaign expansion, titled Minerva's Den..." Similar to "upon release", these are almost never needed. For example, "Modified and conditioned children, called "Little Sisters", collect scarce ADAM..." doesn't lose any clarity when dropping it.
  • Is there any reason the plot section comes before the gameplay? Plot sections generally come after gameplay per WP:VGORDER. I see it describes things like Big Daddies and the setting of the Rapture but I think these could be concisely introduced in gameplay first. Up to you though.
  • I removed some instances of overlinking in my review, but I may not have caught them all—I'd take another look to ensure that they're all gone.
  • In the reception section, I'd challenge statements like "The game's campaign was generally well received" and "The multiplayer mode had mixed reception" as generalizations that require direct refs to back them up.

Overall there are some issues with the writing but the content is great. I'll take another look after some copyedits have been done. JOEBRO64 14:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Joe, thanks for the review. I feel like in terms of a general audience explicitly saying BioShock 2 is a video game in the lead is useful for people who aren't familiar with first-person shooters or video games in general; it is technically "redundant" but it's a concession for the tragically lost :) There's also a few areas where I feel like just removing "the game" or similar makes the subject unclear. However, the overall point of tightening redundancies is well-taken; I've done another pass through the article, removing some of the fluff words where possible or swapping some to reduce repetition.
  • As for the plot section, it's mostly ordered that way since I was following the lead of BioShock, and because I found it a bit easier to sketch the outlines of the plot in this instance before detailing the gameplay elements (I think in this instance it leads to a bit less redundant info). I've added more refs for the statements mentioned above you thought needed more explicit referencing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who responded to the copyedit request, I thank you for your feedback. Ovinus (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've reread the article and have just two more comments.
  • In the plot section, I think it might be helpful to have references for these two sentences: "The ending depends on how the player interacted with encountered Little Sisters and the fates of the Rapture Family's members. Whether the player spared non-player characters or not influences if Eleanor saves her mother or leaves her to drown." Explaining how to obtain divergent endings, in my view, may go a bit beyond a straightforward synopsis and into the "conclusions inferred by interpretation" mentioned in WP:VG/PLOT.
  • IMO, if the Metacritic score is the same across all platforms, you don't need to separate X360, PC, and PS3 in the review box. I'd just give one 88/100 with all three refs next to it.
Once these are addressed, I'll be ready to support. JOEBRO64 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TheJoebro64, I've tweaked the review table. For the plot, can you give me more specifics about what goes into too much detail that you feel runs into interpretation/needs secondary sourcing? I've gone looking for solid explanations of the endings but the sources are mostly non-notable game guides, wikis, and the like—besides there being multiple endings, I haven't found a source that gives a good delineation. So the alternative is chopping it down so that you think it doesn't need the additional citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think cutting those two sentences down to "The game features two endings" and leaving the "If Delta..."s should be the best solution. If reliable sources don't discuss the means for obtaining alternate endings, I think that suggests it's not entirely necessary. JOEBRO64 01:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheJoebro64: I've shortened the end of the plot section. Does it look better now? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. JOEBRO64 15:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from CollectiveSolidarity

[edit]

Saw your notice over on Discord, and I can give a quick review.

  • While it reviewed worse than BioShock or its sequel, BioShock Infinite, retrospective reviews have reevaluated BioShock 2 as a worthy entry, or even the best of the series. I suggest changing the wording of this a tiny bit. Perhaps, “While it was considered by critics to be worse than BioShock…”
  • I was perplexed by the inclusion of Plot before Gameplay, but JoeBro’s comments basically explained it.
  • I’m not sure whether a comparison to BioShock 1 is needed for the turrent mini game. It seems kind of jarring compared to the rest of the sentence.
  • Thomas said that even players who enjoyed hacking eventually found it repetitive. Bit of a silly thing, but does Thomas mean internet Hacking, or the mini game itself?
  • Spot checked refs in the Theme section…appear to be good.
  • The campaign was generally well received, though it often suffered from the comparison to BioShock’s. This writing is a bit tricky. Do you mean ‘’The campaign was generally well received, but was noted as very similar to BioShock’s.
  • Retrospectives have reconsidered BioShock 2 in its series and among video games as a whole.—I assume you meant “retrospective commentary”

That’s all I saw. I may do some more spot-checking later. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'm not well-versed in the style of video game articles, but I figure I should be able to do a source review. From what I've seen so far:

  • Formatting is generally consistent, but I'd like to see uses of "2K Games" and "2k Games" switched to a single format.
  • Cross-checked the list of WPVG reliable sources and found no major issues.
  • Links are in working order, but I recommend a quick run of IAbot to pick up the few remaining citations that don't have archived links.
  • Link to James Stephanie Sterling for Citation 25.
  • Is there a page number available for the first use of Citation 33 in the Development section?
  • Citation 56 no longer leads to the specific article. Also, is ScoringSessions.com a high-quality source?
  • Spotchecks performed on a sample of sources: citations 4–6, 12, 31, 44, 55, 56, 58, 118, and 124. Only one query from that:
    • Text refers to "Big Daddies" but The Atlantic (citation 6) and IGN (citation 4) seem to use "Big Daddys" while Bit-Tech (citation 5) uses "Big Daddies". Which is correct here?

Overall, an enjoyable read about a game I should really get around to playing instead of letting it languish in my Steam library. If you have the time, I have an FAC in need of a source review. SounderBruce 21:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SounderBruce, I really recommend playing it when you can :) Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of the above; the Big Daddies are referred to in the preponderance of sources (including text in-game) as a normal plural; not really sure how The Atlantic of all places can mess that up, but that's a typo on their part. Fixed the ScoringSessions ref; the site is run by Dan Goldwasser, who previously spent a decade on another reliable (though now defunct) soundtrack site, and has worked for reliable film publications such as Variety. (It's also an interview, so I think for the stuff cited WP:SPS is applicable if there were doubts about the reliability outright.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. SounderBruce 22:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lankyant

[edit]

A great game and a great article that has my support to be FA. I linked the first instance of Big Daddies to the Big Daddy article. Thanks for your work on this Lankyant (talk) 15:49, 5 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/September_2022&oldid=1113040539"