Википедия: кандидаты в избранные статьи

Страница слишком длинная и громоздкая? Попробуйте добавить программу просмотра номинаций на свою страницу со сценариями .

Здесь мы определяем, какие статьи должны быть избранными статьями (FA) . FA являются примером самой лучшей работы Википедии и удовлетворяют критериям FA . Приглашаются все редакторы просматривать номинации ; пожалуйста, смотрите обзор FAQ . Перед тем, как номинировать статью, номинанты могут пожелать получить обратную связь, включив ее в рецензирование . Редактора рассматривают свою первую номинацию, и любое последующее назначение до их первого продвижения ФА, которые настоятельно рекомендуется , чтобы привлекать к работе наставника , чтобы помочь в подготовке и обработке номинации. Кандидаты должны быть достаточно знакомы с предметом и источниками, чтобы иметь дело с возражениями в процессе отбора кандидатов на избранные статьи (FAC). Номинаторы, которые не вносят значительный вклад в статьюПеред тем, как номинировать статью, следует проконсультироваться с регулярными редакторами статьи. Ожидается, что кандидаты позитивно ответят на конструктивную критику и приложат усилия для быстрого рассмотрения возражений. Статья не должна быть одновременно на кандидатах в избранные статьи и на рецензирование или на хорошие статьи . Координаторы FAC - Ян Роуз , Элджит и Гог Мягкий - определяют сроки процесса для каждой номинации. Для того, чтобы номинация была повышена до статуса FA, необходимо достичь консенсуса , что она соответствует критериям. Консенсус достигается среди рецензентов и номинантов; координаторы определяют, есть ли консенсус. Номинация будет удалена из списка и помещена в архив, если, по мнению координаторов: обоснованные возражения не разрешены; консенсус по продвижению не достигнут; Рецензенты предоставили недостаточно информации, чтобы судить о соответствии критериям; или же номинация не подготовлена ​​после того, как хотя бы один рецензент предложил ее отозвать. Предполагается, что все номинации обладают хорошими качествами; вот почему основной упор в процессе состоит в том, чтобы генерировать и разрешать критические комментарии в отношении критериев, и почему такому решению придается значительно больший вес, чем заявлениям о поддержке. Пожалуйста, не используйте графику или шаблоны на страницах номинаций FAC. Графика, такая как  Done и Not done, замедляет время загрузки страницы, а сложные шаблоны могут привести к ошибкам в архивах FAC. Допустимы только шаблоны {{ xt }}, {{ ! Xt }} и {{ tq }}; шаблоны, такие как {{ зеленый }}, которые применяют цвета к тексту и используются для выделения примеров; а также {{ collapse top }} и {{ collapse bottom }}, используемые для скрытия оффтопных обсуждений. Редактору разрешается быть единственным номинатором только одной статьи за раз, но могут быть разрешены две номинации, если редактор является со-номинатором хотя бы одной из них. Если номинация заархивирована, номинантам следует уделить достаточно времени работе над решением проблем перед повторным назначением. Ни один из номинантов не может номинировать или совместно номинировать какую-либо статью в течение двух недель, если координатор не даст на это разрешения; если такая статья номинирована без разрешения, координатор решит, удалять ли ее. Координатор может освободить от этого ограничения заархивированную номинацию, которая не получила (или не получила минимальной обратной связи). Чтобы связаться с координаторами FAC, оставьте сообщение на странице обсуждения FAC или воспользуйтесь шаблоном уведомления {{ @FAC }} в другом месте. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut WP:FAC v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article review (FAR) Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Наставничество для FAC Журнал избранных статей Статистика избранных статей Случайная избранная статья Бывшие избранные статьи

Как номинировать статью Порядок номинации Ящик для инструментов Анализ Перед тем, как номинировать статью, убедитесь, что она соответствует всем критериям FA, а рецензии закрыты и архивированы. Панель инструментов избранных статей (справа) может помочь вам проверить некоторые критерии. Поместите {{subst:FAC}}номинированную статью вверху страницы обсуждения и сохраните страницу. В шаблоне FAC нажмите красную ссылку «инициировать выдвижение» или синюю ссылку «оставить комментарии». Вы увидите предварительно загруженную информацию; оставьте этот текст. Если вы не знаете, как пройти номинацию, отправьте сообщение на страницу обсуждения FAC для получения помощи. Под предварительно загруженным заголовком заполните страницу номинации, подпишите с помощью ~~~~ и сохраните страницу. Скопируйте этот текст: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}}(подставив номер) и отредактируйте эту страницу (то есть страницу, которую вы читаете в данный момент), вставив шаблон вверху списка кандидатов. Замените "имя ..." названием своей номинации. Это transclude назначения на эту страницу. В случае, если заголовок страницы номинации отличается от этого формата, используйте вместо него заголовок страницы. Комментируя, поддерживаю и опровергая Поддерживая и противодействуя To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. Чтобы выступить против выдвижения, напишите * '' 'Object' '' или * '' 'Oppose' '', а затем укажите причину (ы). Каждое возражение должно содержать конкретное обоснование, которое может быть рассмотрено . Если в принципе ничего нельзя сделать для разрешения возражения, координатор может проигнорировать его. Ссылки на стиль и грамматику не всегда совпадают; Если участник ссылается на поддержку определенного стиля в стандартном справочнике или другом авторитетном источнике, рецензентам следует рассмотреть возможность его принятия. Рецензентам, которые возражают, настоятельно рекомендуется вернуться через несколько дней, чтобы проверить, было ли рассмотрено их возражение. Чтобы снять возражение, зачеркните его (с<s> ... </s>) вместо его удаления. В качестве альтернативы, рецензенты могут перенести длинный решенный комментарий на страницу обсуждения архива FAC, оставив ссылку в примечании к архиву FAC. Чтобы внести конструктивный вклад в номинацию без конкретной поддержки или возражений, напишите * '' 'Комментарий' '', а затем свой совет. Для облегчения редактирования рецензент, который вводит длинный комментарий, может создать нейтральный подраздел четвертого уровня , названный либо ==== Review by EditorX ====, либо ==== Comments by EditorX ==== ( не используйте третий -уровень или выше заголовки разделов). Пожалуйста, не создавайте подразделы для коротких заявлений о поддержке или противодействии - для них просто * '' 'Support' '' ', *' '' Oppose '' 'или *' '' Комментарий '' ', за которым следует ваше мнение , достаточно. Не используйте точку с запятой для выделения подзаголовков; это создает проблемы с доступностью . Если кандидат считает, что возражение было рассмотрено, он должен сказать об этом либо после подписи рецензента, либо путем вкрапления своих ответов в список, предоставленный рецензентом. Согласно рекомендациям на странице обсуждения , номинанты не должны ограничивать, изменять, убирать или добавлять изображения к комментариям других редакторов. Если номинант обнаруживает, что другой рецензент не возвращается на страницу номинации, чтобы пересмотреть улучшения, это должно быть отмечено на странице номинации с разницей на странице обсуждения рецензента, на которой отображается запрос на пересмотр.

Номинации [ править ]

Раб Майнорс [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 23:40, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Those who have read the Aeneid or the poems of Catullus in Latin will probably have come across the name of Roger Mynors. He wrote the standard editions of these works and it is through them that I got interested in him as a person. Though he's mostly known for those books, he did interesting work on manuscripts and catalogued several library collections. What's more, he is unique for having been the senior chair of Latin at both Oxford and Cambridge.

Я нашел эту статью в качестве стартового курса в августе прошлого года и превратил ее в свою первую Хорошую статью с очень поучительным обзором GA от Amitchell125 . Тем временем я оставил статью, чтобы поработать над аналогичными темами, но вернулся, чтобы сделать Майнорса своим первым кандидатом в FA. В статье была улучшена с помощью комментариев экспертной оценки от SandyGeorgia , Герда Арендт и, опять же , Amitchell125. Любые предложения по улучшению приветствуются. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 23:40, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Форт Кончо [ править ]

Номинант (ы): ♠ Vami _IV † ♠ 01:21, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья, Форт Кончо, представляет собой бывший объект армии США, расположенный практически в центре Техаса. На самом деле это наиболее хорошо сохранившаяся установка армии США XIX века в любой точке страны, не говоря уже о Техасе. По этой причине он считается национальным историческим памятником. Как и в случае с моей предыдущей FA, это работа двух лет, и я надеюсь, что на это время понадобится всего один FAC. ♠ Vami _IV † ♠ 01:21, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Википедия: Рецензия / Форт Кончо / archive1 Sandy Georgia ( Обсуждение ) 01:39, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Собирался прокомментировать это на PR, но вы закрылись. Довольно сильно полагаются на Мэтьюза и NPS. Вы использовали такие источники, как [1] , ISBN  9781574414875 и ISBN 9780585464138 , или причину, по которой их следует избегать? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:29, 23 марта 2021 (UTC) 
  • Честно говоря, я понятия не имел, что они существуют. С тех пор я просмотрел каждый и подтвердил их достоверность. Хотя мне не нравится использовать Хейли, поскольку я познакомился с большим количеством устаревшей расистской прозы, которую я читал до сих пор в его связанной работе. - ♠ Vami _IV † ♠ 18:47, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)
• Мне нравится лицензирование изображений . ( t · c ) buidhe 01:31, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Ring ouzel [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 11:33, 22 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта четвертая статья о молочнице, которую я принес в FAC, немного короче, чем ее предшественники. Как один из первых мигрантов, это знак того, что весна уже в пути, но его дикая горная среда обитания для размножения означает, что кольчатый узел не смог приобрести культурные и литературные ассоциации своих равнинных собратьев. Джимфблик - поговори со мной? 11:33, 22 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Лицензирование изображений выглядит хорошо ( t · c ) buidhe 13:56, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Противостояние от HumanxAnthro [ править ]

Против . Как человек, не являющийся экспертом по животным, я не могу сказать, насколько надежна цитируемая здесь литература по животным и насколько полна эта статья. Однако то, что заставляет меня склоняться к противодействию, - это прозаические проблемы, начинающиеся во главе.

• Животный жаргон, такой как «нагрудный ободок», «бледный полумесяц», «самая северная часть его диапазона», либо не связан, либо не объяснен для понимания случайным читателем.

• HumanxAnthro Мне непонятно, какое из шести слов выше (исключая «of» и «its» и, предположительно, «part») вы считаете не стандартным английским. Мне кажется, что объединение общих слов, таких как «бледный» и «полумесяц», является излишним. Мне действительно нужно говорить, где находится грудь или как выглядит полумесяц? Я вставил "географический" перед "диапазоном", хотя Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Согласитесь с HA, я совершенно не понимаю, что значит для птицы бледный полумесяц? Что такое нагрудник у птицы? Здесь нужно избавиться от жаргонизмов. ( t · c ) buidhe 13:59, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Кроме того, предложение «Его среда обитания - открытые возвышенности с некоторыми деревьями или кустарниками, включая вереск, хвойные деревья, бук, Rhododendron hirsutum или можжевельник» звучит неуклюже. По крайней мере, типы мест связаны, но есть ли еще терминология, которую я не понимаю?

• Опять же, я бы не подумал, что «среда обитания» была технической, но я связал ее и вставил «часто» Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• That's not what I'm referring. I'm talking about how the structure of the sentence. What does it mean for a habitat to be open uplands? Are you trying to say they're located in the mountains? If, as someone who is not versed in animal terminology, is confused by the sentence, that means it is not comprehensible to other casual readers wanting to learn more about the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the first lead's para, why are some continents not linked yet North Africa is? Also, we're hastily introduced into "The 3–6 eggs," are these the typical amount of eggs that hatch from these birds?

• At FAC we don't link countries or continents, but we do link regions, since they are less obvious. I've inserted typical clutch and tweaked a bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "strawberry,cherry hawthorn," needs a space between them

• Added a comma, there's already a space Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The ring ouzel has an extensive range and a large population," Extensive range in what? Subspecies?

• Added "geographical" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Я только что заметил, что большая часть второго абзаца портит большую часть «раздела о диете». Заголовок предназначен для простого краткого изложения большинства разделов статьи, не придавая чрезмерно несправедливого веса тому или иному разделу.

• Удалено большинство предметов Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Длинные предложения с описанием в «Подвиды» трудно читать комфортно, так как они кажутся случайными по структуре. Я также не вижу необходимости в маркированном списке только три пункта.

• В разделе «Подвиды» убраны маркеры, а предложения стали короче. Я проделал то же самое в следующем разделе, хотя вы не предлагали Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• В «Голосе» больше жаргона, не связанного и не объясненного.

• Я связал контактный звонок и окунь , хотя не думаю, что последнее особенно непонятно. Все остальные слова стандартные английские Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "(5 900–7 200 футов) 1800–2200 | м}}« Я думаю, что это не полностью запрограммированный шаблон.

• Исправлен Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Статья нуждается в редактировании. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 18:08, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо за комментарии Jimfbleak - поговорите со мной? 12:08, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «В Альпах плотность гнездования может достигать 60–80 пар / км², но в целом она намного ниже: 37 пар / км² в Верхней Савойе, 22 пары / км² в горах Юра и 8 пар / км² в более открытых местообитаниях в Великобритания «Используйте шаблон преобразования, а не примечание (возможно, потребуется перефразировать, например,« плотность пар может достигать 60–80 на км2 ... »( t · c ) buidhe 07:10, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC )

• buidhe , спасибо за ваши изменения в тексте. Я добавил дату оценки популяции и последовал вашему предложению относительно шаблона преобразования, которогоможет достичь плотность гнездящихся пар ... Jimfbleak - поговорите со мной? 13:39, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Тейлор Свифт (альбом) [ править ]

Номинатор (и): HĐ ( обсуждение ) 01:23, 22 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Вспомнив 15 лет назад, Тейлор Свифт была никем, пока не выпустила свой дебютный альбом с несколько звездными глазами, но амбициозный кантри, подающий надежду. Несмотря на то, что альбом обременен звуком наполнителей, альбом демонстрирует ранние таланты г-жи Свифт как конфессионального автора песен с умением создавать самые крутые поп-песни. Послушайте « Нашу песню », и вы поймете.

Статья прошла GAN в марте 2010 года, но я заметил, что с тех пор она была заполнена значительным количеством оригинальных исследований и ненадежных источников. Я переписал всю статью и дал ее на рецензирование. Я считаю, что эта статья, только что прошедшая рецензирование, удовлетворяет критериям избранной статьи. Мы будем очень признательны за любые комментарии о том, как улучшить статью. С уважением , Хо ( разговорное ) 01:23, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

Википедия: Рецензия / Тейлор Свифт (альбом) / архив 1 . Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 02:05, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии HumanxAnthro [ править ]

• В п. 16 не указана дата. Я знаю, это потому, что это еще один из тех источников, которые решили, что «[вставить число] лет назад» является достаточным указанием даты, но в вашем браузере есть функция «просмотр источника», чтобы вы могли найти дату публикации. В этой цитате это 3 июня 2010 г. HumanxAnthro ( обсуждение ) 14:55, 22 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Дата добавления. Спасибо что подметил это! Хо ( разговорное ) 11:13, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я скажу, что проза интересная, увлекательная и понятная, но у меня есть комментарий по поводу ее организации.
• Повсюду есть предложения, в которых обсуждается роль Свифта на кантри-сцене в подростковом возрасте, некоторые из которых кажутся эквивалентными и должны быть каким-то образом объединены. Например:
  • Свифт вспомнила, что звукозаписывающие компании не воспринимали ее всерьез из-за ее юного возраста: «В основном [они] все говорили:« Ах, как мило ... Иди домой и возвращайся, когда тебе 18 ». «[6]» и «По словам Борчетты, коллеги по отрасли изначально не одобряли его подписание с шестнадцатилетним певцом и автором песен. [9] Ассошиэйтед Пресс сообщило, что старший менеджер по работе с талантами из Нэшвилла сказал:« Скажи ей, чтобы она вернулась. в школу и вернись ко мне, когда ей будет 18, и приведи ее родителей, «что было освещено в местной прессе [33]».
  • "She was rejected because record labels believed the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl, which Swift firmly disbelieved.[5][6]" and "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity.[33][45] However, industry experts did not expect a teenage artist to replicate the success of LeAnn Rimes in the 1990s, and country radio focused on female artists over 30 for advertising reasons.[34]"
    • I trimmed down the "Legacy" section so that it would not repeat what has been said in the previous sections. Let me know what you think. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Кроме того, «ретроспективный обзор Мауры Джонстон из Pitchfork описал альбом как честный отчет о подростковых перспективах, в отличие от выпущенных альбомов, которые« утяжелили прежние подростковые сенсации ». индустрия, помимо того, что является подростком на кантри-сцене, и звучит так, как будто это должно быть в разделе наследия, а не в разделе приема, который показывает мнения о качестве самого альбома.
• «Наша песня» и «Should've Said No» заняли первое место в рейтинге Hot Country Songs. [65] С «Our Song» Свифт стал самым молодым человеком, который в одиночку написал и спел кантри-сингл номер один. [68] «Поскольку в предыдущих предложениях уже используется формат« Эта песня заняла это место, эта песня достигла своего пика в цифре, которая: «Я бы разнообразил прозу и написал две песни» »возглавил чарт Hot Country Songs, сделать Свифт самым молодым артистом, который в одиночку написал и спел кантри-сингл номер один ».
• Кроме того, что случилось с этим «е» в конце песни?

• Удаленный. Хо ( разговорное ) 11:13, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Хотя «Музыка» интересна, хорошо организована и проста в навигации, уверены ли мы, что здесь есть больше, чем просто один академик? Я знаю, что Тейлор Свифт - один из самых известных художников за всю историю, поэтому я могу представить, что даже ее первый альбом, хотя, возможно, и не так рецензируемый, как ее более поздние работы одновременно, содержит массу ретроспективного анализа, выходящего за рамки того, что в настоящее время цитируется здесь . Я оставляю за собой право осуждать, так как я не проводил глубоких исследований по этой теме, плюс, поскольку альбом носит одноименное название по имени исполнителя, было бы большим кошмаром пытаться искать источники, учитывая, что просто поиск " Тейлор Свифт »приводит в основном результаты об исполнителе, а не о одноименном альбоме.

• Есть ретроспективные обзоры, но в основном они сосредоточены на лирике. Трудно найти ту, которая сфокусирована на музыке. Хо ( разговорное ) 11:13, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Вдобавок, в Reception, уверены ли мы, что это были единственные современные обзоры на альбом? Мы особенно уверены, что это единственные ретроспективные мнения об альбоме?
• Приемная тоже могла бы быть немного меньше цитатной

• Я немного реорганизовал раздел. Хо ( разговорное ) 11:13, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Немного несоответствия форматирования цитаты? Источник CMT в ссылке 3 имеет свое имя издателя как просто «CMT» с «News» в поле заголовка, однако во всех других цитированиях CMT издатель представлен как «CMT News» без «News» в заголовке.

HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 14:55, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

• • В целом качество текста кажется хорошим, если требуются некоторые исправления, и все источники кажутся надежными, но я немного скептически отношусь к его полноте, учитывая мои комментарии выше. Хотя я мог ошибаться. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 17:47, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)
    • Я понимаю вашу озабоченность по поводу ограниченного количества критических обзоров, но похоже, что этот альбом не получил большого профессионального рейтинга - он действительно привлекает ретроспективные упоминания, но они часто упоминаются в связи с актуальностью следующих альбомов Свифта, а не этого альбом как таковой (например, как NYTimes кратко упомянул этот альбом, но я не думаю, что это считается полным обзором). После еще одного раунда обзора источников я почти уверен, что все соответствующие источники для "Критического приема" были включены. Хо ( разговорное ) 10:59, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от Aoba47 [ править ]

Я в первую очередь оставляю это как заполнитель. У меня сейчас проблемы с компьютером, поэтому я, вероятно, смогу сделать полный обзор не раньше, чем на следующей неделе. Приносим извинения за это. Я участвовал в экспертной оценке . Я заметил вышеупомянутый разговор об освещении, и мне было любопытно, просматривали ли вы на Newspapers.com современные обзоры? Вот несколько вырезок из обзоров 2006 года, которые я нашел на Newspapers.com и которые, я считаю, были бы полезными ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), поскольку они разрешили бы вышеуказанные проблемы. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 01:50, 24 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо Aoba47 за информацию. Я не знал о веб-сайте Newspapers.com, так что действительно полезно узнать больше о современных обзорах этого альбома. Скоро добавлю их в статью. H ( разговорное ) 02:27, 24 марта 2021 (UTC)

Только что понял, требуется ли для этого сайта платная подписка? Я попробовал еще раз поискать, но там что-то говорилось о премиальном сайте ... Хо ( разговор ) 02:29, 24 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Newspapers.com требует платной подписки, но вы можете получить бесплатный доступ к сайту через платформу библиотечных карточек Википедии . Процесс подачи заявки очень прост, и я смог получить одобрение и создать учетную запись в течение нескольких дней. Я знаю, что это немного раздражает, поскольку я знаю, что вы планируете выйти на пенсию в ближайшем будущем, но я думаю, что это было бы полезно для статьи. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 02:36, 24 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я подал заявку через Платформу библиотечных карточек. Надеюсь получить доступ в ближайшие несколько дней - ХО ( разговор ) 02:55, 24 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Удачи и дайте мне знать, если у вас возникнут вопросы о Newspapers.com. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 04:09, 24 марта 2021 (UTC)

Не могу выкинуть тебя из головы [ править ]

Номинатор (и): - Tom (T2ME) 10:56, 21 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о ... большом хите Кайли Миноуг. Говорят, третий раз - прелесть, так что посмотрим, как это получится. Огромное спасибо Baffle gab1978 за то, что придал прозе потрясающий и свежий вид! - Том (T2ME) 10:56, 21 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Сюзанна Ленглен [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Sportsfan77777 ( обсуждение ) 23:14, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о Сюзанн Ленглен , теннисистке 1920-х годов, которая оказала огромное влияние на игру. Текст был сокращен с 66 КБ, когда он был номинирован в прошлый раз, до 55 КБ на этот раз. Sportsfan77777 ( обсуждение ) 23:14, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Национальный союз борцов за свободу [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Геттарда ( разговор ) 03:38, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о революционной группе в Тринидаде и Тобаго 1970-х. Поскольку большая часть их руководства была убита, их история в основном оставалась невысказанной до 2000 года. Когда я писал эту статью в 2005 году, все, что я знал, было кратким изложением из двух предложений и почти всем вниманием, которое они получили в большинстве источников. Времена изменились, и я думаю, что это эпизод в нашей истории, который стоит задокументировать. Прошло много времени с тех пор, как я номинировал FAC, но я думаю, что это жизнеспособный и интересный кандидат. Геттарда ( разговор ) 03:38, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Изображения имеют свободную лицензию ( t · c ) buidhe 07:39, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от Моисейпа [ править ]

Я собираюсь пересмотреть это. Небольшая длина статьи соответствует моему текущему расписанию. Моисейп ( разговор ) 18:10, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Первое чтение:

• Проза увлекательна.
• Несоответствие в статье о том, стоит ли ставить запятую после таких фраз, как «В 1969 году» и «В феврале 1970 года» в начале предложения.

  Я думаю, что получил их все. Геттарда ( разговор ) 22:36, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Вести:

• Когда я делаю лиды, я стараюсь (более или менее) давать пропорциональное количество текста количеству текста в каждом разделе. В настоящее время кажется, что нет ничего ведущего из фона и формирования, даже если это полные пять абзацев текста. Я специально не проверял другие разделы и не уверен, насколько для них пропорционально отрыв. Что бы вы подумали о том, чтобы сделать упор на более пропорциональное опережение?

  Хорошая точка зрения. Я немного округлил отрывок. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:49, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я не был уверен, что именно «улучшенные возможности разведки» в главном тексте имеют в виду.

  That way my (obviously imperfect) attempt to summarise The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Background and formation:

• I suggest putting "(PNM)" and "(NJAC)" directly after the first mention of the full name of each, like you have done for "(NUFF)" and "(WOLF)". Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Выполнено. Геттарда ( разговорное ) 11:53, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена

• Будьте последовательны в том, как форматируются места публикации

  Спасибо, мне нужно уделять этому больше внимания. Фиксированный. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:03, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• FN11 не работает

  Добавлена ​​ссылка на архив. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:03, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• FN12: это санкционированная переиздание?

  Сесил Пол всегда был заместителем президента NWU, так что да, я думаю, что это так. Кроме того, поскольку здесь написано «отправлено», а не «опубликовано в», я склонен считать это предварительной публикацией. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:03, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Что делает FN14 надежным источником высокого качества?

  На момент публикации книги Оуэн Батист был журналистом с почти 20-летним опытом и 9 лет редактором « Экспресса» . Он стал генеральным директором Карибского информационного агентства . В то время как Inprint Caribbean опубликовал ряд важных работ, это было в самом начале его тиража, и издателями были Батист и его жена, поэтому я постарался приписать мнения. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:03, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• FN 20 и 21 должны использовать |publisher=вместо |website=. Никкимария ( разговор ) 03:26, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Спасибо, исправлено. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:03, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Саттон Юнайтед 2–1 Ковентри Сити (1989) [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) , Амакуру ( выступление ) 15:04, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Некоторые называют это одним из, если не самым большим разочарованием в английском «футболе». Высший дивизион Ковентри "Небесный Блюз" Сити , занимавший высокие места в Первом Дивизионе и победители старейшего футбольного кубка в мире всего два года назад, были буквально поражены игрой "каменщиков, помощников управляющих банков и страховых клерков". за клуб вне лиги Саттон "Эмбер и шоколад" Юнайтед . Трудно проглотить моего товарища (фаната Cov), но приятно для футбольного мира, который любит эту историю «Давид побеждает Голиафа». И это тоже правда! The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус!Спасать жизни!!!! ) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• You need to state specifically that the Conference is/was the fifth tier of English football, to give context to the "gulf" between the teams. I didn't spot this mentioned anywhere, meaning that a reader not familiar with English football would not know whether there were 1,2,4 or 12 divisions between them........

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• «Представленные СМИ как потенциальный кубок, гости вошли в матч в качестве сильных фаворитов» - эти два утверждения кажутся противоречащими друг другу. Cov были сильными фаворитами, но СМИ предсказывали потенциальное расстройство? Также в тексте статьи (в отличие от заголовка) нет упоминания о том, что СМИ сочли это возможным огорчением.

  Я вернусь к этому ... Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 17:29, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Вы абсолютно правы, я думаю, что я смягчу его в ведущей части и добавлю еще немного о прелюдии в основной части. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:51, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Я удалил фразу «расстроить», потому что на самом деле я не могу (верьте или нет) найти что-либо до матча, где кто-то действительно дал бы им шанс кошки. Но я определил шансы перед матчем на победу обеих сторон в кубке, так что это явный индикатор того, что Cov является явным фаворитом ... The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 21:25, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Фил Доусон, ударивший крестом» - заметьте опечатку :-)

  Сделано в обоих местах. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 17:29, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «нокаутировал команды Футбольной лиги в Кубке Англии в прошлом году, победив как Олдершот Таун, так и Питерборо Юнайтед» - возможно, стоит указать, в каких дивизионах эти команды играли.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 17:29, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Еще одна вещь, о которой я только что подумал - они не могли победить Олдершот Таун , поскольку этой команды в то время не существовало. Они фактически победили Олдершота - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 18:09, 18 марта 2021 года (UTC)

  Это я слишком молод ... Готово. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:07, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "вошел в розыгрыш Кубка Англии, проиграв на выезде нижнему клубу Эйлсбери Юнайтед и сыграя дома против Мейдстон Юнайтед". - во-первых, это грамматически неверно, а во-вторых, относится ли это к их двум последним матчам, предшествовавшим розыгрышу кубков? Немного непонятно .......

  Надеюсь, прояснилось. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:07, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Ковентри Сити закончил предыдущий сезон на десятом месте в Первом дивизионе Футбольной лиги». - поясните, что в то время это был высший дивизион английского футбола.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:07, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Но его заголовок был плохим» - не начинайте предложение с «но»

  Rejigged. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:07, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «На 70-й минуте Ковентри заменил Сирилла Региса на Кейта Хоучена» => «На 70-й минуте Ковентри заменил Сирилла Региса на Кита Хоучена», также нужна запятая после Хоучена

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:07, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Педантично, рубашки Ковентри были действительно небесно-голубыми и белыми половинками, а не полностью небесно-голубыми (приятные воспоминания о формах Hummel той эпохи) - см. Здесь

  Я не уверен, что они были белыми / синими, посмотрите видео, где это больше похоже на синий / голубой ?? Это видео плохого качества, заметьте ... Я немного не понимаю, как "создать" необходимый узор рубашки. Шаблон футбольной формы немного кошмарен. Я посмотрю, смогу ли я кого-нибудь спросить! Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Is the identity of the Sutton substitute not known? If not, it might be worth putting "sub: not known", or something, so that readers aren't potentially left wondering why Cov had a sub but Sutton didn't......

  None of the sources indicate that Sutton had a named substitute. I'm not even sure we can assume there was one, can we? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point about the lack of sources, although as someone old enough to have been a regular match attendee in the season in question, I can't really think of any plausible reason why any team would *not* have had a named substitute..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Думаю, это похоже на попытку доказать отрицание. Если я не смогу найти источник с именованной подпрограммой (которая решит проблему!), Мы действительно не знаем ... The Rambling Man ( Будьте бдительны! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 21:50, 18 Март 2021 г. (UTC)

  Амакуру какие мысли по этому поводу ? Есть программа ?! The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 21:52, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  У меня самой программы нет, к счастью, я не ходил в ту игру! Хотя, похоже, здесь воспроизводится: [2] . Как и в большинстве программ, он включает составы, но фактический состав команды не будет известен до сегодняшнего дня. Я предполагаю, что у обеих команд было по две замены на скамейке запасных, из которых Ков использовал одну, а Саттон - ни одной. В моей книге есть два командных листа и показаны заменяющие подводные лодки Cov, но, к сожалению, нет упоминания о неиспользованных подводных лодках. -  Амакуру ( разговор ) 22:12, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Даже в видеоклипе MOTD с участием Мотти Houchen упоминается как «одна из субмарин», но не перечисляются на графике и не упоминаются другие. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 22:19, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Ага, я нашел больше информации - неиспользованная замена Саттона была Bangs: [3] и, похоже, действительно было только по одной замене на скамейку для каждой команды, хотя в матчах Кубка Англии в прошлом сезоне явно было две замены. И вот он снова, Стив Бэнгс: [4] . Остается только догадываться, являются ли эти источники надежными. Да, и проверьте это - всем любимому ботанику-железнодорожнику Джеффу Маршаллу тоже есть что сказать по этому поводу ... Мистер Бэнгс был его учителем физкультуры. [5]  -  Амакуру ( разговор ) 22:40, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Хорошее исследование. К сожалению, я бы не стал считать кого-либо из них RS ... Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 22:49, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

  В Кубке Англии в этом сезоне определенно было по два запасных на команду. Но если информация о неиспользованных подводных лодках недоступна, я не уверен, что вы, ребята, что-то еще можете сделать. Я просто подумал, что это может сбить с толку людей, которые просмотрели статью и подумали: «Почему у Ковентри была подписка, а у Саттона нет?» ....... - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 08:20, 19 марта 2021 г. ( УНИВЕРСАЛЬНОЕ ГЛОБАЛЬНОЕ ВРЕМЯ)

  Это может сработать. Я не знаю, что мы можем сделать без надежных источников. Конечно, я видел некоторые матчи, в которых для каждой стороны было доступно разное количество замен, и кажется, что в этом случае может быть даже две других «недостающих» замены. Но мы не можем это определить. Если вы сможете найти правила Кубка Англии 1988-89, в которых указано, сколько запасных игроков было разрешено каждой стороне, мы могли бы добавить сноску на этот счет, я полагаю? The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 12:12, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Может быть, просто изменить место, где сейчас написано «Заменить:» на «Заменить использованный:»? В конце концов, я не думаю, что перечисление людей, которые не играли в матче, на самом деле так важно, но вышеупомянутое изменение, по крайней мере, устранит возможность путаницы ......... - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 12:28, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Выполнено. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 12:29, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Предложил Вильямс» - предположительно, это относится к менеджеру Саттона? Поскольку это первый раз, когда он упоминается, кроме того, что он указан в разделе сведений о матче, что можно легко упустить из виду, я бы посоветовал прояснить, кто он / был.

  Выполнено. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Дэвид Лейси из The Guardian согласился и предложил Саттон» => «Дэвид Лейси из The Guardian согласился и предложил Саттону»

  Выполнено. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "появился на чат-шоу Терри Вогана" - я бы предположил, что чат-шоу - это два слова, но я готов к тому, что меня одолеют ...

  Выполнено. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Учитывая, что статья посвящена * этому * матчу, я думаю, что подробное описание всех бомбардиров Норвича в следующем раунде - ненужный уровень детализации.

  Не знаю, это два предложения, и я на самом деле упомянул их только по названию и количеству голов. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Действительно ли две записи в разделе «Источники» являются источником чего-либо в статье? В противном случае я бы сказал, избавьтесь от них. Если да, то процитируйте их в соответствующем месте (ах).

  Ничего не было, так что пропало. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:39, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Это то, что я получил при первом чтении - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 17:05, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

ChrisTheDude благодарит за ваши комментарии и за помощь с комплектом! Я пытался ответить на ваши комментарии, но, конечно, дайте мне знать, если что-то не так или вы заметили что-то еще, что вы хотели бы исправить! Ваше здоровье. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 21:30, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка - ChrisTheDude ( обсуждение ) 19:00, 21 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Кодекс Хаммурапи [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Emqu ( обсуждение ) 12:20, 17 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Кодекс Хаммурапи - загадочный юридический текст с сильными литературными отрывками. Это также один из немногих разделов ассириологии, известных неассириологам. Политики и кураторы делают это на словах и покупают дорогие реплики, и страница набирает 1,5–2 тыс. Просмотров в день. В общем, он заслуживает статьи выше C-класса. Я переписал его и получил очень щедрое наставничество FAC от A. Parrot  ( обсуждение  · вклад ). Обратная связь очень ценится! Emqu ( разговор ) 12:20, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Поддержка . Я не знал, как заниматься наставничеством, поэтому я подверг статью тому, что фактически является проверкой FAC (постоянная ссылка здесь для прозрачности). Там были рассмотрены все мои опасения. А. Попугай ( разговор ) 13:29, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Обзор изображения :
  • Файл: Tranchée de Jacques de Morgan sur l'acropole de Susa en Iran (Musée du Louvre, Arch AO 2267) .jpg В описании изображения необходимо четко указать, почему ПД-Иран обращается. ( t · c ) buidhe 20:31, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe : Готово. Emqu ( разговор ) 23:11, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

• • Файл: Lex talionis или ударил первым (BM 1868,0808.9437) .jpg Я не думаю, что это изображение вообще объясняет или иллюстрирует Lex talonis. Для большинства читателей это просто похоже на драку. ( t · c ) buidhe 20:31, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe : слом.

Также: как вы думаете, какое упоминание необходимо для вставленного вами CN? Несколько примеров, чтобы показать, что термины условны? Emqu ( разговор ) 23:11, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я бы просто удалил это. Чтобы сохранить, вам понадобится источник, в котором явно обсуждается использование терминов, а не только некоторые примеры, например WP: OR . ( t · c ) buidhe 23:51, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe : Хорошо, готово. Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe : Спасибо за правки. Я только что развязал спектр вины / стыда / страха, который всегда считал довольно подозрительным. Emqu ( разговор ) 09:53, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от HAL [ править ]

• Должен ли быть "около" перед диапазоном дат в lede?

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Письма Хаммурапи предполагают, что он был. Вы можете убрать «это».

Хм, для меня это звучит странно? Я чувствую, что всегда буду использовать «это» в этом контексте. Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Не уверен на 100%, но я видел, как люди из GOCE выполняли это в соответствии с моим последним запросом. ~ HAL 333 13:21, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Окей, сделано. Emqu ( разговорное ) 13:46, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Странно смотрятся «см» в корпусе. Думаю, для этого есть шаблон.

Странно видеть размеры в самом теле или конкретно аббревиатуру «см»? А вы думали о шаблоне, таком как высота ? Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Ага, шаблон. ~ HAL 333 13:21, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 13:46, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

• много альтернативных интерпретаций Нужна ли «альтернатива»?

Изменили этот абзац, надеюсь, теперь он стал понятнее. Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

More comments later. Like what I see and the subject matter definitely deserves this treatment. ~ HAL333 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can references be in the middle of sentences rather than after punctuation? Not sure myself. If not, I would address that.

Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• These are all expressed --> "These are expressed"

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• wrath of all the gods --> "wrath of the gods"

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a source for the order in which Gods and goddesses are invoked?

Have supplied a Roth ref as per the rest of the section. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• For the Justinian and Napoleon caption, why not make it a single sentence: "Justinian I of Byzantium (L) and Napoléon Bonaparte of France (R) both created legal codes to which the Louvre stele has been compared." You can also apply this to other captions.

Done: for this, for Ea/Enki, and for Moses. I'm inclined to keep "The text. ..." as it is, though. Unlike with Justinian and Napoleon, without a simple label it is not at all clear that the image shows the text on the stele. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of many of the captions having full stops despite not being sentences.

MOS:CAPTION says that if there is any full sentence in the caption, then all sentences and sentence fragments must be capitalised. The only caption which I think violates MOS:CAPTION is the Capitol caption, and I had actually removed the full stop there before. I've removed it again now. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Akkadisches Handwörterbuch should be italicized.

Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Code and, e.g., United States law and medieval law Is it okay t have "e.g." in the body of the text? I have only seen it in notes and parentheses. If so, ignore.

Игнорирование согласно вашему редактированию. ( РГ: MOS использует его 37 раз, так что я думаю, что мы в безопасности.) Эмку ( разговор ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 года (UTC)

• Некоторые отметили, что наказания Кто?

Два процитированных источника. Сказать «CHW Johns и ... и ...» показалось слишком многословным, поэтому я просто поместил их в сноску, но дайте мне знать, если это неприемлемо. Emqu ( разговорное ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Некоторые авторы неправильно заявляют, что?

То же. Emqu ( разговорное ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• «Цивилопедия» - качественный надежный источник?

Нет истории, да - игре. Он опубликован издателем игры, и я считаю, что это просто копия внутриигровой энциклопедии. Emqu ( разговорное ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я не уверен, что ссылка 170 надежна или полностью поддерживает зависимый текст.

Это ссылка на саундтрек? Я думал, что страница Apple Music была надежным источником саундтрека. Если нет, я откажусь от упоминания этой серии, потому что я не смог найти более конкретной ссылки на Кодекс. Emqu ( разговорное ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Над дверью висит рельефный портрет Хаммурапи. Он висит?

Фиксированный. Emqu ( разговорное ) 22:08, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Это все, что у меня есть. ~ HAL 333, 18:17, 21 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор специальных возможностей : добавьте альтернативный текст к изображениям для WP: CAPTION / MOS: ACCIM и подпись к таблице в соответствии с MOS: DTAB  :) Heartfox ( обсуждение ) 00:18, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Выполнено. Надеюсь, с альтернативным текстом все в порядке? Emqu ( разговорное ) 11:51, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от Wretchskull [ править ]

Обзор после беглого беглого просмотра статьи. Тщательный обзор в ближайшее время

• Однако он вызывает гнев всех богов на любого, кто не подчиняется или стирает его заявления. Удалите 's' из слов "не подчиняется" и "стирает", потому что они не должны быть простым представлением от третьего лица в единственном числе.

Фиксированный. Emqu ( разговорное ) 16:40, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Начало раздела «Теории цели» без ссылки. Следует сослаться на теорию споров или юриспруденции 20-го века, имеющую большую поддержку.

На имя. Emqu ( разговорное ) 16:40, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Во многих сносках часто используются одни и те же книги, я скоро проверю, нет ли плагиата, и, возможно, поищу ласковые термины. Отличная работа по доставке этой жизненно важной статьи в FAC довольно быстро! Wretchskull ( разговорное ) 16:05, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо! Относительно одних и тех же источников я бы сказал, что в большинстве случаев Рот (1995a) является ссылками на страницы перевода Рота. Я включил их в конце наставничества FAC . Emqu ( разговорное ) 16:40, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Есть много слов с наложенными ссылками, даже некоторые слова, которые вообще не должны быть связаны в WP: OVERLINK . Вы можете исправить это вручную или с помощью скрипта, если хотите.

• Удалить все ссылки из:

1. "Справедливость"
2. «Закон» (только если он стоит отдельно, не удаляйте ссылки из таких слов, как закон Моисея и т. Д.)
3. "Портрет"
4. "Правовая система"

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 21:46, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Если эти слова были связаны один раз в заголовке и один раз в теле (или в информационном окне / изображении), удалите все остальные ссылки из этих слов:

1. "Облегчение"
2. "Стела"
3. Любые имена: ученые, писатели, исторические деятели и т. Д.

Выполнено. (Некоторые дуплинки были там, потому что я думал, что у подписей есть свой «счетчик» ссылок.)

« Средняя хронология » технически связана в теле дважды, но вторая связана с « сверхдлинной хронологией », которая рассматривается в той же статье.

Would you say that the infobox is part of the lead, and that I should therefore remove infobox links found in the lead? Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: Information below.

• Add missing links to the following words:

1. First mention of "stele" in the lead section (note that this word is also in the bullet above)
2. The city of "Isin"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• References:

• In the Jurisprudence section, the references of laws should be placed after the law number. Placing it after the text is fine but for MOS, it would be best (-Law x[reference], etc.).

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Это все, что у меня есть на данный момент. Wretchskull ( разговор ) 18:46, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Тщательный обзор

• Подробнее о ссылках:

• В разделе стелы Лувра следует быть осторожным с тем, как вы связываете акрополь, поскольку в этом случае он ведет к древнегреческому поселению. Кроме того, вы можете связать город Сузы на изображениях, как показывает практическое правило: одна ссылка в заголовке, одна в информационном окне, одна в теле, одна в изображениях и многое другое, если они помогают пользователю . Можно сказать, что лид отделен от информационного окна. Я скоро приду с другими. Wretchskull ( разговор ) 09:45, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо, я повторно связал подписи на этом основании. Акрополь тоже отключен . Emqu ( разговор ) 12:31, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Ведущий раздел

• Хаммурапи утверждает в прологе, что ему было предоставлено его правило [...] Несколько неправильное добавление слов, измените его на «В прологе Хаммурапи утверждает, что получил его правило [...]».

Изменилось (хотя я не согласен с тем, что это было неправильно). Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Их сфера действия очень широка, включая, например, уголовное право, семейное право, право собственности и коммерческое право. «Очень» - это избыточное наречие, потому что оно будет использоваться, когда упомянутый глагол или объяснение выходят за рамки предмета. В тексте говорится о законах, что является частью темы, несмотря на ее широту. Убрать «очень».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Хаммурапи

• Хаммурапи (или Хаммурапи), шестой царь [...] Перед словом «шестой» отсутствует определенный артикль «the». Его следует использовать, потому что он посвящен конкретно Хаммурапи.

Очевидно, что ни одна из фраз для меня не предпочтительнее. Тем не менее изменилось. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• В отличие от его агрессивной внешней политики, письма Хаммурапи предполагают, что он был озабочен благополучием своих многочисленных подданных и интересовался законом и справедливостью. Суть предложения я понимаю, но формулировка довольно нечеткая.

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Он заказал большие строительные работы, и в своих письмах он часто [...] ставит запятую сразу после «букв», потому что это придаточное предложение, соединяющееся с основным предложением.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Более ранние сборники законов

• Несколько ранее коллекции выживают , в шумерской, а также аккадского. Удалите запятую, все предложение является основным предложением.

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Стела Лувр

• Основная копия текста была обнаружена на базальтовой стеле теперь в Лувре. Замените «основное» на «исходное», поскольку оно имеет более прямое определение предмета.

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Его высота составляет 225 см (7 футов 4 1⁄2 дюйма); его окружность составляет 165 см (5 футов 5 дюймов) на вершине и 190 см (6 футов 3 дюйма) у основания . Добавьте окончательный артикль «the» перед «вершиной» и «базой».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Scheil предположения , что стела была доставлена в Сузы по эламскому королю Шутрук-Наххунт I , и что он заказал стирание нескольких колонок законов для того , чтобы написать свою собственную легенду там. Удалите запятую (правила грамматики основного предложения), удалите слово «по порядку», поскольку оно является избыточным, и удалите лишнее слово «собственный», потому что «напиши его ...» уже предполагает, что оно касается его самого.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Другие копии

• Известно более пятидесяти рукописей, содержащих законы, которые можно найти не только в Сузах, но и в Вавилоне, Ниневии, Ассуре, Борсиппе, Ниппуре, Сиппаре, Уре, Ларсе и других местах. Слегка ясный, но грамматически несостоятельный. Измените его на «Известно более пятидесяти рукописей, содержащих законы. Среди них они были найдены не только в Сузах. Они также были в Вавилоне, Ниневии, Ассуре, Борсиппе, Ниппуре, Сиппаре, Уре, Ларсе и других…». Если он вас не устраивает, вы можете изменить его по своему усмотрению.

Изменен. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign: after, it became a part of the scribal curriculum. Unclear wording within two main clauses sandwiched by a sunordinate one. Consider changing it along the lines of "Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign. After his reign, they became a part of the scribal curriculum."

Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Emqu: I will continue with the other half of the article later. Apologies if this is too much, an article this important deserves to be a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Вовсе нет - тщательная обратная связь всегда лучше! Я очень благодарен. Emqu ( разговор ) 18:18, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Примечание: вы можете изменить неудовлетворительные / неуверенные предложения по своему усмотрению.

• Ведущий раздел

• Их сфера применения обширна, включая, например, уголовное право , семейное право, право собственности и коммерческое право. Добавьте запятую перед словом «для» и сразу после «пример».

Я думаю, это значительно усложняет чтение. Запятая суп. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Хаммурапи

• Hammurabi's foreign policy was aggressive, then, but his letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. Remove "then," because "was" suggests that it is past tense. Adding the pronoun "that" after "suggest" seems logical, but I think it is already correct; unconfident about that one. Add "was" before "interested" because verbs should certainly be repeated after multiple words explaining the previous verb; the sentence would be unclear otherwise.

Added "was".

I agree that a "that" makes it flow better. I had one there but removed it (see above on this page).

Я склонен оставить «тогда», чтобы указать, что оно резюмирует предыдущий абзац, а не добавляет новую, не процитированную информацию. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Ранняя стипендия

• [...] Scheil предоставляет транслитерацию и бесплатный перевод на французский язык, а также подборку изображений. Использование простого настоящего в единственном числе от третьего лица в отношении прошлого странно, изменение «дает» на «дал» или «дал», если оно обсуждает то, что произошло после краткого введения.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] это более ранняя оценка, чем сейчас подтверждается даже «сверхдлинной хронологией», и теперь предпочтение отдается «средней хронологии». Есть несколько ласковых терминов, нечеткая атрибуция, избыточность и нечеткая грамматика. Подумайте о том, чтобы изменить его на примерно следующее: «[...] это более ранняя оценка, чем сейчас подтверждается даже« сверхдлинной хронологией ». Следовательно, предпочтение отдается« средней хронологии »».

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Кодекс был составлен ближе к концу правления Хаммурапи (1792–1750 гг. До н.э.) ; это было частично выведено из списка его достижений в прологе. Ненужная точка с запятой и неправильное местоимение. Заменять ";" с "." и замените "это" на "Оно". Я довольно часто вижу неправильное использование точки с запятой, но это будет исправлено.

Поменял точку с запятой. «Это» определенно верно. «Это» может относиться только к самой стеле, тогда как «это» явно относится к оценке даты, указанной в предыдущем предложении. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] история человеческого рода " ; он заметил, что [...] замените"; "на". "и сделайте заглавными буквами" он ".

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Облегчение

• Напротив, Шейль в своем editio princeps идентифицировал [...] Добавить запятую перед «in» и сразу после «princeps».

Опять же, мне действительно кажется суп из запятых. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Пролог

• Пролог и эпилог вместе занимают пятую часть текста, пролог - 300 строк, а эпилог - 500 строк из примерно 4130 в общей сложности. Для ясности и единообразия добавьте тире между «одной пятой» и перепишите предложение на «Пролог и эпилог». вместе занимают пятую часть текста. Из примерно 4130 строк в прологе 300 строк, а в эпилоге - 500 ».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Анум, вавилонский бог неба и царь богов, предоставил власть над человечеством Мардуку ; Мардук [...] Я полагаю, вы имеете в виду, что Мардук стал правителем человечества, если это так, замените «of» на «over». Неправильное использование точки с запятой, замените ";" с "."

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] пастырь также повторяется ; это была распространенная метафора [...] Заменить ";" с "." и используйте слово «это» с большой буквы.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] поддерживая храмы , и несравненный на поле битвы. Есть два основных предложения, удалите запятую.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Эпилог

• Он возвышает законы и свое собственное великодушие (3152'-3239' ). Уберите «свой», потому что «его» с «великодушием» наводят на мысль, что речь идет о нем самом.

Перефразировал. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] юридические изображения, и особенно фраза [...] Добавьте запятую сразу после «примечательно».

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Однако главная забота короля, похоже, заключается в том, чтобы его достижения не были забыты , а его имя не запятнано. Главное беспокойство? «Главное» кажется лишним. Удалите запятую после слова «забыл».

Запятая сделана. Однако я не согласен с «основным». Вышеупомянутое, похоже, было его главной заботой, но не единственной. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Законодательство

• Только в том случае, если текст был задуман как принудительное законодательство, он действительно может называться сводом законов и его положениями законами. «Действительно» является избыточным, поскольку все предложение уже предполагает это с учетом контекста.

Я склонен оставить это себе. Даже ученые, скептически относящиеся к «кодексу» и «законам», являющимся кодексом и законами, не представили удовлетворительной альтернативы. Из-за этого, а также из-за того, что термины являются условными, было бы непонятно и оригинально называть их «кодексом» и «законами», даже если это не совсем то, чем они являются. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• The document does on first inspection resemble a highly organised code, similar to the Code of Justinian and Napoleonic Code. Remove the comma. The sentence can be worded trivially better, also, add "the" before "Napoleonic". You could write "The document, upon first inspection, resembles a highly organised code similar to the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code."

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Vital areas of society and commerce are omitted: for example[...] Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for".

Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Нет Месопотамский юридического документ явно не ссылается на коде или действительно любую другую коллекции закона [...] « На самом деле» не нужна, «любой другой закон» адрес точка лаконично.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Совет: Розеттский камень - это избранная статья, и вы можете увидеть некоторые похожие детали, которые вы могли бы добавить в эту статью.

Завтра посмотрю. Emqu ( разговор ) 00:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Emqu : Это все, что у меня есть на сегодня. Завтра я продолжу остальную часть статьи. Удачи! Wretchskull ( разговор ) 21:47, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Юридический отчет

• Изображение: библиотека библиотеки Ашшурбанипала Заглавная буква, это имя собственное.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] юридический отчет , содержащий записи прошлых дел и судебных решений, хотя и сформулированные в абстрактной форме . Удалите первую запятую, потому что это главное предложение. «В абстрактном смысле» избыточно, перефразируйте его на «абстрактно».

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Действительно, эти суждения были затронуты. Согласно MOS: WTW (я настоятельно рекомендую вам прочитать там некоторые моменты), следует сохранять беспристрастный тон, и «действительно» не допускается ( MOS: EDITORIAL ). Либо удалите «Действительно», либо перепишите предложение, чтобы оно соответствовало ссылкам, но без слова.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Юриспруденция

• [...] в ассириологии, это то, что Код на самом деле не является настоящим кодом , MOS: WTW здесь снова, «фактически» не допускается. Кроме того, это избыточно, потому что «не настоящий код» уже предполагает это. Также удалите запятую рядом с «кодом».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Others have provided their own versions of this theory. "Own" is redundant. "Their" already suggests that by definition.

Inclined to keep this one. I think without it there would be ambiguity. For example, "their" might refer to the two omen collections just mentioned. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• [...]pursued, in order to generate a sequence. Remove "in order", "to" should be alone.

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Van De Mieroop provides the following examples. Replace "." with ":"

Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Здесь, следуя принципу пуантилизма , обстоятельства добавляются к первой записи для того , чтобы создать больше записей. Ссылка "пуантилизм" может кого-то сбить с толку. Убрать «по порядку», еще раз: избыточность.

Снимается «по порядку».

Связать пуантилизм не могу, так как статья посвящена технике рисования. Обычно я бы напугал цитирую «пуантилизм», чтобы напомнить читателю, что он был определен выше, но я вижу, что напуганное цитирование нарушает WP: MOS . Вы все еще думаете, что это проблема? Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Например, в случае с козой для обмолота [...] звено «обмолот».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Кроме того , связывание кода [...] «Дополнительно» используется довольно часто, измените его на «также» или «помимо», чтобы избежать избыточности. Если формулировка важна сама по себе, вы могли бы изменить «дополнительно» в других частях статьи.

Сделано x3. Только сохранил там, где есть «помимо ...». Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Кодекс фактически появляется в позднем вавилонском [...] «Фактически» не допускается ( МОС: ОТ РЕДАКЦИИ ). Удалите его или переписайте предложение.

Сделано x2. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] его лучше всего рассматривать как научный трактат. Добавьте недостающую букву L: "Scholary" ---> "Scholarly". Кроме того, «это может быть лучше всего рассмотрено» по мнению кого?

Перефразировал. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] правовая система : для примера, что это свидетельствует о том , что не было никаких профессиональных адвокатов , или что там были профессиональные судьи. Заменить "." и используйте заглавную букву «за». Удалите запятую после слова «выступает», соедините два основных предложения.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Основные принципы

• Действительно, законы 196 и 200 соответственно предписывают око за око и зуб за зуб , когда один человек уничтожает другой. Та же проблема с MOS: WTW , удалите «Действительно» или перепишите предложение. Удалите запятую после «зуба».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] строитель дома ; следующий закон [...] Заменить «;» с "." и используйте "the" с заглавной буквы.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• перед законом : не только возраст Заменить ":" на ";"

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] хотя спорное это кажется вероятным , [...] Отсутствует запятая, добавить одно право после «спорной».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Кроме того , большинство читателей будут поражены [...] перефразировать «в дополнение» на «также» или «помимо», если это не существенно.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• невинность : в самые первые два закона Заменить «:» с «;». Удалите лишнее «очень»; если вы имеете в виду первые два закона всей стелы, то это может быть исключением.

Я действительно это имел в виду, но все равно удалил. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] законы , и, как заметил Оуэн Б. Дженкинс, Заменить "и" на ". (два независимых предложения) и пишутся с заглавной буквы «как». Также добавьте запятую после слова «наблюдаемое».

Перефразировал. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Язык

• (Во втором абзаце добавьте недостающий неопределенный артикль «a» перед словами «последовательность». Также добавьте ссылку на первое упоминание «clause», если оно не было однажды связано в статье, поскольку оно очень актуально для темы .)

Связанная «оговорка». «Последовательность действий», однако, неисчислимый грамматический термин. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• muškēnum is now thought to derive[...] The first word of the sentence should be capitalized. Never use vague attribution (MOS:WTW). I see the word "now" used incorrectly throughout the article quite often.

Assyriological scholarship never capitalises Akkadian words. MOS:LCITEMS isn't clear about what to do here. (Anyway, I changed the sentence to avoid vague attribution so it doesn't matter.)

I've removed a bunch of "now"s. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Other Mesopotamian

• [...]god-given legitimacy in a similar way. Unnecessarily wordy, rewrite "in a similar way" to "similarly".

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Также как Кодекс Хаммурапи [...] Добавьте пропущенную запятую после «Также».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Тот факт, что писцы все еще копировали, например, Кодекс Ур-Намму, когда Хаммурапи создал свой Кодекс, действительно предполагает, что влияние может быть выведено из этого сходства. Предложение довольно непонятное и многословное. Нельзя ли перефразировать предложение и сократить чрезвычайно многословное выражение «предположить, что влияние может быть выведено из этого сходства» до «в некотором роде»?

Как насчет сейчас? Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Средние ассирийские законы , и нео-вавилонских законы Удалить запятую.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] традиция правовой письменной форме , за пределами Месопотамии надлежащего. Удалите запятую.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Мозаика, греко-римская и современная

• Есть , конечно , сходство между двумя коллекциями закона [...] Удалить « конечно , » за MOS: РЕДАКЦИЯ , используя такие слова , не допускается.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] коллекции очень сложно создать. "Очень" необходимо? В противном случае это избыточно.

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] Двенадцать таблиц ; однако это весьма предположительно, как и большинство аргументов в пользу влияния Месопотамии на греко-римский мир. Заменять ";" с "." и использовать «однако» с большой буквы. По мнению кого это "весьма предположительно"?

Полная остановка сделана. Удалил получившееся второе предложение. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Даже Ван Де Mieroop признает , что большинство римского права является не похож на код , или может оказать влияние на него. Заменить «большинство римских законов» на «большинство римских законов»; более кратким и может снизить риск плагиата, если предыдущий текст будет ближе к ссылке.

Изменено на "большинство римских законов есть". Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• [...] Кодекс и, например, право Соединенных Штатов и средневековое право. Добавьте запятую сразу после первого «и».

Выполнено. Основываясь на других ваших предложениях, я предполагаю, что вы также хотели поставить запятую после «и», но дайте мне знать, если это неправильно. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Код не более строгий, а в некоторых случаях менее строгий . Добавьте запятую сразу после «и» и «case».

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Прием вне ассириологии

• The king's reputation as a lawgiver presumably inspired the name of Iraq's Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, and of the South Korean novel and television series called Ms. Hammurabi, which are about a judge. Remove the comma after "Organization". Also, this sentence is unreferenced. Even if it may seem logical, using words such as "presumably" to hypothesize and speculate something is not allowed in an encyclopedia and is original reseach. Unless there are references, the sentence must be removed.

How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Реплики стелы Лувра хранятся в различных учреждениях по всему миру, в том числе в штаб-квартире ООН в Нью-Йорке; Дворец мира в Гааге, резиденция Международного Суда; Национальный музей Ирана в Тегеране; Пергамский музей в Берлине; Институт Востока Чикагского университета; Музей археологии и антропологии Пенсильванского университета; Библиотека истории медицины Канзасского университета «Кленденинг»; и Археологический музей Прюитта-Аллена Университета Корбана. Замените все точки с запятой запятыми (неправильный список предложений).

Выполнено. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Примечания:

• I notice that you sometimes do not like "comma soup". These commas are actually fully justified and grammatically necessary, and paradoxically, it would be invalid and ugly not to have them. If there are some instances where you feel like you could rewrite a sentence to avoid it, that is an option.

Have changed them. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the Hammurabi article, there are some sources and details in the "Code of laws" section where you could use sources that aren't used in this article. That could perhaps diversify your sources to avoid possible plagiarism of Roth-sources. You could also add and alter information there as you obviously know a lot about the Code.

Я посмотрю на эти источники. Первое впечатление, что они не самые лучшие. Кроме того, как минимум два были написаны намного раньше, чем атрибуты статьи, и не обновлялись.

Сама статья Кодекса не зависит от Рота. Как уже говорилось, во время наставничества FAC я добавлял ссылку на страницу Roth после каждой ссылки с номером строки и менял свои собственные переводы на ее. Я допускаю, что это может создать впечатление неравномерного использования источника. Это проблема? Нужна ли действующая схема?

Да, как только этот FAC будет готов, я могу пойти и улучшить статьи, которые ссылаются на Кодекс. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Yep—the sources in that article aren't ideal, and most of them are mis-dated. I've added some highlights though. The Hazor paper is somewhat interesting, and I had forgotten about the Ziolkowski book.

I also added stuff on the Civilization games because they are doubtless responsible for many of the pageviews. Emqu (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• If you see that I have missed some words to watch, you could fix them.

Have done so. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Emqu : Это мой обзор этой статьи. Я уверен, что продвижение по службе станет для вас легкой прогулкой, удачи! Wretchskull ( разговор ) 18:13, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо за ваши подробные и оптимистичные комментарии. Я тронут тем, что вы тоже хотите ускорить это до FA! Дайте мне знать, если вы недовольны внесенными правками. Emqu ( разговорное ) 21:26, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Музыкальная школа Университета Миссури [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Серый Странник ( разговор ) 18:40, 15 марта 2021 года (UTC)

Эта статья о Музыкальной школе Университета Миссури в Колумбии, штат Миссури. Это третья номинация статьи, предыдущие номинации не получили достаточного количества отзывов. Все предыдущие проблемы были устранены. Серый Странник ( разговор ) 18:40, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Пройдите проверку изображений согласно предыдущим FAC. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:52, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Комментарий Раздел истории довольно длинный, его можно было бы улучшить, если бы вы вставили 2-3 подзаголовка на уровне ===. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:52, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Ваше исправление выглядит красиво, и именно там я бы его разделил. Серый Странник ( разговор ) 01:13, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Aza24 : проводился ли анализ источников на предыдущем FAC, как вы считаете, были ли учтены ваши опасения? ( t · c ) buidhe 19:52, 15 марта 2021 (UTC) Также пингуют Therapyisgood , SandyGeorgia и Hog Farm, которые прокомментировали последний FAC. ( t · c ) buidhe 19:54, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

HF [ править ]

Скоро посмотрю. Может претендовать на очки WikiCup. Предыдущий FAC был первым FAC, который я когда-либо просматривал, поэтому у меня, вероятно, будут дополнительные комментарии. Комментарий не по теме - я болею за то, чтобы Миззу обыграла Оклахому 20-го числа. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 23:58, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Знаем ли мы, когда в 1917 году было основано отделение? Начало учебного года, что сейчас будет считаться осенним семестром, или это не известно?
• Был ли Куорлз первым заведующим кафедрой?
• «и продолжается по сей день». - «до наших дней» по своей сути неоднозначно. Я бы рекомендовал использовать текущую дату на основе источника Budds или даже более свежего, демонстрирующего, что это все еще происходит.
• «И августейший музыкальный гость посетил кампус» - это ведь должны быть гости, да?
• «Коупленд дирижировал университетской филармонией и рассказал о своей оркестровой работе« Портрет Линкольна »» - в Копленде нет «е»
• Я не уверен в уместности упоминания о ней как о «Школе» в хронологических отрывках до того, как ей фактически дали название «Школа музыки»; мне это кажется немного анахронизмом.
• «видел назначение своей первой женщиной-директором» - предпочтет ли Wikipedia MOS здесь «женщина» вместо «женщины»? Я понятия не имею
• Ссылка KMUC .
• «Школа музыки имеет партнерские отношения с четырьмя бразильскими учреждениями и консерватория музыки в Авеллино, Италия ->„Школа музыки имеет партнерские отношения с четырьмя бразильскими учреждениями ...“
• Белен связан в последовательных предложениях
• «Музыкальная инициатива Mizzou способствовала созданию новой музыки и таких композиторов, как Стефани Берг, которая видела ее работы в исполнении Симфонического оркестра Сент-Луиса» - единственный референт, который упоминает Берга по имени, - это ее интервью. Мне немного неудобно, что использование только первоисточника, связанного с ней, приводит к тому, что ее называют по имени в статье. Это большое достижение, но я думаю, что для этого нам нужен вторичный источник.
• «Преподавательские ансамбли включают квартет Эстерхази, Миссурийский квинтет (деревянные духовые), духовые духи Mizzou и DRAX», - поясняется выше Эстерхази; Квинтет идентифицируется по типу, "Mizzou Brass", очевидно, является медной группой. Но что такое ДРАКС?
• Quarles указан как источник, но не используется
• Я обеспокоен тем, что некоторые ссылки "См. Также" не работают MOS: SEEALSO . Columbia Chorale, кажется, единственный, имеющий действительно сильную связь.

Изучив это, я думаю, мне нужно отказаться от любых заявлений здесь. Я думаю, что у меня, вероятно, есть COI с этим. Я лично знаю нескольких выпускников и участвовал в нескольких школьных мероприятиях, спонсируемых школой. Это довольно легкая ИСП, но достаточно, чтобы я не чувствовал себя комфортно, когда заявляю об этом. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 04:07, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника [ править ]

Спасибо за ping Buidhe, я рад снова видеть это здесь. Я скоро посмотрю. Aza24 ( разговор ) 01:56, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Форматирование

• ссылки 2, 3, 46, ссылки должны быть помечены как мертвые

Обновлены 2 и 3 с новыми URL-адресами, 46 помечены как мертвые, но заархивированы

• У меня такое ощущение, что вы включаете URL-адрес веб-сайта для не новостных веб-источников, это нужно сделать для ссылки 41,

Выполнено

• ссылка 47 говорит 1 февраля для меня

Фиксированный

• Дошло до 47, позже ... Aza24 ( разговор ) 04:27, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Когда я нажимаю на ссылки 48 и 68, я получаю: «Ваше соединение не является конфиденциальным. Злоумышленники могут пытаться украсть вашу информацию с www.sinquefieldcharitablefoundation.com», поэтому ... я думаю, пометьте ссылку как мертвую ??

Выполнено

• ссылки 49–51 должны быть помечены как мертвые, как и 53–54, 56–59, 62, 65 - я имею в виду, на данный момент, вы уверены, что у вас есть правильные ссылки?

Похоже, что веб-сайт музыкальной школы внес небольшие изменения в кучу URL-адресов, это можно исправить, просто нужно немного обновить их. Я бы предпочел обновить, а не пометить как мертвый, хотя есть совершенно хорошие архивы.

• Разве в ссылке 70 не должно быть издателем «Ann Arbor News»? Я считаю, что Columbia Daily Tribune, USA Today и Фултон Суна (первому нужна ссылка, как и другим)

У меня проблемы, с каким параметром будет ссылка?

Oops yes I'm not sure what link I was referring to. But for the parameter thing, for example, in ref 27 you have |publisher=Columbia Daily Tribune but later you have |work=Columbia Daily Tribune; they should all be the latter in this case, since using "work" italicizes, which is what we want for news sources.

• Why include locations (Troy, Missouri & Cape Girardeau, Missouri:) for refs 74 & 75 (& 106), but no other web sources? I would remove these locations, for consistency's sake

Fixed

• Boonville Daily News missing link

Added

• 97 should be marked as dead

Done

• ref 109 just goes to the home page for me, so mark it dead, I guess?

Done

Reliability

• Has not been assessed yet

Verifiability

• Вроде нормально, ниже сделаю формальные выборочные проверки. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 04:47, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks [ править ]

Сделаю скоро, наверное завтра. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 04:47, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Морнингсайд Парк (Манхэттен) [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Эпикгений ( разговор ) 21:54, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о парке в Верхнем Манхэттене, Нью-Йорк. Он построен на обрыве, который считался слишком крутым для развития, когда была введена в действие система сетки Манхэттена. Впервые он был предложен в 1867 году, но из-за различных задержек на его завершение ушло три десятилетия. За эти годы Морнингсайд Парк пережил различные взлеты и падения. Помимо топографии, в парке есть красивые произведения искусства, водопад, несколько дорожек и насаждений, а также несколько полей и игровых площадок, которыми пользуются жители Гарлема и Морнингсайд-Хайтс. Парк Морнингсайд был признан живописной достопримечательностью в 2008 году. Если это пройдет FAC, это будет вторая FA в отношении живописной достопримечательности Нью-Йорка после променада Ригельманна .

Год назад эта статья была продвинута как хорошая статья благодаря отличному обзору GA от Ли Виленски . После столь ценного редактирования текста , сделанного Twofingered Typist , я думаю, что теперь это соответствует качеству FA. Эпикгений ( разговор ) 21:54, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Комментарий - немного тривиальный, но изображение в разделе "Спортивный комплекс Колумбии" почти точно такое же, как и в разделе "Улицы на границе", только сделанное в другом сезоне и намного менее резкое. Это просто похоже на дубликат более низкого качества. Геттарда ( разговор ) 14:43, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Файл: Morningside_retainer_116_jeh.JPG отсутствует подпись, и поэтому включают в себя две очень похожие картины подпорной стены?
• Предложить масштабирование Файл: Morningside_Park, _New_York, _N._Y_ (NYPL_b12647398-69897) .tiff
• Файл: Morningside_Park_Aug_2019_57.jpg: каков статус авторских прав у памятника? То же самое: Carl_Schurz_Morningside_116_jeh.JPG. Никкимария ( разговор ) 03:00, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Финал плей-офф второго дивизиона Футбольной лиги 2000 года [ править ]

Номинатор (и): ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 16:28, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Черт возьми, прошло много времени с тех пор, как я номинировал статью для FAC (FLC был моим основным местом встречи на протяжении многих лет), но, увидев отличную работу, проделанную The Rambling Man с финалом Кубка Англии 1987 года , я решил, наконец, разверните эту статью (которую я получил в GA в 2008 году - небеса, неужели это было так давно?) в (надеюсь) состояние, достойное FA. Я попытался писать так, чтобы неспециалисты могли понять / следовать (использование некоторых футбольных терминов по определению неизбежно, но, надеюсь, я сохранил их простыми и избегал настоящего жаргона, но странный бит мог ускользнуть , так что не стесняйтесь подтолкнуть меня к этому). Мы будем рады любым комментариям и незамедлительно реагируем на них. Отказ от ответственности: я фанат Джиллингема и был на этой игре, подбадривая их до победы, но я уверен, что все в статье обрабатывается в манере NPOV ... - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 16:28, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения - пройти

• Согласно WP: NFCC , «несвободный контент используется только в том случае, если его присутствие значительно улучшит понимание читателями темы статьи, а его упущение может нанести ущерб этому пониманию». Я не понимаю, насколько отсутствие рекламного плаката может нанести ущерб пониманию статьи.
• Лицензирование других изображений в порядке. ( t · c ) buidhe 02:18, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe : - заменено бесплатным изображением - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 08:10, 15 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии Косака [ править ]

• «был футбольным матчем», я думаю, что обычно предпочтительнее использовать «футбольный матч ассоциации», чтобы наши читатели не двусмысленно смотрели на него из-за пруда.
• «Сезон 1999–2000», я бы, наверное, расширил ссылку на сезон, чтобы прояснить ситуацию.
• Следует ли в слове «Футбольная лига» использовать заглавную букву «the» в середине предложения, как это?
• Стоит отметить, как команда преуспела в следующем сезоне в конце лидерства, что похоже на статьи TRM.
• «их благодаря их победе со счетом 2: 1», спасибо звучит немного неформально, возможно, заменить на следующее или что-то подобное?
• «забил гол за Джиллингема», гол, наверное, здесь лишний.
• "Финал плей-офф второго дивизиона предыдущего сезона", стоит ли ссылаться на статью?
• «с доминирующим Дарреном Шериданом», Шеридан уже упоминался к этому моменту, поэтому нет необходимости снова использовать его имя. То же самое и с Иффи Оноура, чуть дальше.
• Ссылка перешла на Кросс (футбольный союз) .
• "Саймон Хаворт подбросил это", имя снова не нужно. Шеридан, Барлоу и Эшби также сталкиваются с той же проблемой в разделе дополнительного времени. Тай Гуден также вторично связан здесь.
• Защитник связан в дополнительное время, перед этим используется несколько раз. Переместите ссылку на первое использование.
• В каком порядке заменители указаны в разделе подробностей? Кажется, нет очевидного порядка (номер, позиция, алфавитный и т. Д.?)
• Несколько повторений имен в разделе post-mact: Benson, Taylor, Hessenthaler.
• «Сезон 2002–2003» включите сезон в ссылку, чтобы соответствовать остальной части статьи.
• "Предпоследняя игра, которая состоится"> быть может. В следующем предложении снова используется формулировка «иметь место», которая немного повторяется.

Привет, Крис, приятно видеть тебя в FAC. Это несколько моментов, которые я выбрал при первом прохождении. Косацк ( разговор ) 13:29, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Kosack : - все готово (я думаю) - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 13:43, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Edwininlondon [ править ]

Hi Chris, quite impressive to see you have been contributing to WP since at least 2008. I am happy to review, but I'm afraid it will be in stages and not all at once. From a quick first reading I expect very little to be able to contribute, as I find the text well-written and a pleasure to read.

• previous(ly) is used 3 times in short succession in opening paragraph
• at the higher level; after losing --> I'm not a fan of semicolons, and it's your call of course, but using the semicolon here made me think the 2nd bit was also going to be about Gillingham.
• Even He can’t put consistency into the referees". --> full sentence so I think it is ."
• BBC --> link. I just realised I tend to use BBC Sport but for no conscious reason. Must have copied from someone else.
• The odds on both teams were considered to be equal, at 5–6 --> as given by whom?
• was Andy Hessenthaler's six-year-old son --> is the use of Andy here deliberate or just an oversight? And same question for Derek Stillie in next paragraph

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

But enough with the niceties, on with the show :)

• Shortly afterwards, Wigan were awarded --> awarded used twice on same line
• with the commentary team stating that --> perhaps add Sky: the Sky commentary team
• first corner kick of the game, but Wigan goalkeeper Stillie was able to catch --> not so sure about that "but". There is quite a bit implied here. Perhaps something along the lines of "but nothing came to it as Wigan goalkeeper..."
• Four minutes before the end of the game --> the end of regular time you mean
• "You feel cheated, but decisions like that are part of the game". --> ."
• in a celebratory open-top bus parade. --> would it be nice to add perhaps where this took place?
  • Из ненадежных источников я знаю, что это определенно было в Джиллингеме (как и следовало ожидать), но единственный надежный источник, который я смог найти, который упоминает это (тот, что в статье), относится только к «городу». Считаете ли вы, что это слишком большая натяжка, чтобы конкретно указать в статье Джиллингема с этим справочником ........? - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 09:02, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Контекст источника ясен. Прекрасно сказать Джиллингем в статье. Edwininlondon ( разговор ) 08:54, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Готово - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 09:05, 19 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• before it was mostly demolished and a new stadium of the same name built in its place --> shouldn't there be a "was" before built?
  • No, I think it's OK as it is. It's like saying "The man was chucked out of the pub and told not to come back" - that reads more naturally than "The man was chucked out of the pub and was told not to come back" (IMO at least) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No idea what made that the first example to come to mind, BTW :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• never written those players off, never". --> ."
• is there anything to be said about the financial aspects of winning or losing this match? These days it has a big impact, going up or not, but was it like that 20 years ago?
  • I can't find any sources that talk about that. There's a lot of talk about the financial impact of going up from what is now the Championship to the Premier League, but I don't recall ever seeing much talk about the impact of going up from League One to the Championship...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Как я и подозревал, я не мог внести значительный вклад, просто придирался. Хорошая работа. Как только у меня будет время, я посмотрю источники. Эдвинин Лондон ( разговорное ) 22:36, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

• В основном исправлено - несколько комментариев для вас выше - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 08:18, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

ОК, все в порядке. На этих выходных сделаю обзор источников. Edwininlondon ( разговор ) 08:54, 19 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника:

• Несоответствия при связывании: Independent связывается 2 раза из 3. Кажется, что Times и BBC Sport никогда не связаны. Я считаю, что нет другого правила, кроме последовательности. Я предпочитаю связывать каждый экземпляр, но это только я.
• Адреса издателей книг не указаны.

Выборочная проверка:

• # 1 все в порядке
• №2, похоже, не покрывает этот бит «на одну позицию впереди Уиган Атлетик» (я думаю, вы можете просто добавить №1)
  • Выполнено
• №4 все в порядке, за исключением бита общих правил «с одной игрой на домашнем стадионе каждой команды и результатом, определяемым на основе совокупного счета двух игр». Я предполагаю, что это подпадает под № 5, к которому я не могу получить доступ
  • Еще один исх. Добавлен для хорошей меры
• №6, похоже, не покрывает эти биты. «Через четыре дня после того, как состоялись матчи первого круга, Уиган победил Миллуолла со счетом 1: 0» и «полузащитник Даррен Шеридан забил единственный гол в игре во втором тайме», но № 7 делает, так что я думаю, дело просто в том, чтобы переместить № 6 в конец предложения.
  • Выполнено
• # 7 Хорошо. Как ни странно, BBC не упоминает, что игра ушла в дополнительное время. Думаю, вам пришлось добавить №8, к которому я не могу получить доступ
  • Да, этот референс упоминает об этом, но я добавил еще один для удобства.
• # 9 ок
• # 65 ок
• №40 Я не мог точно разобрать следующее слово в слово: «Эти игроки, особенно те, которые были здесь в прошлом году, заслужили этого. Весь сезон они демонстрировали невероятный характер, и это то, что они сделали сегодня. Они никогда не знать, когда их бьют "
  • Исправлено - я забыл скопировать ссылку из другого места в статье
• # 47 ок
• # 66 ок
• # 67 ок
• # 68 ок
• # 21 ок
• # 69 ок
• # 70 - мертвая ссылка
  • Предполагая, что вы ссылаетесь на https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30642796 (в то время, когда вы прокомментировали это, это было №70, а теперь №72, у меня это работает нормально ??

Да, это тот самый. У меня теперь тоже работает нормально. Странный. Просто заметил, что даты не правильные.

• # 39 ок
• # 72 ок
• # 73 ок
• # 74 ок
• # 54 ок
• # 55 здесь не время. Я бы сказал около 02:34:40
  • Выполнено
• # 56 ок
• # 58 ок
• # 59 ок
• # 60 ок

Вот и все. Я посмотрю еще немного этой игры на YouTube. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 18:05, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Ответы выше на второй раздел. Мой чай готов, так что я посмотрю первый раздел позже или завтра :-) - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 18:51, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Добавлены местоположения книг, все издатели / работы связаны, исправлена ​​моя глупая опечатка в датах этой ссылки - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 21:42, 20 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Хорошая работа. Насколько мне известно, эта статья теперь соответствует всем критериям FA, так что поддерживаю меня. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 15:54, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ambulocetus[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an amphibious whale from Pakistan about 50 million years ago which swam like an otter and behaved like a crocodile. It's one of the best known and iconic ancient whales.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing appears OK. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена

• «Роман Джеймса Роллинза с участием Амбулоцета» - источник?

я должен процитировать роман? Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 02:35, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

В романе есть название предмета? Никкимария ( разговор ) 12:17, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

• DOI в FN1 возвращает ошибку. Что это за источник?

это идентификатор jstor, а не doi Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 02:35, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

• FN6: «Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg», похоже, является названием серии, а не журналом. Что такое издатель? Это санкционированная переиздание?

в нем говорится, что он был загружен в researchgate пользователем Thewissen. Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 02:35, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

Кто является издателем и может ли Тевиссен по закону загрузить это в Researchgate? Никкимария ( разговор ) 12:17, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

• В FN8 отсутствуют страницы. Никкимария ( разговор ) 22:43, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

фиксированный Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 02:35, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

Комментарии Джима [ править ]

Я буду добавлять по мере продвижения Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 11:58, 22 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• современная речная выдра - вы ставите «река», но ссылка на выдру , в которую входит калан. Либо "река", либо ссылка неверная
• морской лев, палеонтология - ссылка?
• Китообразные эоцена плохо сохраняли конечности. - Я полагаю, вы имеете в виду, что конечности не сохранили хорошую, немного странную структуру предложения, что предполагает их активное участие. Кроме того, было бы неплохо указать, почему кости китообразных плохо окаменели.
• Они также оценили длину примерно в 300 см (10 футов) в длину - «длинный» не имеет значения.
• В качестве альтернативы, они тоже - «также» избыточны.

Благодарные бедняги [ править ]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1894 painting The Thankful Poor by Henry Ossawa Tanner. GeneralPoxter (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass, see talk for details (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the proposal of an unusual topic! I'll look at the lead last.

Background

• "photographed models which Tanner shot" sounds a bit violent ;)

I didn't realize that until now! The wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis

• We talked (in the peer review) about the average reader perhaps not being familiar with Annunciation, - what do you think of creating short articles on those two paintings? It would help understanding without blowing up this article.

I feel like that writing up articles for the two shouldn't be that hard, especially since there are images of both paintings on WikiMedia Commons. I'll see what I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Я вижу определенное противоречие в «ритуальном переживании» здесь и «обычном моменте» там, для той же сцены. Возможно, я неправильно понимаю слово «обычный» - английский не мой родной язык.

Ritual means that it is a religious ceremony done in a "prescribed order" according to Google. I believe praying a table would satisfy being both "ritual" for its religiosity and rigidity as well as "ordinary" for its frequency. However, I do agree that using "ordinary" does undermine the specialness of the moment (I even use a quote in the next sentence describing the scene as "extraordinary", so definitely a contradiction!). I replaced "ordinary moment" with "African-American religious custom" since I feel its more descriptive that way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Consider to move the Banjo lesson from the gallery to above, where it's mentioned, - it gets a bit lost next to the large lighter one.

Думаю, это хорошая идея. Готово GeneralPoxter ( обсуждение ) 22:13, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я мог представить убеждения его родителей и основание школы в разделе «Предыстория» - а если в анализе, то, может быть, раньше?

Перечитывая это еще раз, я должен согласиться с довольно неуклюжей структурой статьи. Я переделал часть содержания, касающуюся воспитания Таннера. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:13, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Вот и все. - Герда Арендт ( разговорное ) 20:54, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Следующий раунд: Спасибо за перемещение отрывков и создание новой статьи! Я немного перетасовал изображения в соответствии с контекстом, и мы не должны «вставлять» текст между изображениями. Для избранных статей - и фактически для всех статей - требуется, чтобы мы предоставляли параметр «alt» для каждого изображения, описывающий, что нужно увидеть тому, кто его не видит, - представьте себе слепого. Не слишком подробно! Возможно, сравните FA об изображениях. В противном случае я доволен, но буду ждать с поддержкой, потому что, когда другие будут комментировать, все может измениться. - Герда Арендт ( разговорное ) 21:17, 11 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Хорошо, я закончил добавлять альтернативные тексты. Как они выглядят? Надеюсь, я правильно понял их с первого раза. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 23:33, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо, они хорошо выглядят, но я бы расширил самый первый, потому что это тема, - я думаю, следует упомянуть «противоположность», «афроамериканец» и скромность еды. - Герда Арендт ( разговор ) 07:03, 12 марта 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо, готово. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 14:14, 12 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от Buidhe [ править ]

• Background section has grown quite long, it seems some of this info is not directly related to the painting. For instance, I think much of the material in the paragraph starting "Tanner's first major work of this sort was the The Banjo Lesson" belongs in The Banjo Lesson article but not this one. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello buidhe, yes I would have to say the Background section is getting quite bloated. I cut one irrelevant detail and moved another to a footnote, but I'm not sure if I should go any further. I want to keep the stereotyped criticism there because it sets the social context for The Thankful Poor. Scholars like Professor Woods argue that such comments may have contributed to Tanner's departure from African American subjects following The Thankful Poor, and this idea is alluded to in the History section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Я бы по-прежнему сказал, что фоновый раздел длиннее идеального, но я полагаюсь на вас относительно того, что является важной информацией. Каждый раз, когда пишете (особенно в справочных разделах), подумайте: «Помогает ли это читателю понять тему ( в данном случае - « Благодарные бедняги » )? больше нечего добавить, но когда уже нечего убирать »( t · c ) buidhe 22:35, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• «Наурис Фрэнк Вудс верит ...» Каждый раз, когда вы вводите подобное утверждение с атрибутами, всегда объясняйте (очень кратко), что такое полномочия и почему читателю должно быть до этого дело. Например, «Историк искусства Наурис Фрэнк Вудс ...» ( t · c ) buidhe 22:10, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Хорошо, я добавил учетные данные Вудса. Я считаю, что Вудс - единственный источник, который я назвал по имени, не включая учетные данные - если я не ошибаюсь. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:20, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена

• Источник размеров?
• «Этинде-Кромптон» кажется детской книгой - что делает ее высококачественным надежным источником?
• Отсутствует издатель для Уилсона
• White House Historical Association is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Smithsonian American Art Museum, check others
• The Princeton University 'Commons' site appears to host student work - who is the author of the specific source cited?
• How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria : Привет! Я добавил реф по габаритам; вырезать Etinde-Crompton, Princeton и Baker из источников и заменить их ранее существовавшими источниками вместе с биографией Таннера для одной цитаты; и я изменил параметры веб-сайта на издателя, когда это возможно (то есть каждый раз, когда я его использовал). Дай мне знать, если я могу что-то еще сделать. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 01:18, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

ARTNews и International Review - это рабочие названия, поэтому следует по-прежнему использовать веб-сайт (последний может выделить Хэмптона как издателя). Для Уилсона добавлена ​​информация о веб-сайте, а не об издателе. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 14:46, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я внес соответствующие изменения для ArtNews и International Review, но в pdf для Уилсона в левом нижнем углу написано «Опубликовано ScholarWorks @ UMass Amherst, 1992». GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 15:02, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Заполнитель

• Следили за расширением в течение последних нескольких недель. Комментарии для подражания. Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 15:55, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Финал Кубка Англии 2019 года [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 13:02, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

В этой статье рассказывается о проведении в 2019 году старейшего в мире чемпионата мира по футболу. Надеюсь, даже неспециалисты смогут проложить себе путь через это и, возможно, даже чему-то научатся. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 13:02, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Похоже, изображения имеют свободную лицензию. ( t · c ) buidhe 18:40, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Буиде спасибо. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 10:43, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии службы поддержки от Z1720 [ править ]

Я скоро рассмотрю это. Я считаю себя стереотипным канадцем: хоккей - величайший вид спорта в мире, а футбол (или «футбол», как меня пытается объяснить мой бывший европейский) скучен (извините). Я думаю, что я типичен для непрофессиональной аудитории Википедии, потому что я понимаю или могу понять значение основных спортивных терминов (пенальти, бросок, гол и т. Д.), Но специализированные термины потребуют для меня большего объяснения. Я упоминаю об этом, потому что я читал это обсуждение неспециализированной терминологии в течение пары недель (разбросанное по многим, многим FAC и дискуссионным страницам), и я хочу, чтобы номинант и координаторы FAC понимали мои знания и перспективы для этого обзора. Я считаю, что статья должна определять или объяснять необычные термины, чтобы компетентный читатель мог понять, что означает это слово,и если читателю нужна более специализированная информация, он может щелкнуть вики-ссылку и перейти навики кроличья нора . Я счастлив прояснить эти мысли или ответить на вопросы на странице обсуждения FAC.

На данный момент я буду проверять только lede (в основном потому, что я на работе и, вероятно, должен делать свою работу). TRM, можете ли вы просмотреть мои комментарии ниже и сообщить мне, будет ли это полезно для вашей номинации? Если это так, я продолжу обзор. Если у TRM или у кого-то еще есть сомнения, я приостановлю рассмотрение, и мы сможем обсудить на странице обсуждения, как лучше всего действовать.

Lede

• «Соревнования по основному кубку по английскому футболу» Что такое основной кубок? Это британский / европейский термин для обозначения турнира?

  Первичный в буквальном смысле, как «номер один» или «первый». Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Можем ли мы изменить «первичный» на «первый»? Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:39, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Нет, это номер один, как в слове «главное; главное». первое словарное определение «первичного». Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 18:51, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "первая желтая карточка в игре" Предложите изменить на "первую желтую штрафную карточку", так как вики-ссылка на штрафную карточку

  Нет, в БритЭнге это не называется штрафной карточкой. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  I see that the wikilink is to the yellow card section in penalty card, so I'm OK leaving it where it is. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "as David Silva from a Raheem Sterling header." Is there a verb missing? Also, suggest changing to "as David Silva scored a goal after receiving a pass from Raheem Sterling using a header."

  Yes "scoring" was missing, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• "who side-footed the ball" What does side-footed mean? Can we simplify this language? Maybe dribble?

  No, he hit it with the side of his foot. Nothing to do with dribbling. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Can we change "side-footed" to "kicked"? I know there are different ways of kicking the ball into the net but I don't think the lede needs info on how a player kicked a ball. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  Не совсем потому, что это сводит прозу к простому «пинанию» мяча. Есть много способов пинать мяч, и нельзя препятствовать использованию немного богатого, но все же энциклопедического языка. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 18:51, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "первоначальный снимок был сохранен в сообщении" Что означает "сохранено в сообщении"?

  Он спас мяч, и он попал в штангу ворот. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Я думал, это могло означать это. Можно ли его изменить на «Он остановил удар, и мяч отскочил от стойки ворот»? Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:39, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Я здесь стараюсь быть лаконичным, особенно в ведущей роли. Я заменю «сохраненный» на «нажатый», чтобы все было предельно ясно. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 18:51, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Внутренний тройной». Это должно быть определено в lede, может быть, что-то вроде «Победа позволила« Манчестер Сити »завершить внутренний тройной матч, где команда выигрывает Кубок Англии, _____ и ____ за один сезон». (Я не знаю, каковы другие награды.) Затем вторая часть абзаца должна быть отдельным предложением.

  Немного расширил, но, честно говоря, более подробно концепция уже объяснялась в основной части статьи. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Я полагал, что это было объяснено далее в статье, но я думаю, что быстрое объяснение этого термина одним предложением будет полезно для читателей, которые не будут читать дальше lede. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:39, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я с нетерпением жду ваших мыслей. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 15:19, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, вы можете продолжить просмотр статьи, похоже, будет много проблем с формулировками, но привет. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Z1720 пожалуйста, обратите внимание , что только сегодня 1987 Финал Кубка Англии статья была передана FA, поэтому если стандарты , которые должны быть применены радикально отличаются от этой статьи, мы могли бы также назвать это день. Как отмечалось ранее, я попросил моего семилетнего сына прочитать эту и другие подобные статьи, и они не нуждались в дополнительных объяснениях. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:49, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Бродяга Пожалуйста, не стесняйтесь не соглашаться с моими предложениями; Это происходит все время! Просто дайте мне знать почему, и мы сможем придумать лучшую формулировку.

Я не знаю, что ваш сын знает о футболе, но я знаю, что в семилетнем возрасте я знал множество хоккейных терминов, которые взрослый, не занимающийся хоккеем, сочтет жаргонным ( пас на две линии , дек , хет-трик и т. Д. ) Если бы я назначил хоккейную статью и сказал: «Игрок клюшкой провел шайбу, убил вратаря и сделал хет-трик», мне, вероятно, сказали бы изменить ее, даже если семилетний я сказал это точное предложение. Я могу только пообещать, что выделю терминологию, которую не понимаю, и предложу альтернативные формулировки. Позже я посмотрю на финал Кубка Англии 1987 года, чтобы помочь в моем обзоре. Я добавил несколько комментариев к вашим ответам выше. Z1720 ( разговор) 16:39, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Sure. I'm bemused as to why it always seems to be my FACs which are attracting so much attention of this nature. But I appreciate any time you spend looking at the article. I can't promise that I can agree to make your suggested changes simply because (as above) some of them just aren't going to work using correct football terminology. Problem is, if you're having difficulty with phrases like "side-footing the ball" which is simply using the side of one's foot to kick the ball, I'm concerned the article will be reduced to something which is more suited for Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Я также не хочу сокращать язык до простого английского, это было бы слишком далеко. Я также хочу, чтобы язык был понятен кому-то вроде меня, взрослому человеку, который мало интересуется футболом. Другими словами, нам нужно что-то среднее между «простым языком» и «техническим языком». Я надеюсь, что буду оценивать вашу статью так же, как и другие FAC, и, если я не буду, позвоните мне (однако вы увидите в других FAC, что я оставляю МНОГО предложений) Я знаю, что сделаю много ошибок в понимании терминов, поэтому дайте краткое определение, если я ошибаюсь. Например, когда я читал в статье, говоря о «мяче сбоку», я опубликовал то, что, по моему мнению, означало это слово. Надеюсь, это поможет вам понять, что неспециалист подумает о значении этого слова, и решить, нужно ли менять прозу.Если в статье о финале Кубка Англии 1987 года какое-либо слово было сочтено нетехническим, пожалуйста, дайте мне знать. Я оставляю вам окончательное суждение о том, что необходимо определить, потому что вы являетесь номинатором статьи (хотя я скажу, когда я не согласен с вами, если я настоятельно рекомендую изменение).

As for why your FACs are attracting the attention of this nature: I agree, your articles have attracted lots of this attention and I will try to be mindful of that during this review. I'm not actively looking for terminology problems; I'm reviewing prose in general and will point out terminology problems as part of prose concerns. If I don't understand something, I will post it and we can discuss changes if they are needed. I will continue the review later, as I am still at work, but let me know if you have any questions or concerns before I continue. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Пожалуйста, будь моим гостем. Было бы здорово, если бы некоторые из высокотехнологичных юридических или палеонтологических статей привлекли такое внимание. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 18:47, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Манчестер

• Что такое «сторона Премьер-лиги»?

  Сторона, играющая в Премьер-лиге . The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Может быть, заменить «сторона» на «команду»? Z1720 ( разговорное ) 19:02, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Upon a re-read, I think the average reader will understand that "side" and "team" are synonyms without any changes. Up to you whether to replace. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Watford

• "In the quarter final they played Premier League Crystal Palace at Vicarage Road." So you mention that the team played away in the previous three matches, but then do not mention that this is played at home. Either remove the aways in the previous matches or add "at home" in this sentence.

  «дома» вызывает слишком много проблем у других читателей, они не знают понятия «дома и вдали». The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Затем я предлагаю убрать «прочь», если дома и вдали запутают читателей. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 19:02, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Я добавил «дома» перед «at Vicarage Road», я неправильно прочитал ваш комментарий, извинения. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:36, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Грей, замена во втором тайме, потом забил» Убрать, значит, ненужно

  Я так не думаю, это часть повествования. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Травмированное время "четыре минуты до начала компенсированного времени" следует указывать викисифицировать.

  Добавлен. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Фон

• «Уотфорд обыграл« Манчестер Сити »всего один раз за предыдущие семнадцать встреч» Уберите, это излишне

  Конечно. Это подчеркивает, что их послужной список был ужасен, но я думаю, мы можем сделать так, чтобы проза не содержала описания. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «через футбольную семью» Что такое футбольная семья? Это бесплатные билеты?

  Это самое предложение объясняет, что такое «футбольная семья»: «в которую входили добровольцы, представляющие федеральные федерации графств, аффилированные с FA лиги, клубы и благотворительные организации». В источнике написано «распространяется» и не указано, распространяются ли они бесплатно или нет. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "Левый защитник Уотфорда" Можно ли это изменить на "Левого защитника Уотфорда" (я никогда не слышал о левом защитнике, но знаю, что такое защитник)

  Нет, в британском английском мы никогда не говорим «левый защитник». The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Деулофеу оправился от мертвой ноги» Может быть, викилинк мертвая нога, я думаю, что в Северной Америке ее называют лошадью Чарли, и я никогда не слышал об этом термине. В качестве альтернативы можно просто сказать "выздоровел после судороги в ноге".

  Нет, мы не называем это «судорогой ноги» на британском языке, мы называем это «мертвой ногой», связанной. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Первая половина

• "Gomes failed to claim the set piece" What does "claim the set piece" mean? (or, what is a set piece?)

  Reworded to "gather" instead of claim and linked Set piece (football). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Second half

• " in the 60th minute for a foul on Hughes." What was the foul for? (I assume there are a number of ways to foul someone in soccer)

  Источники не проясняют это, обычно это связано с неудачно рассчитанным захватом или чем-то подобным. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:36, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "on для Gündogan и, Watford's Hughes" Удалите запятую

  Ушел. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:36, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Детали и статистика

• Нет проблем

Послематчевый

• "в Community Shield в августе; матч, в котором они могли бы выиграть" Точка с запятой и формулировка, похоже, не совпадают. Перефразируйте «на Щите сообщества в августе; город выиграет на ...» или замените точку с запятой на запятую.

  Перефразировано. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:36, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Это все мои прозаические комментарии! После проверки TRM сделаю еще одно прочтение прозы. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 19:02, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 Я ответил / ответил на все ваши комментарии, ура. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:36, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Я добавил неразрывные пробелы в пару свиданий. Это упрощает чтение текста для пользователей на маленьком экране, например на смартфоне, чему меня научил член GOCE. Пожалуйста, вернитесь, если это не помогло.

After reading the article again, I can give my support to this FAC based on prose. Congrats and let me know if you need anything. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem with the non-breaking spaces. MOS doesn't seem to give rigid guidance on it, it probably should because obviously where the spaces break will be different for absolutely everyone, so one imagines either all of them (in prose, at least) should be non-breaking, or none of them. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Нет никакого руководства MOS, но я думаю, что его следует использовать, если оно полезно. Его включение никогда не является обязательным для моей поддержки, и я рад сам добавить его, чтобы улучшить статью. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 20:45, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от HAL [ править ]

• Поскольку вы позже свяжете The Guardian , я бы также связал BBC .

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Первый тайм закончился без голов для обеих сторон или только для Сити?

  Если тайм был безголевым, это означало, что голов не было забито. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Приговор « Сити» выиграл со счетом 5: 0 с голами Хесуса, Бернардо Силвы, Кевина де Брюйне, автогола Кевина Лонга и Серхио Агуэро. кажется странным. Может быть, измените его на что-то вроде «Сити» выиграл со счетом 5: 0, забив (есть ли слово «чужие»?) Голы Хесуса, Бернардо Силвы, Кевина Де Брюйне и два автогола Кевина Лонга и Серхио Агуэро ». или «и автогол Кевина Лонга и Серхио Агуэро». или что-то другое. Обратите внимание, что я почти ничего не знаю о футболе и, возможно, просто веду себя глупо. В таком случае не обращайте на меня внимания.

  I guess the oddity comes from the fact I'm keeping them in chronological order, but I can see the confusion, I'll just put the one own goal at the end. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the captions, should Wembley Stadium, Kevin Friend, Kevin De Bruyne, and man of the match be linked?

  No harm in that, done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Should there be a comma after In the quarter final?

  Обычно меня обвиняют в использовании слишком большого количества запятых, поэтому я рад добавить эту. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Хави Грасиа сказал, что после его противоположного числа лучше поставить запятую ? Если нет, игнорируйте.

  Лошади для курсов для меня, насколько я понимаю, без разницы. Есть ли какие-либо рекомендации MOS по этому поводу? The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Я так не думаю - наверное, все в порядке. ~ HAL 333 13:18, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

That's all I got. Nice work. I hope you don't mind that I archived two of the sources. ~ HAL333 23:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 thanks for your comments, and of course archiving the two sources was helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• The first two tables are missing captions

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• На изображении информационного окна и футбольной форме отсутствует альтернативный текст.

  Выполнено. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:55, 13 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я не уверен, что в третьей таблице доступен пустой заголовок столбца. Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:50, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Я не понимаю, что ты имеешь в виду. Но если вы не знаете, доступен он или нет, я не уверен. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:55, 13 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  I guess it's your choice. I just thought it would be odd for a screen reader to read out all the rows in a column without ever providing a header to summarize what they mean (I guess "statistics" would be redundant). Good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. The title of the section is "Statistics" and the table caption is "Statistics" so I'm pretty sure it'd make sense to someone using a screenreader! Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

• "будучи в 1984 FA Cup Final"> в ? Или в 1984 году по формату других финалов, упомянутых в отрывке?

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Тупик был сломан, поскольку Дэвид Сильва забил после удара головой Рахима Стерлинга», следует ли это засчитывать, а не забивать?

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• «удвоили свое преимущество после Габриэля Хесуса, который играл боком», это не совсем работает.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я думаю, что квалификация «Волков» на европейскую часть может быть немного более ясной, поскольку нет прямой корреляции между финалом и европейским местом, пока это не будет объяснено ниже. Может быть, добавить что-то вроде «... Лига чемпионов УЕФА 2019–20, место в европейской квалификации« Сити »за победу в турнире досталось Вулверхэмптону ...» или слов на этот счет?

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Свяжите Манчестер Сити в первом предложении маршрута с последним разделом.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "каждый из Сане Марез"> Сане и Марез?

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Возможно, можно было бы связать нейтральное место в конце секции "Сити" и первое упоминание об Уэмбли в основной части.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Стоит отметить, что гимн исполнила Belle Voci? [6] Не уверены, стоит ли упомянуть и про Энни Мак?

  Как ни странно, Википедия в настоящее время не считает Belle Voci примечательной! Я пока откажусь, но если они сделают это однажды, я обязательно добавлю это. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "на замену Серому и Успеху"> на Грей ...

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Несколько мелких замечаний из моего первоначального выступления. Косацк ( разговор ) 10:15, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Косац аплодирует, все обратились в бар Belle Voci, см. Выше. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:11, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Я также добавил ссылку при первом упоминании Уотфорда, так как пропустил это. Все мои комментарии были рассмотрены, рад поддержать это. Косацк ( разговор ) 10:06, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - пройти [ править ]

TRM, я рад, что ваши разногласия с другими пользователями (по поводу ссылок и тому подобного) не помешали вам приносить вам неизменно качественную работу в FAC. Я смотрю на это прямо сейчас. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 03:16, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Форматирование

• ссылка 10 имеет неправильную дату

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• ссылка 11 должна иметь ссылку, помеченную как мертвую

  Выполнено. Ясно, что IABot в настоящее время работает некорректно. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• ссылка 12 также имеет неправильную дату

  Фиксированный. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Предполагая, что МакНалти должен быть связан в ссылке 15, как и другие

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Ссылка 19 имеет неправильную дату - хотя она близка к той, что была у вас, может быть, эта отображается на наших экранах по-другому, как и раньше? То же самое и с другими на этой странице, 21 и 24

  Они мне подходят. Проблема с часовым поясом. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• 22 отсутствует автор

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• 23 у меня другая дата

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поскольку вы связываете издателей / работы, я бы сделал это для ссылки 25 ( Футбольная ассоциация ). То же самое и с BBC sport в ссылке 30.

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Ссылка 31 имеет неправильную дату и отсутствует автор

  Выполнено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Надежность

• Несомненно, здесь вся информация взята из авторитетных, высококачественных новостных источников - в противном случае это статистическая информация с хорошо зарекомендовавших себя веб-сайтов.

Проверяемость

• Я проверял этого номинатора раньше и не сомневаюсь. С удовольствием сделаю это еще раз, если об этом попросят координаты.
• Всего лишь множество мелких, в основном типографских, ошибок; ничего серьезного. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 03:16, 18 марта 2021 (UTC)

Извините за это, многое я унаследовал и явно недостаточно хорошо проверил. Спасибо, что забрали их. Что касается номинации снова, ну, это случайно, не так ли? Последний ном продвинулся с тремя саппортами, предыдущий «не смог достичь консенсуса» с девятью поддержкой. И мы задаемся вопросом, почему это место терпит неудачу .... Неважно, приветствую вас за обзор, очень признателен. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:48, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

No worries, the reliabillity and verifiability concerns are covered enough to make these minor in comparison—but yes, sometimes the process can be random, usually things go OK though, and I suppose that's the best we can ask for. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Cups (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Эта статья о песне Анны Кендрик . В США он стал огромным еще в 2013 году. После последней номинации я исправил все проблемы, указанные редакторами в статье. Я заменил все диаграммы Billboard ссылками на архивы, потому что billboard без всякой причины избавился от страницы диаграмм Кендрика. Я полностью переписал соло и использовал вдохновение для других музыкальных статей FA. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 09:51, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

Противостоять Nick-D [ править ]

Извините, но некоторые из моих PR и предыдущих комментариев FAC остались без внимания. Учитывая, что третий ном закончился в декабре 2020 года после того, как вы попросили его закрыть, а четвертый ном был закрыт в январе после того, как вы попросили его заблокировать, я, честно говоря, не думаю, что вы открыли этот пятый. КВС, особенно в ближайшее время. С величайшим уважением я предлагаю вам поработать над другими статьями. Nick-D ( разговор ) 10:26, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Nick-D Подскажите, что нужно исправить, и я сразу это исправлю. Я планирую попробовать поработать над некоторыми статьями о видеоиграх. Этот FAC посвящен моему любимому человеку, который умер от Covid. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 14:55, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

  • В соответствии с моими комментариями на 4-м FAC, пожалуйста, посмотрите мои комментарии на 3-м FAC и объясните, как вы их отреагировали или почему они не действуют. Nick-D ( разговор ) 07:08, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

Проводка комментариев здесь для доступности (от P Anini 🥪 13:46, 9 марта 2021 (UTC) от имени Ник-D) :

• Статья по-прежнему не представляет Анну Кендрик, не давая никаких сведений о ней, включая то, как эта песня вписалась в ее карьеру

done Ceoil ( talk ) 05:30, 13 декабря 2020 г. (UTC)

• Материал видеоклипа по-прежнему кажется слишком длинным и подробным.
  • Все еще слишком долго. Nick-D ( разговор ) 07:51, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Еще можно было бы обрезать, но поскольку песня такая привлекательная, я думаю (догадываюсь) видео больше объясняет, почему трек стал вирусным Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 05:30, 13 декабря 2020 года (UTC)

• «Анна Кендрик впервые исполнила свою версию песни в рамках американского музыкального комедийного фильма 2012 года« Идеальный голос »» - последнее предложение параграфа, где это, кажется, противоречит этому предложению.
  • Не адресован Ник-Д ( разговор ) 07:51, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)
• «Кендрик сказала, что понятия не имела, что эта песня будет использована для« Идеального звука »». - до сих пор неясно, что это значит
• «о популярности песни и объединившись с президентом Universal Pictures по музыке и издательству Майком Кноблохом, чтобы выпустить новую, более длинную версию с новым инструментарием» - это также неясно - что делает президент музыкального и издательского подразделения? (он сам спродюсировал сингл?)
• «Радиостанция КЖТ из Солт-Лейк-Сити с 4 по 10 марта 2013 года транслировала ее 48 раз» - похоже на мелочь.

• Кажется, был удален Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 05:32, 13 декабря 2020 (UTC)

• «Nielsen BDS начала отслеживать песню, а за ней следили радиостанция Индианаполиса WZPL и спутниковая радиостанция Sirius XM Hits 1». - за этим предложением сложно следовать - почему эти радиостанции следовали за Nielsen BDS?

  Претензия была удалена Ceoil ( обсуждение )

• 26 марта 2013 г. "Republic Records" и "Universal Music Enterprises" выпустили ремикс на версию "Cups" Кендрика под названием "Cups (When I'm Gone)" для загрузки и потоковой передачи в качестве More с ведущего сингла Pitch Perfect. . [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] "- он был выпущен для продажи в Интернете, как он был опубликован на радио? Формулировка здесь не работает (и нужно ли для этого 5 цитат?).
• Первый абзац раздела «Критический прием» требует вводного сообщения.
• «Он также сказал, что песня» закрепила за Кендрик роль ведущей актрисы и заложила основу для того, чтобы «Идеальный голос» стал на удивление прибыльной кинофраншизой », - учитывая, что песня, кажется, занимает видное место в этой серии фильмов, было бы хорошо обсудите это подробнее, если возможно
• «Примерно в то же время старший вице-президент Republic и глава отдела радио и видеопроката Дэвид Натан продвигал трек, сказав:« Любой, у кого есть подростки, знает «Cups». Идеальный голос - это культурный феномен, и мы очень рады быть его частью ».« - это неясно. Действительно ли он имел большое влияние, сказав это? (а где он это сказал?). Несомненно, музыкальная компания делала что-то, чтобы поощрять радиостанции играть эту песню, продвигать ее в Интернете и т. Д., Что, вероятно, было бы более эффективным.
  • Текущая цитата этого парня ничего не добавляет к статье. Nick-D ( разговор ) 07:51, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)
• «Песня имела умеренный успех за пределами США.» Cups (When I'm Gone) «имели аналогичный успех в Канаде», - кажется противоречивым.

Отсортировано Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 05:32, 13 декабря 2020 (UTC)

• "В ее посте была фотография перевернутой чашки посреди муки и теста; она пометила ее тегом" #coveredinflour "" - мелочи

Удалено Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 05:48, 13 декабря 2020 г. (UTC)

• «В апреле 2016 года 11-летний Круз Бекхэм засветил трек в видео в Instagram» - актуальность?

Был удален Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 05:48, 13 декабря 2020 (UTC)

• Где люди делали каверы на версию песни Кендрик или версию самой Кендрик? (и как мы можем сказать!) Nick-D ( разговор ) 00:21, 22 ноября 2020 (UTC)

• Люди сделали кавер на ее версию песни, потому что это самая популярная версия.
• Дэвид Натан продвигал ремикс на песню, потому что хотел, чтобы она была более популярной, чем версия фильма.

Nick-D , Все эти проблемы были устранены или исправлены. Я искал в Интернете, как эта песня помогла Анне Кендрик в ее карьере, и ничего не нашел. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 01:40, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Ник-Д Вы все еще против? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 05:33, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Да - пожалуйста, смотрите мои комментарии выше. Nick-D ( разговор ) 07:51, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D , вот и комментарии, на которые я не отвечал раньше. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 04:08, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

• «Где люди делали каверы на версию песни Кендрик или версию самой Кендрик? (И как мы можем сказать!)»
  • Это люди, освещающие версию Кендрик, поскольку ее версия является самой популярной.
• "on the song's popularity and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloch to produce a new, longer version with new instrumentation" - this is also unclear - what does the president of the music and publishing arm do? (did he produce the single himself?)"
  • I'm pretty sure he helped promote the remix back in 2013.
• "Around the same time, Republic senior VP and head of radio and video promotion David Nathan promoted the track by saying, "Anyone that has a preteen knows 'Cups'. Pitch Perfect is a cultural phenomenon and we're very happy to be a part of it."" - this is unclear. Did he really have much influence by saying that? (and where did he say it?)."
  • I have removed the quote entirely from the article.
• 26 марта 2013 г. "Republic Records" и "Universal Music Enterprises" выпустили ремикс на версию "Cups" Кендрика под названием "Cups (When I'm Gone)" для загрузки и потоковой передачи в качестве More с ведущего сингла Pitch Perfect. . "
  • Я удалил болтовню про "Индианаполисскую станцию ​​WZPL и спутниковую радиостанцию ​​Sirius XM Hits 1". Теперь это должно иметь больше смысла в том, чтобы послать его на радио. Я также избавился от множества источников, которые это поддерживали.
• Я также обрезал часть информации в разделе музыкальных видео.

Nick-D: Похоже, вы все еще против. Есть комментарии по поводу изменений? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 20:35, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Большинство моих комментариев выше адресованы, и, поскольку вы утверждаете, что статья значительно изменилась, я теперь прочитаю ее еще раз:

• «26 марта 2013 года Republic Records выпустили ...» - точная дата оригинального релиза не указана в отрывке.
• "Альпинист Дж. Э. Майнера" ​​- не знаю, что это значит

Измененный

• Параграф, начинающийся со слов «Анна Кендрик впервые исполнила свою версию», до сих пор сбивает с толку. Мне не совсем понятно, было ли выступление на прослушивании Кендрик для фильма или на прослушивании, которое она сыграла в фильме, и последнее предложение все еще противоречит первому (например, Кендрик впервые исполнила это на прослушивании на роль, или во время съемок фильма?)

Это было прослушивание, которое она сыграла в фильме. Фильм - мюзикл, и когда ее попросили послушать, она исполнила «Кубки».

• «Первоначально песня была написана А. П. Картером и британскими музыкантами Элоизой Танстолл-Беренс и Луизой Герштейн». - также сбивает с толку, так как песня приписывается другим музыкантам в первом параграфе, а эта версия - самой Кендрик во втором параграфе.

А. П. Картер написал песню для своей группы The Carter Family . Элоиза Танстолл-Беренс и Луиза Герштейн переработали песню для своей группы Lulu and the Lampshades и добавили знаменитую чашечную перкуссию. Кендрик сделал кавер на Лулу и версию Lampshades, которая стала известной благодаря ей.

• Despite me having raised this multiple times, the 'background' section still does not have any background on how this song and the movie fits into Kenrick's career. Assume readers know nothing about her.

I have looked for hours and can't find anything on how the song helped Kendrick with her career.

• "Republic Records sought to capitalize on the song's popularity" - how did they know it was popular?

Back in 2013, I was in elementary school and EVERYONE would play the cup song. It was a huge trend in the United States. Here is an article to prove it. [7]

• "and teamed up with Universal Pictures president of film music and publishing Mike Knobloc" - not clear what this means - what was his role? It's a bit odd that Kenrick isn't given any credit here - surely she was involved?

Он помогал продвигать ремикс. Кендрик: Я почти уверен, что не знал, как продвигать эту песню.

• «это сделало Hot 100 намного более интересным местом» - я не понимаю, что это значит - что такое «Hot 100» и почему это местность?

Я удалил это.

• "Маркус Джонс из Entertainment Weekly поместил" Cups "на девятую строчку в своем списке лучших песен из фильмов 2010-х, что, по ее мнению, поможет Кендрику как певцу и заложит основу для того, чтобы" Идеальный голос "стал прибыльной кинофраншизой", - сделал писатель думает, что перечисление песни поможет Кендрику и фильму, как это предполагает? Это не кажется правильным.

Писатель писал, что «Кубки» сделали Кендрика и «Идеальный голос» еще более известными во всем мире.

• «Режиссер Мур и хореография Аакомона Джонса. [24] [60] Из-за успеха трека руководители звукозаписывающих компаний попросили Кендрика снять его музыкальное видео» - что сбивает с толку: Мур, Джонс или Кендрик сняли видео?

Джейсон Мур снял видео. Хореографию поставил Аакомон Джонс.

• «Кендрик намекнул на свое направление в сообщении в Instagram, где была показана фотография перевернутой чашки посреди муки и теста»

- как отмечалось ранее, это мелочи Nick-D ( разговор ) 00:29, 21 марта 2021 года (UTC)

Удален этот раздел.

Nick-D Я ответил на все ваши комментарии. Как это выглядит сейчас? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 22:32, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии HumanxAnthro [ править ]

• Собираюсь пересмотреть это в ближайшее время, но Ник-Д дает много комментариев. Я просто скажу, что фраза «Стейси Ламбе из Entertainment Tonight отметила, что трек стал хитом только после того, как Кендрик исполнил его на прослушивании Беке Митчелл на роль Барден Беллы», больше похоже на комментарий к коммерческому выступлению, чем на мнение приемной по поводу выступления. сама песня. HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 17:28, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

  HumanxAnthro Я переместил его в раздел коммерческого исполнения. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 21:08, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

  • HumanxAnthro Не могли бы вы оставить какие-нибудь комментарии на этой неделе? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 04:08, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Приношу свои извинения за то, что немного задержался:

• «Во время интервью на Позднем шоу с Дэвидом Леттерманом в октябре 2012 года Кендрик заявила, что научилась играть песню о чашке после того, как увидела, как кто-то исполняет ее на Reddit. [9] Когда она появилась на« Вечернем шоу с Джимми Фэллон »в главной роли, Кендрик сказала, что она придумала сцену прослушивания ее персонажа «Чашки». [10] «Я не думаю, что упоминание ток-шоу, в котором она давала интервью, имеет отношение к этому разделу и добавляет больше ненужной ерунды. Вот кое-что более конкретное: «Кендрик придумала сцену прослушивания для своего персонажа« Кубки »[10], научившись играть песню в чашке после того, как увидела, как кто-то исполняет ее на Reddit. [9]» HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 12 : 50, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Измененный

• "It reached the top-30 in [...] both the Belgium Flanders and Wallonia charts.[58][59]" Nope. It was number 2 and 11 on the Ultratip chart, which is basically the Bubbling Under charts of Belgium's Ultratop 50. To simply put it, it wasn't a top 30 hit of Belgium. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed

• "Stacy Lambe of Entertainment Tonight noted how the track only became a hit after Kendrick performed it for Beca Mitchell's audition to be a Barden Bella.[54]" I think this is a more creative way of stating the song was successful due to the film, but it needs to be presented more formally. HumanxAnthro (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Я удалил его, так как он не особо добавил к статье.

HumanxAnthro благодарит за комментарии. Сообщите мне, если у вас возникнут другие проблемы. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 15:46, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro Есть комментарии? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 20:35, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

Приношу свои извинения, я подключился к сахарной детоксикации, работал над номинацией GA и работал над тематической статьей для другого фильма. Я думаю, что другие комментарии достаточно рассказывают о статье, и она привлекает внимание других пользователей, поэтому я оставлю это им. HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 20:38, 20 марта 2021 (UTC)

I'll say this: " Kelly Lawler from USA Today stated Kendrick's performance of "Cups" in Pitch Perfect is "cute and all" but that it was really not all that special.[33] She commended Kendrick's "spontaneous performance" of the song on the Late Show with David Letterman.[33]" I think this sentence would be more engaging if it had a contrast adverb in the middle: However, although, but HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro thanks a lot for the comments. Do you support? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• The images in the body are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  Heartfox added both alts to the photos. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from K. Peake[edit]

• On first glance, it is clear that you are not adhering to MOS:TABLECAPTION for the year-end charts and certifications. --K. Peake 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Kyle Peake I fixed it. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• The Ultimate Boss Вы пропустили таблицу на конец 2014 года, также я хотел бы предложить вам улучшить использование титула в лидирующей позиции, поскольку он дважды фигурирует в первом параграфе, но не во втором параграфе хотя бы один раз. - К. Пик, 13:04, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Кайл Пик исправлен. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 04:02, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

• The Ultimate Boss Использование «трека» в соло неуместно, когда вы должны использовать «песню» для единообразия. - К. Пик, 12:30, 23 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Абсолютный босс изменился. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 22:52, 23 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарий от ChrisTheDude [ править ]

• Сейчас нет времени делать полный обзор, но одна вещь, которая меня бросила в глаза: «Первоначально песня была написана А. П. Картером и британскими музыкантами Элоизой Танстолл-Беренс и Луизой Герштейн» - это создает впечатление, что все трое написали песню вместе, но поскольку Картер умер в ноябре 1960 года, примерно за 25 лет до того, как двое других даже родились, это не может быть правдой. Предположительно, двое других переработали оригинальную песню Картера? Это необходимо прояснить ... - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 17:16, 18 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Я его изменил. Как это выглядит сейчас? The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 03:55, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

Пятно! :-) - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 08:20, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Панини [ править ]

Я доберусь до этого в ближайшее время. P Anini 🥪 17:19, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от LOVI33 [ править ]

В целом, я бы сказал, что в будущем эта статья может явно стать FA. Вот лишь несколько вопросов, которые меня беспокоят:

• Вы уверены, что поп-музыку следует включать в качестве жанра, поскольку это поджанр фолк-попа ?

Некоторые источники, которые я искал, называли эту песню популярной.

• Удалите упоминания о том, что песня получила положительные отзывы, так как это считается WP: SYNTH.

Изменен

• В лидирующие позиции входят только американские чарты. Я бы упомянул и другие графики. Например, он вошел в топ-40 чартов Канады, Ирландии, Нидерландов и Новой Зеландии. Я бы также сказал, что чарты трансляции не отличаются лидерством

Изменен в топ-30 вместо топ-40

• Измените название раздела «Релиз» на «Релиз и продвижение», поскольку в нем упоминаются ремиксы и живые выступления.

Измененный

• В «Коммерческом исполнении» определенно слишком много прозы об американском рынке и недостаточно - о международных рынках. Попытайтесь уравновесить это.

В основном это было хорошо только в Соединенных Штатах. Песня была огромным трендом в Соединенных Штатах, и только американские дети и подростки (как и я) слушали ее еще в 2013 году.

• В списки треков должна быть включена только версия "Freedom! '90 x Cups (From Pitch Perfect 3 )", так как все остальные были выпущены как часть альбома, а не отдельно.
• Также в этом разделе измените « Цифровая загрузка и потоковая передача » на « Цифровая загрузка и потоковая передача - Freedom! '90 mashup » или как бы вы назвали эту версию

I removed the Track listings section because "Freedom! '90 x Cups (From Pitch Perfect 3)" was part of Pitch Perfect 3's soundtrack album.

Thats it from me. Best of luck getting this to FA. LOVI33 18:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

LOVI33, Thanks a lot for the comments. Lmk if anything else needs to be changed. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh[edit]

Nominator(s): Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Прошло 14 лет с тех пор, как я представил кандидата на Избранную статью, но Зима и COVID сговорились вернуть меня. Эта статья, на мой взгляд, важная. Спустя два столетия после смерти Текумсе, им все еще восхищаются и изучают, и в местах по-прежнему его чествуют новыми мемориалами. Интернет наполнен старыми мифами о Текумсе, давно исправленными в научных источниках. Эта статья теперь может служить источником достоверной информации, которую трудно найти в Интернете. Спасибо за ваше время и внимание. Kevin1776 ( разговорное ) 23:36, 6 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Прокомментируйте , составьте список наблюдения, чтобы в конечном итоге поддержать, вы можете установить user: Evad37 / duplinks-alt для проверки дубликатов ссылок, что является требованием суждения, поскольку некоторые из них могут быть оправданы. Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 23:52, 6 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Отличный инструмент, спасибо. Kevin1776 ( разговорное ) 00:31, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Пропуск на просмотр изображений согласно ACR. ( t · c ) buidhe 02:32, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарий проезда [ править ]

• Цитаты: на нескольких диапазонах страниц есть "p". когда они должны иметь "стр."
• Источники. Не у всех книг есть адреса издателей.
• Infobox: All entries should start with an uppercase letter.
• There are a lot of duplicate Wikilinks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Very helpful, these have been fixed, thanks! Kevin1776 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

HF

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Talk 06:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we've been having issues with a lot of stuff being transcluded onto individual FAC pages and then causing issues where not all of the FAC page will show, I'll be leaving my comments on the talk page of this FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments have been posted. Hog Farm _Talk 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm _Talk 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Marjorie Paxson[edit]

Nominator(s): —valereee (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Влиятельная журналистка и редактор женских страниц; Журналистика женских страниц до недавнего времени подвергалась очернению и неизучению, и многие из даже самых влиятельных редакторов нигде даже не получали повторных ссылок. Это моя первая попытка получить FA; статья была рецензирована Vanamonde93, а DYK - Sionk , среди других авторов - Vycl1994 и Ruth Truong . —Valereee ( обсуждение ) 14:57, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Изображение имеет соответствующую лицензию на добросовестное использование ( t · c ) буиде 16:42, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились

• «Бойсе, штат Айдахо, в качестве редактора женской страницы» - источник?
• Почему разное форматирование между FN 2 и 3?
• Будьте последовательны в том, указываются ли авторы по фамилии или по имени.
• Будьте последовательны в том, указываете ли вы места для книг
• Будьте последовательны, когда используете предложение и регистр заголовка
• «5: 33: 205» означает три разные страницы?
• Я не могу найти никакой информации о RJ Berg / Destinations Press - что это за издатель?
• FN9: не повторяйте заголовок веб-сайта в поле заголовка. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 03:48, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed 1, 2, 3. I've reordered the book that don't have locations, some are interlibrary loans so it might be a couple weeks. Re sentence vs. title case...I think you mean the capitalization of the article titles? Yes, IIRC, 5:33:205 was information from multiple pages, but that's one of the books I've ordered so I'll recheck. Is there a better way to communicate that information? I've ordered the R.J. Berg book, will see if it gives me any more information on who it is. :) —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got the R.J.Berg book. It's a small publisher, certainly, and much of the content is self-sourced. I do remember that the stuff I sourced to it was mentioned in other places, so if anyone wants to eliminate this source, I can probably find a source for that content in another source. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's more to suggest it would be considered high-quality, I would definitely say we should replace it. For the page numbers, would suggest comma separation rather than colon - colon to me suggests chapter/verse or something of that sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Have comma separated. The coding for colon seems to have come from the RP template. —valereee (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So, I found the quotes that were sourced to Clabes also in Whitt. Whitt sources it to Clabes but doesn't provide the date; the Clabes book was published in 1983 and consists of a series of profiles of US women newspaper editors, each an introductory few paragraphs followed by purpose-written essays by the subject of the profile. Shall I keep the Clabes to support the dates Paxson wrote these things? To me it feels important to know when in her career she was writing this stuff. —valereee (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

• Pretty short, & somehow a bit thin - maybe the sources aren't there. But perhaps the key point arising from her career is clearly expressed in the (also rather short) lead.
• Her last 2 jobs were as "publisher" at newspapers. There's a link (not at 1st use) use to publisher, but I doubt that helps readers at all. It should be explained (in both articles) that in newspaper & magazines the publisher (as a job title) is the person in charge of the business side, as opposed to anything editorial.

Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's short and thin. Many of these women weren't really considered very important in their lifetimes. I believe there are sources available at the State Historical Society of Missouri that could possibly be useful, but a lot of them would be primary and that's a 7 hour drive. :) I've changed the pipe for publisher to first mention and to something more helpful, I think. —valereee (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lawrence Khoo[edit]

A bit thinly sourced – relying on a handful of sources, but then, that could be the nature of the subject.

The lead section needs a lead paragraph that succinctly describes and summarizes why the subject is notable. See MOS:OPENPARABIO for guidelines on what should be in the lead paragraph.

LK (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, LK, thanks for the comments. Yep, it is thinly sourced. It's only in the past maybe fifteen years that anyone bothered with these women because: Women working on things for women. :D I've made a stab at a lead paragraph! —valereee (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Докторская диссертация Кимберли Уилмот Фосс (2004 г.) со страницы 136 содержит много подробностей о Пакстоне. Я вижу, что по крайней мере часть этой информации содержится в другом источнике Voss, цитируемом в статье, но эта информация не была добавлена ​​в статью. SarahSV ^{(разговор)} 17:58, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я не уверена, что означает последняя часть - «и их редакторы, которые, по ее мнению, были сторонниками движения». «Кому она верила» + «которую она считала» конструкцией нужно переписать: «Она выразила горечь по поводу своего понижения и приписала его частично женскому движению, которое, по ее мнению, несправедливо очерняло женские страницы и их редакторов, которые, по ее мнению, были сторонниками движения ". SarahSV ^{(разговор)} 18:20, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Интервью с Пакстоном 1991 года с множеством дополнительных деталей. См. Обложку и указатель . SarahSV ^{(разговор)} 18:51, 21 марта 2021 (UTC); отредактировал 18:33, 22 марта 2021 (UTC)

Ведущая говорит, что она родилась 23 августа, а в инфобоксе и первом разделе написано 13 августа. Лид и инфобокс не указывают отчество, но в первом разделе указано. SarahSV ^{(разговор)} 23:41, 21 марта 2021 (UTC)

Сердце Томаса [ править ]

Номинаторы : Морган695 ( разговор ) и Леди Фрейя ( разговор ) 19:18, 4 марта 2021 года (UTC)

Эта статья посвящена основополагающему сериалу манги Мото Хаджио 1974 года, известному своим значительным влиянием на комиксы японских девушек конца 1970-х годов и позже. На данный момент статья была номинирована на FAC в январе , хотя номинация была автоматически отклонена из-за отсутствия существенных обзоров. С тех пор статья прошла серьезную рецензию - спасибо Aoba47 , Fowler & fowler , SandyGeorgia , Link20XX , Chipmunkdavis и Vanamonde93. for their comments, with special thanks to Fowler&fowler for their exhaustive source review. I am re-nominating this article in the hopes that in its current state, it will attract enough substantive reviews to be passed for FA. (Note: I've listed Lady freyja as a co-nominator, as the article is adapted from the equivalent article on the French Wikipedia which they were the primary author of, and which is itself an FA. The co-nomination is not expectation/obligation for them to participate in this FAC, though they are certainly welcome to do so.) Morgan695 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ WP: Координаторы FAC : Я считаю, что эта номинация теперь готова для рассмотрения координатором, так как в настоящее время она находится на уровне 5 поддержек / 0 противников и прошла проверку изображений и источников. Morgan695 ( разговор ) 19:46, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

(Отмечая для ясности, что, хотя некоторые поддержки кажутся краткими, все поддерживающие редакторы предоставили существенные отзывы либо на первом FAC статьи, либо во время ее рецензирования.) Morgan695 ( доклад ) 19:51, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Мне все это хорошо. Однако номинация была открыта всего 12 дней. Я бы хотел оставить его открытым еще на неделю или около того, чтобы дать другим потенциальным рецензентам достаточно времени для комментариев. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 20:01, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Звучит отлично. Если не возникнет серьезных разногласий, я свяжусь с вами через неделю. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 03:51, 17 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от SandyGeorgia

Я участвовал в экспертной оценке, поэтому отложу поддержку до тех пор, пока независимые редакторы не закончат ее. Я ожидаю поддержки, но пока отмечу, что значительная, исчерпывающая и тщательная работа, проделанная Фаулером и Фаулером, означает, что обзор источника (во всех смыслах) уже выполнен (экономия времени !! ... Я надеюсь, что Элджит и Никки не делай из меня лжеца :). Я считаю, что статья соответствует стандартам FA, но воздержитесь еще и потому, что это не та область, с которой я знаком. Пожалуйста, свяжитесь со мной, если я забуду вернуться к этому позже. ( Ошибки HarvRef, о которых я упоминал в своем выступлении, должны быть устранены.) Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 20:15, 4 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо, в соответствии с вашей версией я исправил эти две ошибки Harv. Я также отмечу, что Пользователь: Nikkimaria завершил обзор изображений в первом FAC, но с тех пор были добавлены три изображения, которые необходимо просмотреть ( файл: Yoshiya Nobuko.jpg , файл: Элси Лесли в роли Маленького лорда Фаунтлероя cph.3b10326. jpg и файл: пещера Аматэрасу crop.jpg ). Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 20:52, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я должен отметить, что я сделал только расширенную выборочную проверку в разделе «Анализ», и даже там не проверял номера ISBN (я смутно помню, что пара не давала ссылки). Таким образом, может потребоваться пара беглых взглядов на базовые вещи. Я не сомневаюсь, что с любыми нерешенными проблемами, связанными с контентом, Morgan695 и леди Фрейя разберутся. Если у вас есть какие-либо конкретные вопросы, по которым требуется мой вклад, пожалуйста, свяжитесь со мной. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 01:53, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка , проследив за всеми изменениями и рецензиями во время и после экспертной оценки; настоящая стипендия! Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 00:29, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии леди Фрейи [ править ]

Привет и спасибо @ Fowler & fowler и Morgan695 за ваши уведомления. Статья сильно изменилась с тех пор, как я прочитал ее в последний раз, вы все отлично поработали! Я потрачу время на подробный обзор всех изменений и обсуждений для улучшения французской статьи, когда у меня будет свободное время для работы над Википедией.

Я не буду говорить о форме статьи, так как не привык к условностям английской Википедии, но по существу у меня есть два комментария:

• The sentence "Following soon was a period of immense change and upheaval for the shōjo manga: new aesthetic styles and more narratively complex stories focusing on social issues and sexuality emerged in the 1970s, differentiating the genre from shōnen manga (manga for boys).[11]" as it is, is an oversimplification; the shōjo aesthetic style (deviating from shōnen convention) started to be developed in the 1960s decade (or more exactly at the end of 1950s one) with Macoto Takahashi, Miyako Maki, and the likes; as rightly explained in the section Visual style, Хаджио и другие мангака 24-го года только следовали этой тенденции, внося новые вклады, но стилистические изменения уже давно произошли к 24-му году. На процитированной странице Шамун говорит: «В главе 4 описаны изменения, которые произошли с девушками. 'журналы 1950-х и 1960-х годов », в частности, со ссылкой на стр. 90, где она написала подраздел, посвященный Такахаши Макото и развитию эстетики манги Сёдзё., which explains this development. I made the distinction between stylistic and narrative development taking place at two different time in the French article: "À cette époque le shōjo manga est en pleine expansion et transformation : lors des années 1960, il gagne ses propres codes esthétiques qui lui permettent de se différencier du shōnen manga, et le début des années 1970 voit l'apparition d'histoires plus complexes, qui n'hésitent plus à parler de politique ou de sexualité[13]."

• Revised this section to note the difference between narrative and aesthetic styles. Morgan695 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• О предложении «После критического и коммерческого успеха Версальской розы у конкурирующего издателя Shueisha, редактор Shūkan Shōjo Comic Джунья Ямамото попросил Хаджио создать серию такой же длины и сложности, которую первоначально планировалось выпустить в течение двух-трех лет. [23] «Во французской статье я не упомянул Ямамото, я оставался неуловимым, говоря только об« un éditeur », потому что сама Тамура не упоминает его на процитированной странице» Как ни странно, это был редактор Weekly Сёдзё Комикку, который попросил сериал у нее, а не она предложила его ему. "; Ямамото упоминается Тамурой на 19 страницах позже. Я почти уверен, что это Ямамото спросил Хаджио, но я не смог найти ни одного источника, прямо упоминающего его, я тоже не нашел.Леди фрейя ( разговор) 22:06, 4 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Кажется, я припоминаю, как Торн упоминал во вступлении к выпуску Fantagraphics Томаса, что это был Ямамото, который был редактором, вводящим в эксплуатацию, но, поскольку у меня, к сожалению, нет копии этого издания для справки, я выровнял копию по источнику Тамура. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 22:57, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я перечитал введение Торн, говоря о публикации Томаса , она использует выражения «редактор Хаджио» и «тот же самый редактор - к тому времени главный редактор -», но она также представила Ямамото как редактора Хаджио несколькими абзацами ранее », где ее приветствовал новаторский редактор Джунья Ямамото ". Думаю, это подтверждает это, да. Леди Фрейя ( разговор ) 07:08, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения [ править ]

• Для гендерного изображения установлены две подписи.
  • Фиксированный. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:26, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
• На некоторых изображениях отсутствует замещающий текст
  • Добавлен замещающий текст. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:26, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
• В файле: Yoshiya_Nobuko.jpg отсутствует информация об авторе и дата публикации.
  • Это может быть сложнее решить, но я обратился к первоначальному загрузчику, чтобы узнать, могут ли они предоставить эту информацию. Изображение было загружено в Commons 14 лет назад, но они все еще активно редактируются, так что, надеюсь, я получу ответ. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:37, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Nikkimaria : Если нет ответа или если авторство / дата не могут быть определены, следует ли указать File: Yoshiya Nobuko 1947.JPG или File: Nobuko Yoshiya 01.jpg для использования в качестве заменителей? Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:39, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Per the original uploader, "I am aware that the photo is on display at the Yoshiya Nobuko Memorial Museum in Kamakura, Japan, and appears in https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/yoshiya-nobuko-memorial-museum. It can also be found in a book called 文学都市かまくら１００人, published by the Kamakura Museum of Literature in 2005". As I am unable to access that book or the museum, I cannot confirm the authorship or date of the image. Please let me know if either of the other two images posted are acceptable alternatives. Morgan695 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The second should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Выполнено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 22:18, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Файлу: Elsie_Leslie_as_Little_Lord_Fauntleroy_cph.3b10326.jpg нужен тег США PD
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговор ) 00:30, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
    • Когда и где было впервые опубликовано это изображение? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 21:57, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
      • Версия без обрезки в Библиотеке Конгресса указывает, что она была сделана в Нью-Йорке, штат Нью-Йорк. Информация о публикации не указана, просто это "цифровой файл с черно-белой копии фильма". Я добавил обе эти части информации на страницу Commons. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 22:28, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
        • Okay, but the current tagging is dependent on the image having been published, not just created, before 1926. If we don't know when it was published, how do we know that to be true? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I've swapped the image for the one that was previously used in that section, and which passed your review in the first FAC. Morgan695 (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
      • В подписи внизу изображения LoC ( ссылка ) написано: «Авторское право 1888 г., Наполеон Сарони // Юнион-сквер, штат Нью-Йорк». Эта информация повторяется в полном списке здесь. - Гозей ( разговор ) 09:22, 7 марта 2021 г. (UTC)
        • @ Nikkimaria : Так что это оказалось спорным вопросом , так как я заменил это изображение на File: TakehisaYumeji-1926-Fujin Graph Spring 1926.png , так как оно намного лучше иллюстрирует изображаемую тему. Информация о лицензировании нового образа кажется довольно исчерпывающей, но я все равно хотел бы пинговать вас.
• File:Amaterasu_cave_crop.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Added. Morgan695 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Plead guilty. All my handiwork. But Morgan695 will fix this I'm sure (the alt text in his nice style). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler[edit]

• Принимал участие в экспертной оценке. Я уверен, что Heart of Thomas соответствует критериям FAC, но они в каком-то смысле не имеют отношения к делу. Нечасто случайности удачи переносят меня в новый мир WP, даже чудесный. Хаджио Мото, ее влияния, ее музы, ее соратники, социально-экономические и культурные силы, действовавшие в послевоенной Японии и Японии 1970-х годов, а также последовавшие за ними ученые, разгадывая их, вместе создали такой мир. Это заслуживает внимания. Только по этой причине, да и по многим другим причинам, я рад поддержать . Благодарность и восхищение Morgan695 и леди Фрейя Фаулер и Фаулер «Talk» 02:15, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка от Link20XX [ править ]

• Я поддержал вашу предыдущую номинацию и дал пару комментариев по поводу экспертной оценки, так что я обязательно сделаю то же самое здесь. Вы очень много работали над статьей, и это определенно видно. Вы проделали отличную работу, которая более чем достойна рекламной статьи в моей книге. Я полностью поддерживаю эту номинацию . Link20XX ( разговор ) 03:55, 6 марта 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка от Aoba47 [ править ]

• У меня есть вопрос об этой части из главной роли, его романа 1919 года « Демиан» ; Bildungsroman жанр; и фильм 1964 года «Особые любители» . Нормально ли использовать точки с запятой таким образом для разделения элементов в списке? Я спрашиваю только об этом, так как я больше привык к тому, что точки с запятой используются для связывания двух независимых предложений.

• Сталкер раздела обзора FAC Да, основная функция точки с запятой - разделять два независимых предложения, которые ближе друг к другу (семантически), чем к предложениям по обе стороны от них. Точки с запятой реже используются в списках, в которых (три или более) составляющие либо находятся на длинной стороне, либо имеют внутренние запятые. (Но обычно (на мой взгляд) при таком использовании читатель должен знать, что список приближается.) Предложение звучит так: «Сериал черпает вдохновение из произведений Германа Гессе, в частности его романа 1919 года« Демиан »; Жанр Bildungsroman и фильм 1964 года "Les amitiés specificulières". Читатель действительно не узнает список до второй точки с запятой. Лучше было бы сформулировать это так: «На сериал повлияли романы Хармана Гессе, особенно Демиана.(1919); жанр bildungsroman; и фильм 1964 года « Особые любители ». Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 03:11, 8 марта 2021 года (UTC) Обновлено. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 03:21, 8 марта 2021 года (UTC)

• Спасибо за объяснение. Использование точки с запятой показалось мне странным, но спасибо, что сообщили мне, что это допустимый метод. На самом деле я никогда не видел, чтобы точка с запятой использовалась таким образом до Википедии, поэтому я хотел дважды проверить это. У меня нет твердого мнения ни по одной из формулировок, поэтому я оставлю это на усмотрение номинантов. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 03:34, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Перефразированный на Аджио черпал вдохновение в сериале из романов Германа Гессе , особенно Демиана (1919); Bildungsroman жанр; и фильм 1964 года «Особые любители» . Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• В первом абзаце отведения есть два предложения (т. Е. Серия следует за событиями ... и серия черпает вдохновение ... ), которые начинаются с одного и того же. Я бы пересмотрел это, чтобы избежать такого частого повторения.
  • Исправлено в предыдущей версии.
• В этом предложении я бы назвал: « Это одна из самых ранних манга в жанре сёнэн-ай (мужской роман)». , кто это говорит (т.е. критики, ученые и т. д.). Когда я читаю это предложение, я сразу спрашиваю, кто это говорит.
  • Пересмотрено. По сути, это не один конкретный человек, а просто один из первых в своем жанре. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
• В этой части главной роли, молодые женщины и девушки-подростки , я не совсем уверен, в чем разница между молодыми и подростками. Не могли бы вы мне это объяснить? Глядя на описание в целом, комиксы для девочек, которые, как правило, ориентированы на молодых женщин и девушек-подростков , я не уверен в первой части, поскольку, как я понимаю, этот стиль манги в большей степени определяется тем, кто создается и продается, а также девушками ». комикс подразумевает некоторый уровень владения, что я не думаю, что он полностью точен. Я просто не уверен, что это лучший перевод сёдзё манги.
  • Пересмотрено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Можно ли сформулировать это предложение? Изначально сериал был разработан Хаджио как личный проект, который, как она не ожидала, когда-либо будет опубликован. , из свинца в более активное время? Что-то вроде того, Хаджио изначально разрабатывала сериал как личный проект, который, как она не ожидала, когда-либо будет опубликован. , мне лучше читается и больше внимания уделяется Аджио.
  • Выполнено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Для этой части ведущей, которая была описана как основополагающая работа для сёдзё манги , я бы назвал в тексте, кто описывает эту мангу таким образом.
  • Replaced with the following, which I think is less fluffy and is directly cited in the article body: It significantly influenced shōjo manga as a medium, with many of the stylistic and narrative hallmarks of the series becoming standard tropes of the genre. The series has attracted considerable scholarly interest both in Japan and internationally, and has been adapted into a film, a stage play, and a novel. Morgan695 (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Я бы избегал следующей конструкции предложения (с глаголом X), как показано в этом примере из отрывка, с критиками, исследующими изображение пола в сериале . Это то, что я неоднократно замечал в FAC, поэтому я бы нашел способы избежать этой конструкции предложения, если она появляется где-нибудь еще в статье.
  • Решено с предыдущим редактированием. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

Это мои комментарии по поводу свинца. Они очень придирчивы, так что извиняюсь за это. Я пересмотрю оставшуюся часть статьи завтра или во вторник. Учитывая всю активность как здесь, так и во время рецензирования (от гораздо более опытных редакторов, чем я), я ожидаю, что мой обзор будет кратким, так как любые проблемы уже были бы ими рассмотрены. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 01:13, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Небольшой дополнительный комментарий. Я пошел проверить, как определяется сёдзё- манга в статье, и у меня тоже есть проблема с этим определением. В статье это определяется как « Сёдзё манга» (комиксы для девочек) . Я не вижу причин менять мангу на комиксы, и я действительно думаю, что это вызовет некоторую путаницу. Я бы оставил мангу, как вы сделали для перевода манги сёнэн, в том же абзаце. Я бы также сказал вместо этого «манга для девочек», так как это в большей степени основано на предполагаемой аудитории, и я просто думаю, что женская часть вводит в заблуждение. Я хотел добавить эту часть сейчас, так как она похожа на мою проблему с переводом этой статьи. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 03:31, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Решено внесением правок выше. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я все еще думаю, что это должна быть «манга для девочек», а не «манга для девочек» (как в переводе для главной роли, так и в статье), поскольку я считаю, что это две разные вещи. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 05:30, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Заменены оба экземпляра на «комиксы для девочек», поэтому он также объясняет, что такое «манга» для аудитории, которая может не распознавать этот термин. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:34, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Манга и комиксы - это не одно и то же. У них разная структура и история. Манга вошла в массовую культуру, и вы всегда можете добавить это слово для читателей, которые никогда о ней не слышали. Но я бы не стал рассматривать мангу и комиксы как одно и то же до такой степени, что эта замена сработает. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 05:48, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• I respect that interpretation, but I think it's one that is not necessarily aligned with how those terms are used in common use on Wikipedia (the article on manga literally defines it as comics or graphic novels originating from Japan). You could argue that the term "comic books" has a specific western context, but "comics" as an umbrella term for "ideas expressed with text and images" is pretty universal. Morgan695 (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Я оставлю это другим редакторам. Я все еще не согласен, но после просмотра академических источников по манге, некоторые также используют перевод «комиксов», так что вы правы. У меня есть два дополнительных замечания по этому поводу. Этот перевод не всегда используется во всей статье. В подразделе «Контекст» для этого перевода используется манга сёнэн манга (манга для мальчиков) . Перевод "манга" / "комикс" должен быть последовательным. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 17:54, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Если аудитория может не узнавать термин «манга», то не смутило бы их, как манга используется в первом предложении загадки и еще два раза в первом абзаце загадки без какого-либо перевода? В настоящее время во втором абзаце ведущая роль вводит перевод "манга" / "комикс". Если есть читатели, которых это слово могло бы сбить с толку, не лучше ли было бы включить такой перевод, как (комиксы или графические романы из Японии) в первое предложение заголовка? Aoba47 ( разговор ) 17:54, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Справедливо, но, подумав, я думаю, что дело не столько в понимании аудитории, сколько в том, чтобы не использовать термин в определении этого термина. Я думаю, что это обсуждение является чем-то вроде спора, так как 1) по вашему мнению, «манга» достаточно проникла в общественное сознание, чтобы быть различимой для большинства людей, и 2) подавляющее большинство единодушных сторонников того, что «манга» и «комиксы» «являются синонимами, или, по крайней мере, эта манга - это своего рода комикс. Morgan695 ( разговор ) 18:20, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо за терпение при написании моего обзора. Я поддержать кандидатуру для продвижения. Надеюсь, у вас будет отличная неделя! Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 20:15, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

PS Как бы мне ни нравилась эта статья, я тоже по-прежнему немного обеспокоен языком ведущей. В главном предложении не уточняется, что Хаджио Мото написал «Сердце Томаса» для молодых женщин. Позже вести себя недостаточно хорошо. Это создает несогласованность. На мой взгляд, это должно быть заявлено впереди и в центре, поскольку французская футбольная ассоциация делает «est un shōjo manga crit et dessiné par Moto Hagio». Нынешний язык не поможет обычному, неопытному читателю, в назидание которого мы пишем. Я не могу быть уверен, но подозреваю, что статья, возможно, привлекла меньше внимания в первом FAC, чем заслуживала, из-за ее несколько непрозрачного введения. Я, конечно, с таким же энтузиазмом поддерживаю статью. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 14:29, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

PPS Я считаю, что «Японская манга для молодых женщин, написанная и проиллюстрированная Moto Hagio» могла бы быть лучше. («Девочки» вместо «молодых женщин» тоже подойдут, если этого требует конвенция.) Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 14:49, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

@ Aoba47 : @ Фаулер и Фаулер : Я переписал lede таким образом, чтобы, надеюсь, удовлетворить обе ваши проблемы: Сердце Томаса ( яп .ー マ の 心 臓, Хепберн : Tōma no Shinzō ) - это японская манга 1974 года, написанная и иллюстрировано Moto Hagio . Изначально сериал был опубликован в Shūkan Shōjo Comic , еженедельном журнале манга, публикующем сёдзё- мангу (манга, предназначенная для молодых и юношеских женщин), сериал следует за событиями в немецкой гимназии для мальчиков. следующий ... Morgan695 ( разговор ) 16:29, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

Это лучше, но все же обходит стороной тот факт, что история была нацелена на подростков и молодых взрослых женщин (кстати, это то, что вы имеете в виду под молодыми и подростками?). В нем просто говорится, что она опубликовала историю в журнале, который читают представители этой демографической группы. Она когда-нибудь писала что-нибудь, ориентированное на мужчин? Если не по существу, то необходимо как-то указать ее читательскую аудиторию. В конце концов, большая часть статьи посвящена тому, как Томас пропитан символизмом, означающими и аллегориями, которые имеют значение в основном для женщин, отражая конфликты, которые в основном (хотя и не только) являются женскими.

Now that I've read the lead, I think a bigger problem might be that the lead is not an adequate summary of the article. I'm sorry to unload these minor misgivings here, in the fashion of afterthoughts, but I'll try to find some time in the next few days and expand the lead a little to make it more representative of the article body. I will do so on the talk page. As I've already offered support, it will be less confusing if others comment here. And you can tell me on the talk page what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

В ответ на пинг я ценю изменение, и у меня нет никаких проблем с ним. Я считаю, что Moto Hagio в первую очередь пишет сёдзё-мангу (т. Е. Молодых женщин, продающих мангу). Чтобы избежать путаницы с журналом, не лучше ли было бы как-то обозначить это как сёдзё-мангу в самом первом предложении? Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 20:55, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

@ Фаулер и Фаулер : Привет, просто хотел следить за вашими комментариями по поводу лидерства. Теперь, когда номинация составляет 5 опор и прошла проверку источников и изображений, она приближается к точке, когда FAC можно было бы разумно закрыть, но я хотел сначала убедиться, что эта проблема была решена. Morgan695 ( разговор ) 17:25, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Мы можем обсудить это (при необходимости) после продвижения на странице обсуждения статьи. Сейчас это не имеет большого значения. Всего наилучшего. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 19:21, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка Ванамонда [ править ]

• Рад поддержать ; Я просмотрел предыдущий FAC, где было решено большинство моих проблем с прозой; и мое самое существенное замечание, касающееся темы совершеннолетия, с тех пор также было учтено. Я внес несколько незначительных правок, но мне больше не на что жаловаться. Это солидная работа. Ванамонд ( Обсуждение ) 00:47, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор специальных возможностей [ править ]

• Библиография: используйте альтернативу двоеточиям для заголовков согласно MOS: PSEUDOHEAD . Heartfox ( разговор ) 04:07, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Выполнено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:46, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - пройти [ править ]

Скоро сделаю. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 22:47, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Форматирование

Рекомендации

• Ссылка 32, похоже, отсутствует "Anime News Network"
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Дата отсутствует для ссылки 31
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Вы можете добавить University of Hawaii Press в ссылку 39, так как ваш издатель указан в журналах ниже.
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Я не уверен, что "| last = Школа искусств и наук | first = Восточноазиатские языки и цивилизации" действительно имеет смысл для ссылки 40; мы понятия не имеем, кто написал здесь ее биографию - а в будущем вы можете просто написать "| author =" :) - я бы предпочел поставить это как "| website ="
  • Пересмотрено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Ссылка 43 отформатирована иначе, чем ссылки на другие книги; диапазон страниц также неполный. Замечу также, что это единственный реф, вы включаете состояние в локацию
  • Пересмотрено. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• транс-заголовок для ссылки 83 было бы неплохо
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Biblio

• Здесь у вас есть «Канада» для двух ссылок ИНС, но не ранее в Справочниках; поскольку это веб-сайт, я бы не подумал, что его включение необходимо, но если вы не согласны, это нормально, он просто должен быть последовательным
  • Удаленный. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

BothThe main issue with refs, besides these minor nitpicks above, is the designation of "References" and "Bibliography"; it remains ambiguous. What I mean is, you have a journal article in the refs (Shamoon) and some in the biblio (Hori, for example). I assumed you were putting the ones with only one citation in the refs, and those with others in the bibio, but Nagaike suggests this isn't the case. Likewise, one of the ANN citations is in the refs, while the others in the biblio; The Atlantic article is in the biblio but Gentosha Plus ones in the refs. I would think the simplest solution (though there are certainly others available) would be to move all refs with authors into the biblio and replace the current citations with sfn back to there.

Это была идея, но похоже, что некоторые книги попали в ссылки. Все обзоры, книги и научные статьи должны быть теперь в разделе «Библиография», в то время как ссылки, не относящиеся к sfn, в разделе «Ссылки» являются либо неавторскими страницами и / или основными новостными статьями. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

А, я вижу, теперь это выглядит хорошо. Aza24 ( обсуждение )

Надежность

• В свете предмета и анализа, проведенного F&F в PR, я склонен уступить дорогу тому, что иначе можно было бы рассматривать как не «высококачественные источники». Здесь нет проблем.

Проверяемость

• Я бы порекомендовал добавить здесь doi внизу для ссылки Kaoru.
  • Я бы с удовольствием, но проблема в том, что указанный DOI неверен. Следуя https://doi.org/10.7936/b9mm-7080, вы попадете в совершенно другую статью. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
• Здесь нет никаких сомнений, особенно в свете самых тщательных проверок F&F в PR. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 23:48, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Aza24 : Ответ выше. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 00:14, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)
    • Выглядит отлично, пройти проверку источника. Aza24 ( разговор ) 00:25, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Старые номинации [ править ]

SMS Nymphe (1863)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This was the first screw corvette built for the small Prussian Navy in the early 1860s; the ship saw action during the wars of German unification, most notably at the Battle of Jasmund in 1864. I wrote this article in 2018, it passed an A-class review in 2019, and it has now arrived at FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99[edit]

Providing a review, hoping you could reciprocate with my candidate below.

Lead

• armed with a battery of sixteen guns -- link artillery battery?
  • Good idea
• Nymphe was laid down in January 1862, she was launched in April 1863, and she was completed in October that year. -- use of pronouns here feels redundant
  • Removed
• She was heavily engaged by a Danish frigate in the battle, and she received around 70 hits, mostly to her rigging, though she was not seriously damaged. -- slight ce; "battle; she received"
  • Done
• link Mediterranean Sea (there's a later instance of this in the third paragraph that needs to be unlinked)
  • Good catch
• but she did see battle with French warships during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. -- this would be better combined with the following sentence; something like: "During the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, a French squadron..."
  • Done
• link blockade
  • Done

Design

• The ship's crew consisted of 14 officers and 176 enlisted men -- link Officer (armed forces) and Sailor?
  • Done
• Nymphe was armed with a battery of ten 36-pounder guns and six -- link artillery battery again
  • Done
• In 1869, these guns were replaced with seventeen, and later nineteen, rifled 12 cm (4.7 in) 23-caliber guns. Later in her career, these were reduced to nine guns. -- WP:NUM
  • Это нормально, как и в соответствии с MOS: NUMERAL , и, вероятно, лучше оставить слова, чтобы избежать трудностей при синтаксическом разборе "позже 19, нарезное 12 см (4,7 дюйма) 23 калибра"
    • Речь идет об удалении этого маркера, вы правы.
• нарезной 12 см (4,7 дюйма) - прил. = вкл.
  • Это ничего не даст - шаблон добавляет дефис только для не сокращенных единиц. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 22:37, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Также не уверен, почему я включил эту пулю, лол.

Подробнее позже. - truflip99 ( разговор ) 20:23, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

История обслуживания

• Нимфею перевели в Свинемюнде, чтобы провести зимние месяцы 25 ноября, поскольку порт не будет оставаться замерзшим так долго, как Данциг. - небольшое перефразирование: 25 ноября Нимфу перевели на зимние месяцы в Свинемюнде, поскольку этот порт не будет оставаться замороженным так долго, как Данциг.
  • Выполнено
• Кроме того, по мере роста напряженности между Данией и Пруссией из-за вопроса Шлезвиг-Гольштейн - есть ли причина, по которой Пруссия связана здесь, а не где-либо еще или с какой-либо другой страной?
  • Согласно WP: OLINK , страны, как правило, не должны быть связаны, но общее мнение, которое я наблюдал на протяжении многих лет, заключается в том, что страны, которые больше не существуют, должны быть связаны.
• Датский флот, который был намного мощнее прусского, немедленно объявил блокаду Балтийского моря - снова блокаду звеньев.
  • Выполнено
• но погода была очень плохой, из-за снегопада, затруднявшего видимость. - предлагаю опустить здесь "очень" ..
  • Выполнено
• Докум повернул свой флагман вправо и начал стрелять бортом по Арконе. - связь левого и правого борта
  • Выполнено
• к этому времени разразилась австро-прусская война, решившая ее в битве при Кениггретце. - странная формулировка здесь ... наверное "и было решено"
  • Фиксированный
• она повернулась к левому борту и вступила в бой с французской эскадрой. - здесь, вероятно, можно не указывать вики-ссылку ...
  • Выполнено
• В отчете за 1899 год сообщается, что Нимфе произвела два залпа по флагману Буэ-Вильяомеса - dup link
  • Удаленный

Закончу этот обзор сегодня. - truflip99 ( разговор ) 21:22, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Еще раз спасибо. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 21:50, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Размещение за границей / Более поздняя карьера

• разве соединение Фиджи, Самоа и Сингапура не нарушает ваши правила?
• где султан Джамал уль-Азам потребовал от Германии подписать соглашение о протекторате - ссылка протекторат
• корабль отправился по суше в Бангкок, Сиам - ссылка Бангкок
• She was replaced by the ironclad Hansa, allowing her to continue her training cruise. -- She was later or then replaced...
• On 1 April 1882, she was reactivated for another training cruise, which this year went to -- which for that year went...
• and had to go to Malta since a number of her crew were sick -- after a number of her crew had gotten sick
• She then began the voyage back to Germany, and on the way she stopped in Lisbon, Portugal, where she was visited by the King of Portugal, Luís I. -- omit

Everything else looks good. --truflip99 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

• The two Nymphe-class corvettes were ordered in the early 1860s as part of a program to strengthen the Prussian Navy as the likelihood of a conflict with Denmark over the Schleswig-Holstein Question became increasingly likely "As" seems slightly overused.
  • Done
• tensions with rose between Denmark and Prussia
  • Fixed
• Link snow showers. Never heard this in the context of snow before.
  • Done
• The captions could use a few more links imo.
  • Added a couple to the lead image, but I don't know that the others warrant any
• Sources look good.

More later. ~ HAL333 14:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• What is the North Sea Flotilla? Should it be redlinked, uncapitalized, explained, etc?
  • A short-lived naval unit; I don't know that it warrants an article. Somewhere down the road, I may get around to an article on the Prussian naval activities during the war, which would have a section header to link to, but that's probably some way off.
• Link Sortie.
  • Done
• Link Rio like you did with other cities. Same thing with SF, Lisbon.
  • Done
• Link coaling station.
  • Done
• In the last two captions, I would insert a comma: , 1872
  • Done

That's all. ~ HAL333 18:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support ~ HAL333 17:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done
• File:Loading_gun_on_the_Nymphe_1872_SLV.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Balloon_gun_on_Prussian_corvette_Nymphe_1872_NLV.jpeg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Amusingly, I had looked at those two before I nominated the article to confirm they were fine to use, but apparently forgot to add the US tags. Per the description page, they were donated by the Victorian Patents Office in 1908, which demonstrates a pre-1923 publication. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario[edit]

Nominator(s): Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a sub-series of the Mario franchise, Paper Mario. Someone at Nintendo decided, "hey, the graphics on the Nintendo 64 are not good", and made everything two-dimensional instead. This game was called, and the department team worked overtime on this one, Paper Mario. The game was critically acclaimed. They released a sequel, and it was universally acclaimed. The developers then decided to switch up the genre a bit for the third game, Super Paper Mario, and it was simply acclaimed. Then they released Sticker Star, and everyone hated it. Color Splash, hated even more. The Origami King, eh.

When this article was created by me, I got some initial thoughts from PresN. It also received a very short peer review, a copyedit from Willbb234, slight touchups from (Oinkers42) and through all this Blue Pumpkin Pie watched like a hawk. Panini🥪 01:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RetiredDuke[edit]

• Minor comments to start off:

• isn't the 2nd game called Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and not "Thousand Year"? Might want to check all of those;

  Done.

• please review so that the references are in order (for instance underdeveloped gameplay.[99][13] and overly complicated,[100][13]);

  Done.

• per MOS:CAPTION, sentence fragments should not end with a period. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done.

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Hi, Panini, and good work on the article. However, there are a few major problems I have:

1. There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature discussing the franchise, which I found pages of thanks to a simple Google search.
2. This may seem minor, but I'm not a fan of the way the article is currently organized. The gameplay section is fine and does its job of describing the general gameplay of the series, but an issue arises after that section. Most of the "development" and "reception" sections (apart from the paragraph about the criticism of the last three games) describe specific games instead of the franchise as a whole, and the content in those "Games" sub-sections are too little and could be proper length if stuff from the development and reception sections were combined to those.
3. Speaking of reception being only about particular titles, that's the biggest problem when it comes to its compliance of 1b; there's nothing about the entire franchise's impact and legacy, as there is with the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise featured article. Come on, this is a successful Nintendo franchise, there's no coverage about how the Paper Mario games have influenced the gaming industry?
4. Why are there no citations for the release dates in the "Games" section?

   Cited

I won't state oppose because I don't think this article is a lost cause: I don't doubt the game's prose efforts from the users Panini mentioned above, and from a quick skim, most of the citations (apart from IGN not being formatted as a work in one cite, and a Metacritic source incorrectly formatted as a work while its formatted in a publisher in others) look well-formatted and are from reliable, quality sources. But I do think the critiques I imposed above are valid. Any thoughts? HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• HumanxAnthro, before I begin, looking through the book sources I did not find much other than this, and most other instances the games are used as an example. Also, unlike the entirety of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, these games did not move mountains; there isn't any big, cultural impact or references in other media. Although the first couple of paragraphs in the Sonic the Hedgehog article are about reviewers' thoughts of how the series evolved over time, this info is already infused with the critical reception section. Panini🥪 01:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'll ping PresN here, see what his thoughts are on this and if my legacy/reception merge alternative is alright. Panini🥪 13:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the comments. Well, if there REALLY is no coverage about the general franchise's impact, then.... Support for completeness. There are a couple of minor issues (like those citation and prose ones I mentioned) but I think those are easily fixable. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

I'll do a full review on this soon! One thing I'd note for now is that ref 28 has a cite error. GeraldWL 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

Sorry for the long wait! Doing the review below. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• (HATNOTE) Is the "Super Paper Mario" thing needed? If you argue that there is the word "Paper Mario", I'd argue that other video games in the series also have it. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• The reason why it's here is just in case readers might get the games confused with the Super Mario series, which this is a branch of. In my opinion, I think it's harmless.

• (GAMEPLAY) The gameplay image is too small for me. Mind enlarging it a bit?

• Yeah, but it made me have to move every other image in the article around to fit it. Thanks for that.

• (GAMEPLAY) "a number of explorable areas, known as worlds"-- link virtual world in "worlds"?

• Virtual world and simply "world" are different things; worlds are different sections in a game, like how New Super Mario Bros. Wii has "World 1", "World 2", etc. shown in this image. The "Virtual World" is simply just something or somewhere on the internet where users interact, such as a chat forum or a game on virtual reality.

• (GAMEPLAY) "(XP, known in-game as Star Points, or SP)"-- I think it'd be better to change the first comma with a semicolon.

• Changed

• (GAMEPLAY) "RPG elements, such as XP, allies"-- shouldn't "XP" be plural, considering "allies" is?

• Honestly, that's just not how the term is used; they call it XP, plural or not, probably because XPs sounds stupid. For this instance, though, I referred to it as its full term to avoid confusion.

• (GAMES) "In Sticker Star"-- I'd rather change "Sticker Star" to "it", since the full name is said just a sentence ago.

• Changed

• (GAMES) "When Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, they find the town to be abandoned." Suddenly jumping to the synopsis without clarifying it in real-world context, like the above subsections do. I'd change it "In it, Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which is discovered to be abandoned."

• Changed

Gerald Waldo Luis, thanks for the review! I've addressed your concerns. Panini🥪 02:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Shooterwalker[edit]

Promise I'll get to this within the week, if not sooner. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, yeah, me too for yours. I cannot do it tonight as I've had a busy day and need to wind down. Probably tomorrow, as I've also promised two others a peer review so I'll make tomorrow a review day. Panini🥪 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Going to work through the prose and references and see how far I get.

• Lead
• I've never seen the word "sub-series". It might be a little jargon-y and there could be a plainer way of explaining its relationship to the overall franchise, and what makes it separate from the other platform games.
• The commas in the sentence about the allies and antagonists add a lot of wordiness, in two sub-clauses. I feel like you could drop them without losing much information.

• Removed, but left "Primarily Bowser".

• "game to be Paper Mario," → "game to become Paper Mario,"

• Fixed

• "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to keep each game's style, such as in genre and combat, different from the previous game." This type of sentence isn't terrible, but trying to avoid run-on sentences with lots of commas is something to strive for. How about "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to each game to have a different style, varying the genre and combat system for each new title."

• Changed but replaced "and combat system" to "and core gameplay element" as that is what's most often changed (there was also a typo in there).

• "transition from role-playing games to more the action-adventure genre" → "transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure".

• Changed

• "The new format of the games, starting from Paper Mario: Sticker Star onward, received mixed reception, with complaints regarding the new genre style but praise for the writing, characters, music, and reimagined paper aesthetic visuals." → "With the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the series began receiving complaints about its change in genre, but still continued to earn praise for its writing, characters, music, and paper-inspired visuals."

• You, my friend, are very good with words. You should consider Extraversion.

• Gameplay
• You don't need a semi-colon when a period will do. Truthfully, this whole sentence is a slew of commas that should be broken up into smaller sentences.

• What can I say, I, for one, am a comma guy, as they not only help combine sentences, but, in my opinion, help with the flow of transition.

• Maybe find a way to rephrase, without using "each game" so soon after each other.

• Changed the first instance to series.

• "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or help fight in combat." → (parallelism) "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or helping fight in combat."

• Fixed

• "but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used" → "but uses up a finite amount of flower points (FP)."
• "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead" → "Super Paper Mario is more of a platform game compared to first two role-playing games in the series."
• Unclear what you mean here: "Although Mario does not fight alongside unique partners"
• "In addition, allies known as Pixls, which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels, can be summoned and used" → "In addition, Mario can summon allies known as Pixls, who grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels."
• "the Paper Mario games are more aimed towards the action-adventure genre" → "the series shifted towards the action-adventure genre."
• "RPG elements, such as XP, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced." → "The series reduced its emphasis on RPG elements, with no experience points, fewer allies, and a simpler plot."
• Instead, the games are more based on puzzle-solving elements, and, although combat is still turn-based, each game has a unique strategy element in lieu of XP." → "Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat."

• Changed

• Games
• "Paper Mario also saw multiple re-releases, namely on" → "The game was later re-released on"

• Changed

• "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and has stolen..." → "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and steals..." (parallelism)

• Changed

• "Paper Mario's puzzles put emphasis on Mario's allies; most puzzles are based upon the skills of Mario's partners, all of which have a unique ability." → "Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities."

• Changed

• "The story highlight Rogueport, which contains a closed portal that holds great fortune. When Mario and Peach get involved in the discovery, Peach is kidnapped by the X-Nauts, who are also aiming to open the portal." → "The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune. Soon after, Peach is kidnapped..."

• Changed

• Again I might just replace the semicolon with a period, but this might be a matter of style than a hard requirement.

• I'm also a semicolon enthusiast; I'll leave it in for now.

• "which he can use to destroy the universe and replace it with a perfect one" → "so that he can destroy and remake the universe".

• Changed but added a "to his liking" in to explain why a little more.

• "To prevent this, Mario, aided by Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi, set out to collect the eight "Pure Hearts"." → "Mario sets out to stop Count Bleck by collecting the eight "Pure Hearts", with the help of Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi."

• Changed

• "Royal Stickers inside the comet" → "Royal Stickers living inside the comet"

• Added

• "six Royal Sticker" -- plural

• Probably just a typo

• "using coins as currency" -- don't need the currency part

• Removed

• "pre-determines" do you mean "plans"?

• Plans sounded a bit off to me so I replaced it with prepares.

• "against enemies in combat" -- don't really need this. It's implied from being an attack.

• Removed

• "not visible in the regular camera angle" → "not visible from the standard camera angle".

• We're getting F a n c y

• "After noticing the island is also color drained, they are prompted by Huey who explains how six Big Paint Stars give the island color, but the six stars have been scattered, later to be revealed because of Bowser." → "After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing."

• Changed

• Having trouble understanding this one. Try to rephrase. "The player can use the Wii U GamePad which allows Mario to use the "cutout" ability, which peels a part of the environment and reveals locations that were not visible prior."

• "The player can use the Wii U Gamepad to trace a hole in the paper environment to reveal secrets, known as the "Cutout" ability."

• "To engage in combat, Mario uses cards that, much like Sticker Star, pre-determine what ability Mario is going to use or how he will attack the enemy." → "Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target."

• Changed

• You could probably just break this into two shorter sentences. "When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly, with many other residents, including Bowser, meeting a similar fate."

• Split like a Pepto Bismal bottle that was actually cake.

• "some elements of RPGs" → "some role-playing elements"

• Changed

• "For example, allies have been reintroduced, but don't serve as much use compared to the first two games in the series." → "For example, the game reintroduces allies, albeit in a stripped down role compared to the first two Paper Mario games."

• My favorite fancy sentence change so far.

• It is a little weird to put the spinoff games out of order, but I recognize this is a series within a series within a series. Just something to note in case someone else brings it up.
• Again, I might try to find a way to explain the relationship between the series without the jargon of sub-series.

• I settled with spin-off

• "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book in the library of Peach's Castle which contains the Paper Mario universe." → "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book that contains the Paper Mario universe." (you don't really lose any explanation this way)

• Changed

• "After the Paper Mario residents spread all over the Mushroom Kingdom, the two Bowser's of both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach." --> "This causes the two universes to cross over, with the Paper Mario residents spreading all over the Mushroom Kingdom. The two Bowsers from both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach."

• Changed

• "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario; Mario and Luigi can perform their usual actions, and Paper Mario can do paper-like actions such as folding into a shuriken in battle" → "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat."

• Changed

• "In combat, he can make multiple copies of himself, creating a large stack that deals more damage as a special attack." → "Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack."

• Changed

That's quite a bit and I'm going to leave it there. But should let you get started. I will try to work through the Development and Reception soon. The sources look generally good so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Shooterwalker, for the review. I did plan to get to your article today, but Plants vs. Zombies had some big prose issues it burned me out before I got to Namco. I'll get to it tomorrow. Panini🥪 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Trying a few more suggestions. Thanks for the kind words! Two general rules that help me write better:

1. Try to avoid sentences where there are more than 3 clauses (e.g.: a sentence with more than 2 commas). Sort of like Wikipedia articles, sentences have size limits where it's more appropriate to split, shorten, or re-organize. (More commas for lists are a funny exception that you can get away with sometimes, especially at the end of a sentence.)
2. Vary the pacing between simple and complex sentences. My last sentence was simple but not necessarily short, and this one is a little more complex without being too long.
3. Avoid passive voice, especially in a more complex sentence, because it makes it harder to understand who is doing what. "The game was designed as..." vs. "Nintendo designed the game as...". Or even shorten that to "The design was..." to make it flow in a larger sentence.

Onto the review...

• Development and history
• I suggest revisiting how these paragraphs are broken up, just to really organize each paragraph around a game, or the period between games. It's possible that all the attention on "announcements" is adding clutter without adding much information, but use your judgment if the announcement is important to understanding the series history.
• "Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro after he was hired as an employee by Nintendo to port games on the Famicom Disk System to cartridges." I think make it clearer that they hired the company but it was effectively one person at first.

• Put an "on his own" in there

• "After his success in developing video games himself, such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, Narihiro hired more developers and expanded the company into Intelligent Systems" → "Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, which allowed him to expand his company with additional artists and developers."
• "now modern-day Square Enix" you could drop this without losing much, and have a simpler sentence.

• Removed. I don't like them, anyway.

• "To try to get fans interested in the genre," drop this too, since you say it better at the end of the sentence

• Removed

• "following this," can cut this

• Removed

• "because he believed players would be tired of low-polygon graphics, as well as an attempt to bring out the "cuteness" in the characters." → "because he believed players might prefer a game with "cute" 2D character designs instead of another game with low-polygon 3D graphics."
• "The game had a four-year development process; it was released in August 2000, late into the console's existence with the Nintendo GameCube about to be announced." → "Development took four years, and was released in August 2000, towards the end of the console's lifecycle."

• Changed.

• "The Thousand-Year Door was announced at the 2003 Game Developers Conference, and was announced to be the direct sequel to the previous game." You say announced twice, and this could probably be a shorter sentence. Try "At the 2003 Game Developers Conference, Nintendo announced a direct sequel, The Thousand-Year Door."

• Fiddled with this a bit but overall changed.

• "in July 2004 in Japan and late 2004 worldwide" For the sake of the summary it might be easier just to say 2004.

• Changed

• "the Mario & Luigi series started in 2003 with Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance, developed by the now defunct AlphaDream" → "Developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series, releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance in 2003." (You could probably drop the semi colon before and just do a full stop.)

• Changed, and for the second suggestion, no;

• "The future producer of the Paper Mario series" Maybe bring this up later more naturally, so it doesn't break the flow and chronology.

• Okie dokie

• "which he says influences changes to the staff or a game's core system" → "leading them to explore bigger changes in each game's gameplay and design team." (This is something that hasn't quite happened yet, and is about to happen.)

• Changed

• "the game's director, Ryota Kawade, " → "game director Ryota Kawade"

• Changed

• "When the idea of being able to switch through 2D and 3D was conceptualized..." Try breaking this into two shorter sentences

• Split like that one kid when he accidentally pulled the fire alarm.

• "Super Paper Mario was originally planned to be one of the last games released for the GameCube, which was announced through a trailer at E3 2006," → "At E3 2006, Super Paper Mario was announced as one of the last games planned for release on the GameCube." (Full stop)
• "when it was switched over to the Wii its motion controls were not implemented" → "it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls."
• "was fully announced" → "were fully announced"

• Fixed

• "The developers, upon request from Miyamoto who was no longer the series producer, did not" → "As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers..."

• Changed

• "Additionally, he also asked for the combat to be changed due to similarities to The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove the story because not many players found it entertaining and he believed the game would be fine without a story" → "Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove most of the story elements due to early feedback from fans." (simpler sentence, and you have the quote off to the right)
• "Core changes in Sticker Star and further games in the series were made to help introduce the series to a new audience" → "Starting with Sticker Star, the series transformed to try and reach a new audience."

• Changed

• "prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise" → "limited outside developers from modifying or adding characters to the Mario universe." (gets you most of the clarity, especially when read with the next sentence)
• Maybe another few examples where a full stop would be better than a semi-colon.
• "last mainline game" needs clarification and could probably be rephrased. Could we just say game?

• Clarified a little bit, meant to say "last game in the series"

• "The artists made the worldbuilding look entirely out of paper," There's maybe a better way to say this.

• Changed

• "through a Nintendo Direct" could be "on Nintendo Direct" or even "through Nintendo Direct"?

• Changed to "via"

• Maybe end that last sentence with a full stop. The negative fan reception is a separate event and separate thought.

• Changed

• "The game released worldwide in early October" what year? do we need to say worldwide for a Nintendo game?

• Fixed

• "in a video in early September" Don't really need to say "in a video"

• Removed

• "in mid-May" is missing a full stop

• Yeah, I just don't like them that much.

• "He stated how due to not being able to satisfy every fan, generally the core fans of the series and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts, which is why The Origami King used origami as a new paper-like theme." This could be simplified a lot.

• Simplified

• I'd say the last paragraph of this section does have a few run-on sentences that could be shortened and/or split.

• Fiddled a bit

Reception

• Maybe try to re-state the timeline for the reader as you start this section off. e.g.: Paper Mario is the first game, it's from the year 2000. Probably doesn't need more than a few well-placed words, but if it starts to add clutter, you can try its own sentence.
• Maybe move the 2006 list ranking to the end of this paragraph, to distinguish between its immediate reception in 2000 and its long-term legacy.
• I think my last two comments also apply to each additional paragraph, establishing a year, if not some other marker of how the series was changing (maybe the platform?). It would help those paragraphs flow, and help the reader keep the timeline straight. As is, it just feels like a few disjointed paragraphs about different games.
• Skipping to the end, the paragraph about the three games since Sticker Star is actually really informative. I saw one of the above FA reviewers comment that this article could use some more discussion of the series as a whole, and I think this paragraph is a great example. I know that's difficult if the sources don't exist. But maybe there's a way to re-organize it to have the reception feel more like a general comment on the evolution of the series, instead of a series of separate receptions for separate games. It sometimes feels like we are losing the forest by staring at each tree.
• "Additionally, the plot was also slightly criticized for being overly complicated" → "Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated,"
• If you have three reviewers in the citation who agree, do we really need to name any of them?
• "the game's reception was mainly mixed and criticized for being centered around stickers" → "was mixed." Saying mixed and criticized is two different things, and you talk about the criticisms later.
• "Thing Stickers were called" → "Reviewers called the stickers"
• "disdain" is a strong word. Just making sure that's what you mean.
• I see why the announcement of Color Splash is important, but you should try to keep a clearer chronology between the announcement and the game itself. Re-organize the first two sentences a bit.
• "lack of purpose" isn't clear.
• "Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins in the game was to buy cards for combat, which in return awarded coins which he believed made the system pointless." Try to say this in fewer words.
• "as it returned old RPG elements and removed other faulty ones in the games before" → "as it re-added beloved RPG elements and removed other elements that had received criticism."
• "considering their hiding spots and humorous dialogue" → "praising their humorous dialog and interesting hiding spots."
• "The game's combat system was both appreciated and disliked" → "Reviewers gave the game's combat system a mixed reception"
• You could drop the semicolon in the "other media" section.
• Related to my comment about this section more generally, the sales section could benefit from trying to make it flow as a comment on the whole series, instead of several separate sentences about several separate games. It might be as simple as using more words like "also" or "again", and other comparison words that show a when a streak is forming or being broken.

That takes us up to the end and should give you a lot to work with. I know that's a lot of comments but it's on the right track. Feel free to ask any questions and we can revisit after a round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, thanks for the review! I've been more busy recently and I do hope I have your patience for the time being. I'll get to your reception concerns in the near future. Panini🥪 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand being busy. Work at your own pace. Would very much like to see this article improved to FA status. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM.
• Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the awards and nominations table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Heraklion[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN and ACR. The second Battle of Crete article from me, following on from the recent Battle of Rethymno. All suggestions for improvement gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image and source reviews pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  The caption on the lead image appears to be copied directly from the image's source site, but has neither quotation marks nor a citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria, I had completely missed that. Now paraphrased and cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

• No Royal Air Force (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete until April 1941, but airfield construction had begun, radar sites built and stores delivered. This sentence is repeated twice in the same paragraph.

Gah! One removed.

• The Imperial's steering gear broke down at about 03:45[84] and her crew and complement of soldiers had to be taken off at sea, at night, and she was then sunk. Scuttled?

I have added the Wikilink, but would prefer to keep the more straight forward description, rather than swap it for a less readily understood technical term.

• Any info on attempts to rebuild Heraklion following the German air raids?

That is a very good point. I have not seen anything, but I shall research it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the query. The German air raids were more or less continuous from early May to when they overran the airfield. However, I have added, as the very final paragraph, some information on the airfield's role during the rest of the war and its use since.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indy beetle and thanks for your comments so far. All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I altered the cite on one of the airport factoids but everything else is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99[edit]

I offer my comments as a way to beg you to comment on my FAC c:

truflip99, many thanks for reviewing, although a request on my talk page is frequently sufficient to elicit a review. What is your current FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I enjoy reading your military articles anyway. It is MAX Orange Line. Thanks a million! --truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead/Background

• defended Heraklion port and airfield against a German paratrooper attack -- link Paratrooper?

Oops. Done.

• following Germans attacks against -- German*

Fixed.

• The Italians were repulsed without the aid of the expeditionary force. -- for clarity's sake, repulsed by whomst?

I had assumed that it would be pretty clear to a reader that it was by the country they had invaded. I have added "by the Greeks", although it looks a little "statement of the bleeding obvious" to me.

• Hitler was concerned about attacks on the Romanian oil fields from Crete -- comma after this

Only if one uses serial (aka Oxford) commas. I don't.

• "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa." -- full stop after quotes

Not if the full stop is in the original. See MOS:INOROUT "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material".

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Allies

• In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece -- comma necessary?

Removed.

Germans

• The German assault on Crete was code-named "Operation Mercury" (Unternehmen Merkur) -- curious why you opted with "English" (German) rather than alternative

Cus that's how the sources handle it, and because this is the English language Wikipedia. But I can see the logic of reversing it, and will if you think that would read better.

Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, you are doing it correctly. But I'm just really torn on "Operation Mercury". It would seem appropriate to switch just this but I won't get hung up on it.

• This force totalled approximately 3,000 men[30] -- consider moving the ref at the end?

Why? It means that the cite is then after text which it doesn't support and causes anyone who wants to check the referencing or read more about that snippet to do twice as much work.

Wikipedia:Inline citation, but I see your point

• ... Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong. -- there is an earlier instance of the word garrison that should be wikilinked instead

I know. The earlier version was the verb, so I skipped it. Quite happy to link it instead of the noun if you feel that woould be better pracrice.

• The design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them... -- there could also be an earlier instance of the word parachute

I have linked parachute assaults to "Airborne assault", so the currently linked "parachute" is the first unlinked mention.

• This precluded their jumping with any weapon larger than a pistol or a grenade. -- link pistol and grenade (there is a later wikilink of grenade that needs to be omitted)

Done.

• perhaps consider linking Rifle and Automatic firearm, for those unfamiliar

I beklieve that "rifle" is common enough not to need linking, automatic firearm linked.

• Each aircraft could lift thirteen paratroopers -- use numeral? MOS:NUMERAL (you also use "13 captured Italian field guns")

Done.

A bit slow to comb through this, promise I'll get there. --truflip99 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99, no worries, there is no rush and your input is much appreciated. Your points so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle

• which were to have consequences for their attack on Heraklion -- can't you just say "which had"? since you pretty much explain it in the next sentence(?)
• They were blanketed with dust clouds -- how?
• In the event the attacking bomber and fighters ran low on fuel and departed before the paratrooper transports arrived. -- this reads like a fragment sentence
• Within thirty minutes -- MOS:NUMERAL
• providing a succession of easy targets for Allied anti-aircraft guns. During this period no German fighters nor bombers returned to suppress the ground fire. A total of 15 Ju 52s were shot down.[43] Before the Germans had completed their drop Chappel had already committed his reserve battalion and tanks to a counter-attack. -- there's an earlier instance of the word tanks in this section; I would just omit the link since you link light tanks and infantry tanks early on
• "to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat", -- omit comma?
• Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion of the 85th Mountain Regiment (II/85) -- omit comma?
• had loaded onto commandeered Greek caiques at Piraeus -- ciaque links to a bird
• Link flotilla
• Wary of the Allied naval patrols, -- omit comma?
• The assaults were ill-coordinated -- omit dash
• facing large bands of Cretan partisans, -- is there a difference between these guys and the Cretan civilians mentioned early on?
• On the 24th four companies of paratroopers were dropped west of Heraklion to reinforce the Germans[69] and the town was heavily bombed in retaliation for its non-surrender on the 21st -- inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph
• They were further reinforced by paratroopers landing at Gournes on the 27th. -- here too.
• GHQ Middle East -- acronym has not been established

Almost there. --truflip99 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Gerda[edit]

This is a completely new topic for me, but being German, I am curious. I'll skip the lead for now, needing more understanding first.

Background

• Why is Oberkommando des Heeres italic, but Luftwaffe not? ... and "Führer Directive" looks extremely strange to me, combining German and English.

Because "Luftwaffe" has been adopted into the language, and is considered an ordinary English word. (Like flak, stuka, or Gestapo.) See Wikt:Luftwaffe.

Germans

• I see no reason for the pic being left where it pushes out the text, which is worse with a short section header.

Moved to the right.

"Führer Directive" is used by nearly all of the sources. Bear in mind that "führer" is also an English word. Eg see Wikt:Führer.

Aftermath

• "Due to their heavy losses on Crete the Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations during the war." I think this could also go to the lead, instead of ending there with a list of statistics.

Done.

That's it for now. Will look once more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, many thanks for looking this over. Your points above all addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses and changes. - The adoption of phrases is something I know from Latin where it's Requiem and Salve Regina, but italic when more unfamiliar. We can't help that it looks inconsistent when two of those appear close together, and it's also subject to change over time. - Right now I'm too tired for saying something useful, but will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Next bits:

Lead

• What do think of mentioning "Allies" sooner, or would every leader know?

• Also, I'm used from other topics that the first paragraph is an overview of the whole thing, - is that different here. Just curious.

I am unaware of any requirement for this. In fact if this were to be done I would have thought that it would break the policy at MOS:LEAD. I assume that we are discussing MOS:OPEN and/or MOS:FIRST, in which case it seems to me that the first paragraph meets both.

TOC

• I am not familiar with headers in MilHist, but confess that the TOC is not overly helpful to provide an overview. Compare this article I recently had the pleasure to review.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. The section headers seem to me to meet all of the requirements of MOS:HEAD. Specifically they seem "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". They - to me - accurately and adequately introduce the text they head. Reviewing them they seem fine to me; except for "Evacuation", which I have expanded to "Allied evacuation". Your comment has me puzzled. Perhaps you could indicate a header which you feel is unsatisfactory and suggest a better wording? Thanks.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those Gerda. Comments on two areas I have never had comments on before. Proof of the value of having not subject experts look at FACs. See what you think of my replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

AhmadLX[edit]

Hi Gog. Since you've reviewed 3 of my GANs and 1 FAC, I will do this one to return some favor.

Thanks AhmadLX, appreciated. (You write good articles.)

• "The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks ..." and "A German invasion in April 1941 ..." The two should be combined into one sentence, with e.g. an "although" preceding the 1st one, to give better flow. Right now it is abrupt.

I am reluctant to conflate episodes more than three months apart in a single sentence. I have added some waffle to try and smooth over the perceived abruptness, see what you think.

Seems good to me.

• "The brigade was made up of: the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment (2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle) and the 2nd Battalion ..." So "2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment" is a single unit, then why do you have 2nd battalion again?

Because the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment is a different unit from the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).

• Actually whole of the above sentence with battalions stuff is very laborious to understand (at least for those unacquainted with military terminology, like me)

Very true. British battalions have unwieldy names. But I have to state the units involved on both sides somewhere, giving full names at first mention. Like many technical articles there are bits where the MoS - and common sense - restricts how digestible one can make some bits. That said, I would be grateful for any ideas as to how to make it less turgid.

I would suggest two things (disregard if you don't like them):

1. and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) → and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)

Good idea. Done.

2. Relegating the stuff inside brackets [(2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle), (2nd Black Watch; 867) etc. ] to footnotes.

I'm not sure that it appropriate to relegate fairly important information to footnotes. Let me think on't - I am aware that my view may be skewed by being relatively used to the convoluted names of British battalions and so the sentence reading more smoothly for me.

• "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft ... which resulted in a high incidence of wrist injuries." Any info on why were they required to do so?

Yes. Added. Could you check that it is not getting too repetitive.

• "south east" and "south-east"

Oops. Good spot. Fixed.

• "When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received large quantities of weapons, ammunition and equipment, including two motorcycles with sidecars." This should be made more explicit that they were duped.

I would love to add something like "believing they were German positions". But the sources don't support it. Stating that the pilots were duped would, IMO, be OR. It may seem obvious to you and me, but if a source doesn't support this supposition, I don't see how it can be included. Ah ha, after searching around I have found a source saying the Allies were able "to confuse the pilots", so I have tweaked the sentence.

The cited source in fact says that the Britons fooled the Germans in bombing their own positions (Although I'm not sure if it is regarding this battle or a different one on Crete)

I believe that you are thinking of the Battle of Rethymno, also currently at FAC. The source cited for this incident, at Heraklion, is Beevor, p. 94:

They had learned, like their counterparts at Rethymno, to confuse the pilots of the transport planes and bombers. They laid out captured swastika flags on their positions, stopped shooting and, when the Germans fired green Very lights, they did the same. On a number of occasions, captured recognition strips produced containers with weapons, ammunition, rations and medical supplies. Sets of surgical implements were parachuted, with true German practicality, in containers shaped like coffins to provide a second use. Two outstanding examples of this military manna from heaven were a pair of motor-cycles with side-cars, one dropped to Major Sir Keith Dick-Cunyngham's company of the Black Watch and the other to the Australian battalion on the Charlies. The Australians found themselves so well provided with German weapons that large quantities could be handed over to the less fortunate Greek troops.

It obviously says that Heraklion dudes used captured flags to deceive them. Somewhere else, without naming battle, it also talks about Germans bombing their own boys, but since google version has no page numbers, I'm not sure if it refers to Heraklion or some other battle. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• "On 23 May six Hurricanes ..." and "On 26 May, Freyberg informed ..." Several other similar instances of inconsistent comma after a time indicator (e.g. "By the end of the month, ... " and "On 30 April 1941 ...")

Thanks. I suspect someone has been "helpfully" inserting them. Removed.

• "The embarkation went smoothly and the squadron was underway by 03:00.[81] with approximately 4,000–4,100 evacuees on board." Remove period after 03:00.

Done.

• Duplinks: Garrison, Fighters, Middle East, Heraklion International Airport.

Fixed.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, and thanks for that. Good stuff. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• "weapon containers" and "weapons containers"

Done.

• "caïques" → "caiques"

Done.

• "Greece became a belligerent in World War II when it was invaded by Italy on 28 October 1940.[2]" Not on the cited page.

Gah! It should have been to page 1. I can only imagine that a cut and paste was interrupted, or something equally silly. It is not as if there are not several thousand RSs from which I could have cited that. *rolly eyes*

• "and the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island. The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks without the aid of the expeditionary force." Not on the cited page

• "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa."[10] Quote in the source differs from this

Hitler did say that - but not in FD 28. I am kicking myself for conflating the two. I am a prize idiot. I have made more edits on this article than any other I have worked on and I think that I have gotten far too close to it.

• Please verify that no other such discrepancies exist. I am not assuming bad faith here. It is just that, as I know from my own writing experience and reviews that I've conducted, it often happens that one misreads something in the source, or incorrect page (or source) is cited by mistake, or sometimes moving around material creates discrepancies.

• Why is it insisted here at FAC to have all hyphenated ISBNs? It does affect search results (compare e.g. 9780714652054 and 978-0-7146-5205-4). What is wrong with the ISBNs as they appear in the books themselves? Just a comment, no action needed.

I always used to do that, but got comments that FAs being "Wikipedia's very best work" then ISBNs should be presented in a consistent format. (And that cites should be in number order - another pet hate of mine.) Rather than have the discussion every other FAC - and some reviewers feel very strongly about this - it is easier to just pre-emptively standardise them. I even have running all articles through the hyphenator on my pre-GAN checklist these days.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• Most of the images have empty alt text parameters. Heartfox (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, alt text added for all images except for the map of Crete, where I don't feel that alt text would add anything to the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The template does provide an alt parameter; I think it could just be "refer to caption". Heartfox (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Heartfox, done; although I note that MOS:ALT states "for an image that strictly repeats the information found in nearby text or in a caption ... a blank alt attribute is ideal." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is confusing for me as well because it also says "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text."

It also says at the top of the page "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible". Given MOS:ALT is not classified as a guideline, I would personally defer to WP:CAPTION which says alt text should be given regardless (unless an image is purely decorative, of which I don't think any image in an article would be anyways... so I don't really know why that's mentioned. Why would an image be in an article if it was only decorative?) Anyways, good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Beaver[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on this in since the last FAC and hope the major issues have been addressed. I would like to thank Dieter.Meinertzhagen,Twofingered Typist and SandyGeorgia. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass[edit]

• Optional: Use a higher resolution header image

The image shows both front and back feet, the tail and head. Would have liked to use File:Beaver Yearling Grooming Alhambra Creek 2008.jpg but the back feet are covered. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• File:Image taken from page 108 of 'Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado Rivers by Captain L. Sitgreaves (white background).jpg Date should be the original publication date. What is it?

It states in the Description "Date of Publishing: 1853"

• Other image licensing looks OK to me. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SilverTiger[edit]

I'm not any sort of FA reviewer, but I'm taking a look-see in hopes of learning.

• Is there a reason some of the sources are separated out into a bibliograohy section rather than being cited like the other sources?

The bibilography sources are used for multiple pages thoughout, the others have a specific page range. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is there nothing more to be said about C. californicus and C. praefiber? Which came first, who evolved into who, etc. Can they be included in the cladogram?

Not much. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dipoides, Miocene, larynx, and trachea should all be linked at the first mention. There's probably more that need to be linked, those were just the first four I noticed.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Usual among mammals, the epiglottis... Shouldn't that be unusually?

I don't think so. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comma needed after "webbing between the toes"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• only their webbed hind feet are used for propelling while the front feet are tucked under the chest. The used for propelling part is a little clunky. Maybe change to used to swim?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• The whole three sentences about the tail also read a little clunky and disconnected.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Next to humans, no other extant animal appears to do more to shape its environment. Shouldn't that be Except for humans?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Canada Geese needs to be sentence case.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• First sentence of the Family life section is a bit unclear. Maybe change to The basic unit of beaver social organization is the family, which is comprised of an adult male and...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support --SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I supported last time around, so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I can not see any notable issues with the article. This is definitely ready for promotion. Wretchskull (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Claiming. Will do soon. Might claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Talk 07:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks so much better than it did back at Beaver/archive1.

This isn't a huge deal, but since you're linking the names of the journals with article, BMC Evolutionary Biology has a link, as does Physiological Zoology, and the Journal of Wildlife Diseases.

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ref 114 (Riley, "Restoring Neighborhood Streams ...") lacks a publishing location.

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not particularly confident with Vice being high-quality RS; the WP:RSP entry for it says there's no consensus on basic reliability

Replaced it with journal. Wretchskull (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of Vice, I think the sources are all high-quality RS for what they are citing. After looking through the sources and what they are supporting, I don't see any red flags of things that are likely dated. The section about beavers in culture is also much better written and sourced; the tendency to get trivial or to cherry-pick examples there is gone. The breadth of sourcing used here is also much greater and more representative. Formatting is acceptable - a few minor inconsistencies, but nothing distracting, incomplete, or problematic. I will be doing spot checks for close paraphrasing and source-text integrity soon. Hog Farm _Talk 16:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't access all of the sources, but I spot-checked five statements that I could check and found no issues. Results at User:Hog Farm/spot checks/Beaver. Pass on WP:FACR 1c, 1f, and 2c. Sourcing looks fine to me. Hog Farm _Talk 15:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• Some of the images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Looks pretty good to me, just a few thoughts below:

• Beavers are territorial and mark them using scent— isn't quite grammatical, Beavers hold territories and mark them using scent

Fixed. Wretchskull (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• 75 percent of the air in its lungs, compared to 15 percent for a human.—is that per breath, or a particular time span? Given enough time all the air will be replaced.

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see predators and parasites considered. In bird articles we often have an EL to vocalisations, is there anything similar for our furry friends here?

Come again? LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

• "Beaver activity can affect the temperature of the water. In northern latitudes, ice thaws earlier in beaver-inhabited waters than in those without beavers. Beavers may contribute to climate change. In Arctic areas, the floods they create can cause permafrost to thaw, releasing methane into the atmosphere." I feel like this could be 1 sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That would be a huge sentence. And they are two different subjects. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I assumed the ice thaws early because their floods release methane and contribute to regional warming?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Its become damming makes the water warmer. LittleJerry (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

you should say that then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• "the beaver's status as a rodent has made it controversial" why?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Because rodents have a bad reputation. See rats. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• "who capitalized on trading with the Europeans" just checking is this really the best way to describe European–Native American relations?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not describing their whole relationship. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, but is "capitalized" the best word to use?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. LittleJerry (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

what does the source say?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It uses "capitalize" as well. LittleJerry (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77, I removed the word. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why does the taxobox give a range from 24 mya? That's when Castoridae evolved, not Castor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not when Castoridae evolved. Removed range since sources are not clear on the exact mya in which Castor appeared. LittleJerry (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

this has a good overview of the Castor fossil record. It says the earliest is C. neglectus from 12–10 mya Germany   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Dunkleosteus77? LittleJerry (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Preening[edit]

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about preening, a behaviour that all birds use to keep their feathers in good shape. It's a behaviour that most of us have probably witnessed at some point, as birds spend quite a bit of time each day preening — up to 15% of their day, in some species. I've enjoyed researching this one; though I've been birding nearly my whole life, even I didn't know some of this before I worked on the article! This started as a WP:BIRD collaboration in 2017, but unfortunately fizzled out pretty quickly. I've been working on it in fits and starts since then, and think it's finally finished. MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

• Which variety of English spelling is used in this article? There is color and colour, behavior and behaviour etc. The article is mostly in British English but there are behavior, neighbors and neighboring rather than behaviour, neighbours and neighbouring.
• "barbules" should be linked at first mention in the lead.
  • Done; I also added links in the caption, and in the first instance following the lede.
• The picture showing the structure of a feather is poor. The article cited at the bottom of the picture, Sullivan et al 2017, has a different (and better) version - see here but the licence is CC-BY-NC-ND. The picture is also not well placed - it would fit better near the section headed "Preening action" where the structure is explained. The article certainly needs a diagram to explain barbs, barbules, barbicels etc.
  • I'll see what I can find; I replaced the previous picture with this one at the recommendation of the GA reviewer. Unfortunately, these is little available online that is CC, and I'm a lousy artist. MeegsC (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've found a fellow editor who has agreed to do some diagrams for me. It may take him a week or two though as he's busy IRL. MeegsC (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Aa77zz, what do you think about Figure 3 in this article? Shyamal found it while looking for reference material. It's got a (CC BY 4.0) license, so I can upload it to Commons if you think it would work. MeegsC (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
        • A great find. Fig 3 in Zhao et al is 2020 is certainly an improvement on the present picture and you should upload it. Feathers are complicated and tricky to illustrate well. Confusingly, in Fig 3 the arrow in (a) appears to be pointing in wrong (opposite) direction to that used for the view in (b).

I've looked at diagrams (rather than micrographs) in textbooks. The diagram in Gill 2007 is poor (Fig. 4.1). The diagrams in Lovette & Fitzpatrick 2016 (p. 103 Fig 4.02 A & B, not available on Google Preview) are much better - but would be impossible to reproduce. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz How about this one? This is the first pass of the one Shyamal is doing. He's planning more detail in the square, and I've asked for an intermediate step between the square and the closeup. Do you think this one is preferable?

Wow - I'm impressed. And the new diagram can be used to replace the horrible File:FeatherLocking.png in the Feather article and the File:The Interlocking of feathers.png in the Glossary of bird terms article. I agree that an intermediate step would be good. It should show that the hooklets/barbicels are on the distal barbules - ie on the side of the barb away from the calamus. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• The title of journal articles should have a consistent case. My preferred choice (and much the most common when listing articles in a list of references) is the use of sentence case. Compare ref 4 with ref 10.
• Ref 10 Cotgreave & Clayton 1994 - the link is broken. There is a spurious "1" at the end of Cotgreave. I suggest you include jstor=4535237 in the reference template.
• Ref 11 Delius 1988 - suggest you remove "(1 Neural Mechan)"
• Ref 26 Campbell & Lack 1985 - should be pp.
• Ref 55 Pepperberg - reference is to a veterinary practice website and could easily disappear. Has this info been published elsewhere?
  • Replaced with HBW ref.
• Ref 62 Delogu et al 2010 - as this is an open-access article I suggest you include doi-access=free in the template.

Bibliography

• Campbell & Lack 1985 - need to add url-access=registration
• Gill 2007 - the 3rd edition (not the 2nd) was published in 2007. The isbn is for the 3rd edition as is the IA link. Perhaps surprisingly, registration is not required. The page numbers are correct for the 3rd edition.
• Loon & Loon 2005 - link to Google is broken

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• The use of the plural "behaviours" sounds strange to me but from googling it appears that it is perfectly acceptable.
• "including rump, tail, belly and underwing." -> "including the rump, tail, ..."
• " More dominant birds received far ..." the change of tense here only works it you mention a study or studies.
• "the structure is missing" -> "the organ is missing"

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• duplicated links - In Preening action "herons" is linked twice. The other duplicated links (ostriches, albatrosses, black guillemots) occur in different sections which I consider to be OK.

- Aa77zz (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - great work. A clearer picture showing the structure of a feather will enhance the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Aa77zz, which do you think works better — Shyamal's picture or the photo? MeegsC (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think Shyamal's diagram is easier to understand. The picture from Zhao et al may be useful in the feather article. In the square in the centre of Shyamal's diagram it is unclear which feature is labelled as barb and which feature is labelled as barbule as it is difficult to see where the lines end. Perhaps it would be easier to label the features in the round enlargement at the bottom. I notice that Shyamal has chosen not to introduce the word "ramus" for the central shaft of the barb. It is yet more jargon to confuse the reader and isn't strictly necessary. The term isn't used in the wiki feather article but the term is mentioned in Lovette & Fitzpatrick. Lucas & Stettenheim discuss the definition of the word at the bottom of page 241 here. It can probably be safely be omitted - but what do you think? - Aa77zz (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I've just noticed the "ramus" is used on the glossary page when defining a barb. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: I have followed your suggestion above and added ramus into the diagram (but avoided introducing the plural form rami). Would it help to mention hooklets/barbicelles? Shyamal (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

• I'll have a look soon. At first glance, speculum is duplinked within the same paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• "There is evidence that filoplumes, specialized feathers buried under a bird's outer covering of contour feathers, help to signal when contour feathers have been displaced" how?
  • FunkMonk, I've expanded it a little; does this help/work? MeegsC (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

All the changes look good, a bit more below. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link keratin and arboreal.
• Link feather lice.
• "preen on the wing" I wonder if the meaning of this would be lost to most layreaders. Maybe "during flight" would be safer?
  • I put "while flying". Is that okay?
• You use both ise and ize endings, should be consistent. I assume this is UK English, since you write behaviour?
• "The preen oil of several gull and tern species, including Ross's gull contains a pink colourant which does the same." Shouldn't there be a comma after "including Ross's gull"? As it appears to be a parenthetical sentence.
• "the vast majority of these involve icterids, though at least one instance of mutual grooming between a black vulture and a crested caracara has been documented." Was this in captive or wild birds? To show if it is a "natural" occurrence.
• "when done with between members of a mated pair" Seems the "with" is redundant?
• "This causes a loss of heat regulation" Link thermoregulation?

FunkMonk, how's it looking now? MeegsC (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looks nice to me, and it had already been looked over by many bird-editors prior to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek[edit]

I was the GA reviewer on this one, and thought Meegs did a great job. Here is my fine toothed comb reserved for FA reviews:

• I sat and watched through the YouTube videos in the EL. I think the allopreening video is poor quality and should go. Its shaky, and doesn't really show it that well. I think the in-body video of the ducks is sufficient. Plus, it looks like the ducklings are engaging in a little bit of allopreening, and is very high quality, so I think that covers all the video bases. If you wanted to leave the owl video, you can, but I am hesitant about external video links in general. I admit my understanding of WP:YOUTUBE could probably use some enlightenment, so use your judgement here.

• I've replaced the allopreening video with better quality one. I still think it's useful, but if the general consensus is to lose them, I won't fight it.

• Should not the lead say "disease-causing organisms" instead of "disease organisms"? I know that will result in two mentions of "cause" in the sentence, the second "cause" could be changed to "lead to"
• I would not put "abnormalities" in scare quotes, given that you have the next sentence explaining it now
• " contributing as they do to insulation," remove the "as they do"
• Note on the use of emdashes vs. endashes. You have a set of emdashes. Emdashes are longer than endashes, and are used without spaces. Endashes are shorter, and are used with spaces. So either remove the spaces, or swap to endashes (I personally prefer endashes)
• "One study found that some gull species spend 15% of their daylight hours preening during the breeding season, for example, and another showed common loons spend upwards of 25% of their day preening". The "for example" breaks up the sentence awkwardly. I would try to restructure/word the sentence so it flows better.
• "For example, one study showed that the presence of the symbiotic bacteria Enterococcus faecalis in the preen oil of hoopoes inhibited the growth of the bacteria Bacillus licheniformis, a species which breaks down keratin, the main component of feathers" A very long sentence with a lot of punctuation. A solution I often employ when I have too many commas is to replace one of them with an endash. Makes it easier for the reader to keep track of the various clauses and statements.
• "microscopic crypts" crypts is not a very common word in this context. Is it accurate? If so, a link could be useful. Otherwise, maybe pits would be a better word?

• At your suggestion, I've used pits here. The source uses "crypts" and mentions that these features are unique to hoopoe eggs, but I guess "pits" is probably close enough.

• " and such contact allows" I haven't read the associated paper, but it feels like there could be evidence enough to change the "and" to an "as"

• I've changed this to "where"; is that okay?

• "louping ill virus, for example, can be" Feels like another overuse of "for example"

• I've removed all but one instance of "for example" from the article. ;)

• The video needs an Alt Text

• It has alt text already; I'm not sure why it's not displaying.

Very high quality!! Ping me when you've tackled the above :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I think I've addressed all of your concerns. MeegsC (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicely done! Thats a support from me! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

The remaining review comments above are pretty minor, and I'm happy to support this excellent article. One statement that is misleading or incorrect though; ...neighbouring black guillemots that engaged in allopreening were much less likely to fight. Since fights often lead to eggs or chicks being knocked off breeding cliffs...— Unlike Common Guillemots, Black Guillemots don't breed on cliffs, they use crevices, caves and even artificial "holes". Cornell lists a wide variety of nest sites, but they are all basically holes, not ledges Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

And your ref is actually about Common Guillemot, so it looks like an inadvertent species change... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; I just checked that ref myself, and it looks like I put that in way back in 2017. Eek! Fixed now. MeegsC (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Benedict Joseph Fenwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Bishop of Boston who founded the College of the Holy Cross. He presided over a raucous period in New England, replete with schisms, riots, and armed patrols. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Ergo Sum 19:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Fenwick_cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Ruins_of_Ursuline_Convent_1834_Riots.jpg
  • Added a US tag for the first. For the second, I believe it already has a US tag. Ergo Sum 03:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're looking at - I'm not seeing one? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• File:Fenwick_Hall,_Holy_Cross.gif: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've done a search and have been unable to find an instance of publication prior to 2003. I've updated the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 03:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and shows little sign of gaining a consensus for promotion. Unless there is considerable further interest in it over the next few days it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about "perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organized, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate". Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the state of Turkey continues to reject the change of genocide against its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress. Perhaps even more reprehensible than claiming that the events never occurred at all, as is typical of Holocaust deniers, it is often claimed that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the "result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population".

I would like to thank Sturmvogel and Twofingered Typist for reviewing and copyediting the article respectively. (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ovinus[edit]

I'll take this one on, though I've got quite a bit on my on- and off-wiki plate, so expect a full review by next Sunday. Thank you for working on such an important topic. For an idea of where I'm coming from: I know of the Armenian Genocide but little of its details, and nothing about its denial. Very interested to know more. I'll read up on it after I read this lead, but apologies if I ask strange—or insensitive—questions. Things I'll pay particular attention to include WP:FRINGE information, dispassionate but accurate WP:NPOV, and broad understandability.

• In the first sentence: can we clarify that the CUP was led by Turks? With that information I think even someone unfamiliar with the genocide could grasp the lead.
  • The CUP was a party in the Ottoman Empire (Republic of Turkey only being founded in 1923), and many leading CUP members had non-Turkish origins such as Balkan Muslims, Circassians, etc. I have however rephrased to make it more clear that the genocide was orchestrated by the Ottoman state and its ruling party.
    • Thank you for that context, both in the article and for me.
• Cites [2] and [3] are to be reckoned with... that's good, but I'm wondering whether a few of the super long quotes in cites are approaching a violation of WP:NFCC #3. I understand that the information cited is often annoyingly controversial and calls for direct quotes, but I've never seen so much long-form quoting in an article.
  • Before nominating, I tried to trim quotes as much as possible without removing essential information. I'm happy to trim more if that's deemed useful, but it would help to point to specific ones that could be reduced. I don't think the use of quotes currently violates NFCC.
    • I think I was being overly harsh, and looking closer, you're right. Thank you
• Denial was an integral part of the killings, carried out under the guise of resettlement. Can we be more specific? Maybe Turkish officials ... etc. denied undertaking these killings, which were carried out under the guise of resettlement.
  • I'm not sure that's more specific, the key point that I am trying to make here is that, as one source states, "Denial of the Armenian Genocide began concurrently with and was a part of the Committee of Union and Progress’s (CUP) execution of it." (emph. added) We already said that CUP is the perpetrator of the genocide and denial was part of that perpetration.
    • Hm... the phrasing is a bit confusing imo. I imagined "Armenian Genocide denial" as a post-event phenomenon, and I now see that the point of this sentence is to note that it 1. began during the atrocity and 2. greatly helped the CUP commit it. I didn't get (1) and only kind of got (2). I think a similar phrasing to the source is actually better here: "Denial began during the killings, which were carried out under the guise of resettlement, and proved integral to their success/completion/efficacy." Something like that... it also shows a clearer connection as to why denial in particular helped their cause. Thoughts?
      • OK, I have rewritten it hopefully to be more clear. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a reason why we use killing instead of murder in the article?
  • Both are used interchangeably in the sources, however, I think that sometimes "killing" helps maintain a more objective and WP:IMPARTIAL tone.
    • Got it, I generally agree? In The Holocaust "murder" is used sometimes, including in the first paragraph. Is this because of the Nuremberg trials and conviction of many Nazi leaders?
      • Well, I don't really object to the term murder (and it is accurate as de jure murder was never legalized in the Ottoman Empire and a few perpetrators were indeed convicted of murder) but going through the article I can't see anywhere that would be an improvement to use it rather than "killings".
        • Sounds good.
• even any mention I think "any" can be removed here
  • Done
• Turkish citizens who ... "insulting Turkishness" should probably insert a "some" in the front.
  • Done
• The denial of the genocide is hypothesized to contribute to Is this really a hypothesis? This seems like something that could be pretty incontrovertible.
  • OK, removed the hedge
• Otherwise, a great and succinct lead.
  • I appreciate your feedback! (t · c) buidhe 15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

More to follow. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Ovinus, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reminder, and apologies buidhe for disappearing. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem, figured you were busy with IRL stuff. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Background

• before the Turkish presence in the area Maybe just before Turkish presence in the area
  • Done
• During its invasion of Russian and Persian territory, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians What it "its"? Do you mean "their"
  • Reworded, technically it was the army that invaded.
• Armenians barricaded themselves in Van to protect themselves from being massacred I think you can remove "from being massacred" or even "to protect ... massacred"
  • Removed, this seems clear from context
• The vast majority of scholars outside of Turkey Maybe just non-Turkish scholars?
  • Done
• Tried to simplify a sentence, but revert if you disagree. I think splitting the sentence would also work.

Origins

• Made some hands-on changes, please check them (in particular, I changed "later" to "post-war")
  • Thanks for the copyedit!
• Although often called the last stage of genocide, denial was present This first phrase is really striking, but a bit too abstract. It made me pause and think, "The last step of the act of genocide is denying it ever happened. Damn." But then I tripped up. I think separating it into two sentences would be appropriate: Denial is often called the "last stage of genocide", ... brief explanation .... But during the Armenian Genocide, denial was present .... Alternatively you could be a bit more direct and boring: Although denial usually begins after a genocide, during the Armenian Genocide, denial was ...
  • The stages statement comes from the model Eight stages of genocide, of which the eighth and last is denial. However, I don't think any of the alternative formulations is possible to use because in fact, many genocides are denied while carrying them out. For example, the Nazis told Jews that they were being resettled somewhere else rather than sent to extermination camps. I've just removed this clause as unnecessary.
• Thinking about the ordered list from the Ottoman government. Is there a benefit to this "five characteristics" layout, rather than one or two sentences of prose?
  • Prosified
• which rejected the charge that the Ottoman government tried to exterminate the Armenian people Can probably just say which rejected the charge of intentional/systematic extermination. If you don't think that's clear enough, could also do denying they had tried to exterminate the Armenian people
  • Done
• Having read this subsection, I'm not sure about the relevance of the sentence She states that, "The most ... events."
  • Removed
• Continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey was significant Could we be specific, like "political continuity"
  • Well, "political continuity" is misleading because there was continuity on many other levels, i.e. geographic, demographic, cultural, religious, economic, ideological etc. (minus Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians, of course).
• Although everyone at the time acknowledged Who is everyone? I think "everyone" is a bit too informal/imprecise in this case
  • Reworded
• Denial was consolidated during the early republican era What do you mean by consolidated? Like, there were a bunch of different patterns of denial that grew into one?
  • Quoting from the sources cited, "The fabrications were institutionalized in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal as the official narrative of denial about the Armenians" "Denial also emerged with the genocide itself, and was entrenched in the early years of the republic," I changed it to "entrenched" to be more clear.

Image review[edit]

I know this is kind of your specialty here at FAC so this might be a sort of image review review on your part ;)

• Is there a reason the caption quote from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story has weird margins? It feels out of place and more importantly is hard to read.
  • I had a blockquote using {{quote}}. But I restyled it to avoid the margin; let me know if you think that is better.
    • Ohhhhh got it. I think it looks fine now.
• commons:File:Armenian monastery of s apostles in moush How do we know this is PD in Turkey? (no author date information)
  • It doesn't seem that the photographer is disclosed in the source so it should be PD in Turkey (anonymous publication + 70years). Updated image description accordingly.
    • Epic.
• commons:File:Trends in official and quasi-official publications on the Armenian question, 1950–2005.jpg is good, definitely below the TOO when compared to, say, these
• All images freely licensed and with alt text. Corrected a couple typos.
• One alt text specifically cites "women and children" as the depicted victims, while the article text doesn't. Probably should have them be the same? Ambivalent on whether it's neutral to have it in, leaning towards it being fine, esp. given that it gives an example of the emotional appeal of the book.
  • That was actually incorrect alt text since there's no reliable source for what exactly the image depicts; corrected accordingly.
    • Awesome.

Otherwise looks good. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the image review! (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • And thank you for the implicit review review. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'll review this in the next day or two, and add some comments. Please ping me if I don't follow up in due course. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Kaiser matias Ping as requested. I am looking forward to what you have to say! (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, see some comments below:

• I'd suggest adding that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is also known as the Dashnaktsutyun; I'd argue they are more well-known under their Armenian name, or even just as the "Dashnaks".
  • Done
• "In the meantime, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory in the Balkan Wars..." They also lost Libya in a separate war, which was also a big issue for them, being their last African-controlled territory (Egypt notwithstanding).
  • I'm aware of this but most books I've read on the Armenian Genocide barely mention Libya if at all, while focusing on the Balkan Wars as an important precipitating event. I just checked two of them (They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else and Denial of Violence); the former only mentions Libya once while spending several pages on the Balkan Wars, the latter does not mention Libya at all but does extensively cover the Balkan Wars. I believe this is because 1) many/most CUP leaders came from the Balkans and 2) there was a large number of atrocities committed against Balkan Muslims and consequently inflow of refugees to Anatolia; I have not heard about a large number of Ottoman civilians forced to leave Libya.

Fair enough, works for me then.

• "Armenian soldiers and officers were removed from their posts pursuant to a 25 February order." Was this a political or military order? I think it would be prudent to clarify, and if I'm recalling correctly, it did stem from the government.
  • The order was issued by Enver, added to article.
• The photo from the book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements says the photo is "claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims"; was this claim true, or is it a distortion?
  • It's not clear. Most sources cite this book as a work of government propaganda and genocide denial, i.e. not a reliable source. But, it is true that some atrocities were committed by Armenians against Muslims and it is possible that this photograph indeed depicts what it claims to. I can't access the page in Dündar right now but IIRC he does not address the question of whether the photographs are genuine.

Thanks for checking. Best to leave it then; ideally there would be some clarity, but can only work with what we have.

• "Following the genocide, many survivors sought an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia..." I wonder if it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sevres called for such a state, and that the Turkish War of Independence put an end to that. What do you think?
  • Added
• "Denial was consolidated during the early republican era." This sentence leaves me wondering what else was done, and really I think it would serve better to be moved to become the first sentence of the next section (ie. starting the "Causes" section that goes on to describe early republican activities. If so, I think the quote by Zurcher could be moved there too, but I'm not sure the best place yet; I'll wait for your reply and look at it some more.
  • As far as I can tell there was not active denial apart from strict censorship (briefly mentioned in "Destruction and concealment of evidence") done right in the 1920s as the issue appeared to vanish and only reappeared in 1965. Neither of the two sources cited give details.
• Is "Behramzade Nusret" the correct name order? As far as I know Nusret is a given name and Behramzade looks like a Persian/Azerbaijani surname. I'm not familiar with the individual so could be off, but it just caught my eye.
  • Yes, this is confirmed by Judgment at Istanbul page 195. Before the surname law most Turkish Muslims did not have a surname, so this individual probably had two given names, Behramzade and Nusret.

Good, thanks for checking.

• "On 11 January 1916, socialist deputy Karl Liebknecht the Armenian Genocide in the Reichstag..." Liebkhnecht did what? It looks like a verb is missing.
  • Fixed
• Also regarding Germany during the genocide itself: Hovhannisian has noted elsewhere (in his 1969 Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918) that by 1918 the Germans were getting annoyed with continued Ottoman massacres of Christians, and the public's reaction to these reports, and that it was a factor in Germany's intervention in the Caucasus in May 1918. He doesn't explicitly mention the Armenians and so I don't know how relevant it is here, but it could be further show the shifting perspective in Germany between 1916 and 1921.
  • Hmm, I hadn't ever heard that in my reading about Germany and the Armenian Genocide.

Like I said it was really more an off-hand remark in his book and not really expanded on, so not anything pressing here. Just thought I'd mention it anyways.

• Further on the German side of things, I wonder if it's worth noting the high number of people in Germany with Turkish heritage here; I get it strays from the overall message, and there is a related article already linked, but I'm curious if there's anything on how that impacted the German decision to recognize the genocide.
  • Added
• Regarding the US: "Each year, the president issues a commemorative message on 24 April." Is there a date that started?
  • It appears that this has been going on at least since 1994:[8]. Added to article
• Also, there is a mention of Turkey allowing use of air bases, but I also think noting the NATO connection here is worth doing; it is arguably a major reason why the US has not officially recognized the genocide.
  • Added
• ICTY should be spelled out.
  • Done
• The Khojaly massacre is noted, and I wonder if it would be worth mentioning here that Azerbaijan considers it a genocide, which is arguably in response to the Armenian genocide. Not an important detail, but it does show an effort to downplay things.
  • It did say that in the previous version, but I have expanded on it a bit to make it more clear
• I didn't see any mention of Hrant Dink in the article. His death was a major event and gave widespread coverage of both the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denial of it (and has it's own article: Assassination of Hrant Dink). I'd encourage trying to find a way to mention him in there, as that was a key event in this story.
  • Added
• A look through the sources shows that the major scholars on the topic are included, both on the Armenian and Turkish side, which is good to see. Aside from Hrant Dink (noted above) I don't see anyone major missing.

• This is obviously a contentious article, and one that attracts a lot of attention. As it is something I'm quite familiar with and have studied, I focused on the content rather than the writing, which I'll leave to better-qualified individuals. I found it to be well-done and given the type of coverage a topic like this deserves, and look forward to seeing it promoted. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice, I'm happy to add my support to a well-done article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Marais des Cygnes[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And now, an FAC whose title I do not know how to pronounce. Confederate cavalry was retreating across Kansas after being defeated near Kansas City two days earlier. After slowing down at a river crossing, they were attacked by pursuing Union cavalry, who hurried the retreat along. This minor action set the stage for the more significant Battle of Mine Creek later the same day. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

whose title I do not know how to pronounce - there you go. We could probably add the IPA, no? RetiredDuke (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand IPA symbols well enough to feel comfortable adding them. Hog Farm _Talk 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I do, added. (t · c) buidhe 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review—pass[edit]

Sources pass per ACR. Source checks below: (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Jenkins 1906, p. 52.: Supports that Sedalia raid was successful. Assume that the other source supports Glasgow.
• Scott 1893, p. 329.
• Scott 1893, p. 330. Supported
• National Park Service 2010, p. 5. Supported
• National Park Service 2010, p. 12. Supported
• National Park Service 2010, p. 14. Mostly supported, but "the site of the battle is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places," needs a citation to an updated listing of protected battlefields and an "as of" date.
• National Park Service 2010, p. 24 Supported
• Assuming the minor caveat above is addressed, support on 1c, 1e, 2c, and 3. Other criteria not evaluated. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: - Would a page from the Kansas Historical Society here be good enough to establish that it is not listed? It's hard to find up-to-date stuff saying that most things aren't on the NRHP, so it'll likely be difficult to cite this without arguing on absence from a list as an argument from silence. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • If there's an official, current list of NRHP sites in Kansas that would be best to cite imo. The absence from the list shows that the site currently isn't recognized. You could also supplement with the Kansas Historical Society source. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Here's the official NPS list. It's very long and you have to start typing in the search box about halfway down the page to get results to come up, so I'll support with with the KHS source. Hog Farm _Talk 04:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I have used those two sources. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: A minor thing, but I notice that this article has "Part of Price's Raid" in the infobox, but the other events in {{Campaignbox Price's Missouri Expedition}} have "Part of the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War"—surely all of them should be one or the other? Aza24 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Technically both are correct. I have no idea what the relevant style guidelines for that are, but I personally think the more specific Price's Raid (or Price's Missouri Expedition) is more meaningful. Willing to go with either one though. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I like the more specific Price one as well. What I wonder is if we can/should—for uniformity's sake—switch the other articles to such a parameter? Aza24 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll do that and see if I get reverted. I'm the primary author of about 2/3s of the Price's Raid articles, and they aren't very highly edited, so I don't expect reversion. Hog Farm _Talk 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility: the first and third images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Heartfox: - Thanks for the review. I've added alt text to both images lacking it although I have to admit I'm not really sure what sort of alt text is best for complex maps. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

• I'll have a look soon. I don't think I've reviewed an American civil war article before, so it's going to be interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh oh - "interesting"! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I did watch a few relevant movies and all of North & South, so I should be covered! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• "while Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon and the Union Army supported the United States and opposed secession" A local faction of the Union Army? Because it's written as if it was local to Missouri, but as far as I can read it was the general army of the union?
  • I've rephrased this to make it clearer that this is only referring to Lyon's small part of the Union Army
• "and join the Confederate States of America" Is "of America" needed in subsequent mentions after the first one?
  • The Confederate States of America is the formal name, so I have a preference for using that. I'm unaware of any MOS specifically dealing with this, and it's not a big deal to me, so I'm willing to change this if desired.
• "As events east of the Mississippi River turned against the Confederates, General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, was ordered to transfer the infantry under his command to the fighting in the Eastern and Western Theaters." It is unclear from reading this sentence and the preceding what side he was on.
  • Confederate, clarified.
• "allowing an enemy force to operate in his rear" By or at his rear? "In his rear" reads a bit, erm, oddly...
  • And that's what I get for using military jargon. Rephrased.
• " Blunt suggested an ambitious flanking movement, but was overruled by Major General Samuel R. Curtis,[26] commander of the Department of Kansas.[23] The plan would have involved only using a token force to attack the Confederate position at the Marais des Cygnes and slipping most of the rest of the Union army around the Confederate flank and then attack Price's army in the morning." Flanking is linked twice in this paragraph.
  • Unlinked the latter. It's actually two links to slightly different articles, which is why the duplink checker didn't catch it for me.
• Flanking is linked for a thirds time under battle.
  • Removed. I'd linked to a redirect that time. It's hard to remember what you've linked and what you haven't sometimes when writing content
• "and Blunt's plan did not considered the fact" Consider?
  • Yep, that's what it was suppose to be. Corrected.
• "A brief friendly fire incident involving the 4th Iowa Cavalry and the 2nd Colorado Cavalry ensued" Anything on what triggered this?
  • Added. Iowans didn't know there was friendly troops in their front.
• Any pictures of what the battle could have looked like, or the kinds of units in it?
  • I've added the best image I'm aware of. It's from a Union veteran of the campaign and shows Confederate cavalry during the raid and is probably pretty representative. Neither side really had combat photographers or artists west of the Mississippi at this point, so it's probably around the best available.

That's great! Perhaps link Price's Raid in the caption? And maybe mention who it was drawn by? FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. And it helps that the artist is notable, so I've linked him too.

• Thomas Freeman is a disambiguation page.
  • Fixed to a redlink. None of the people at the dab page are the right ones.
• "Marais des Cynges" should be Cygnes.
  • Apparently I can't spell Marais des Cygnes in addition to not being able to pronounce it.
• Anything on what this event meant for the wider war? Part of a series of defeats? Sign of weakening Confederacy?
  • Frankly, this didn't mean really anything for the wider war. The preceding battle (Westport) and the succeeding battle (Mine Creek) are considered significant, but this one was really just an insignificant skirmish. The sources don't really ascribe this as anything beyond a rear guard/delaying action.
    • @FunkMonk: - Thanks for starting a review. I've replied to all of the above and made the changes except for two. One there's really no answer to due to lack of overall significance for the battle, and the other I haven't implemented yet but am willing to implement if desired. Hog Farm _Talk 06:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good, I added one reply before your last comment, after that I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support - that's all from me, the American Civil War is kind of exotic for us Europeans, so even if it was a minor incident, it was still interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

• "with a cavalry force with hopes of drawing". "with ... with". Maybe 'with a cavalry force in the hope of drawing'?
  • Done
• "without participating in any heavy combat." Delete "any".
  • Done
• "bringing the total Union strength present to 3,500". Do we need "present"?
  • Not in particular; removed.
• Infobox: "over 2,000" → 'Over 2,000'.
  • Done
• "As the American Civil War began in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state". "As" → 'When'.
  • Done
• "and a portion of the state legislature voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America, while another element of the legislature". Optional: Delete "of the legislature".
  • Done. I'm too use to writing college papers with minimum word counts where being excessively wordy is essentially rewarded by the word count.

That made me smile. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Background" is long. Consider splitting at "Despite having limited".
  • Done
• "All in all". Would anything be lost if this were deleted?
  • I've changed to "Overall". Is this acceptable?

It was an open question. Personally I prefer "Overall" to "All in all". Personally I wouldn't have either. But I'm not the nominator.

• "The Confederates suffered at least 800 casualties during the engagement and their morale suffered". "suffered →

suffered". Time for a synonym?

• • Rephrased
• "able to recruit between 1,200[18] and 2,000 men." Do you mean 'either', rather than "between"?
  • It's really that nobody can agree on this number. I've added another estimate and rephrased this.
• "with the camp split into two segments by the Marais des Cygnes River". That seems an exceptionally stupid thing to have done. Do we know why?
  • In a self-trout type moment, I somehow managed to miss the detail that Price was expecting an extended flanking maneuver, not a direct attack on Trading Post in my approximately 10 readings of the relevant part of Collins. While I left Buresh and Stalnaker at home when I went back to college, I checked Collins, Sinisi, and Lause and that's the only really relevant thing related to that that's mentioned. I will note also note that Shelby and William L. Cabell were the only two high-ranking Confederate officers involved in this campaign who can really be described as particularly competent.

And that gave me a good chortle.

• "then attack Price's army in the morning." "attack" → 'attacking'.
  • Went with "to attack" instead and rephrased this down to only one "and" in the sentence
• "Blunt's plan did not considered the fact". ?
  • Also caught by Funk above, I've corrected this.
• "was not conducive to a rapid movment". Delete "a"; insert an 'e' in "movment".
  • Done
• "A battery was also deployed at this time"> Perhaps 'An artillery battery was ..."?
  • Done
• "on a row of two 140-foot (43 m) tall mounds". Can two of anything be said to form a "row"?
  • Changed to "a pair"
• "the 4th Iowa Cavalry on the Union right attacked, using the broken ground as cover. Confederate marksmanship at that portion of the line was very poor, and the Iowans easily took the right of the position". If the Iowans were on the Union right, would not the (Confederate) position they captured be on the (confederate) left? Perhaps best to drop the second "took the right"?
  • Done. After reading back through the source, I am highly confused as to what I was trying to say with the second "took the right"
• "but despite firing at a 15° angle". 'a 15° elevation'? Note the link.
  • Done
• "of the misses did strike". "did strike" → 'struck'.
  • Done
• "so the mound was abandoned." "mound" singular?
  • Yes. The Confederate commander facing the two militia cavalry regiments ... is referring to one mound, while the Iowans captured the other. Does this overall section need rephrased?

I think that if you did something like add 'which included one of the mounds' to the end of "and the Iowans easily took the position" it would help. I am assuming that was the case?

• "The 2nd Arkansas Cavalry, operating in a mounted role". Why is it necessary to state that a cavalry unit was operating in a mounted role. Won't a reader assume that? (Unless told otherwise.)
  • Removed
• "and the Union troops were temporarily halted". Possibly add 'by these'. Assuming that was the case.
  • Done
• "presented another challenged to the crossing." I suspect a typo. Or a "misspeak".
  • Typo. Fixed
• "Sanborn left to personally go find Curtis for orders". Suggest deleting "go".
  • Done
• "formed a line from the cavalry brigades commanded by". Suggest "from" → 'with'.
  • Done
• The "Battle" section has four mentions of "the field", including two in consecutive sentences in the last paragraph.
  • I've rephrased two of them, including one from the last paragraph
• "that had begun the campaign with 12,000 men." Suggest deleting "men".
  • Done.

Nicely done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - I've replied to all above, although I do have a query. Hog Farm _Talk 22:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A couple of minor things above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - And both have been done in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 16:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I was about to support, but this tweak - "the Iowans easily took the position, which consisted of one of the mounds. Union artillery fired on the mounds" - seems to have thrown your chronology. I assume that the artillery ceased fire on the right hand mound once it was captured by friendly forces? The article currently suggests not. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've changed the order of the sentences there so that the artillery fire is mentioned before the capture of the mound, which should solve the chronology issue. Hog Farm _Talk 17:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Just making sure you saw the reply above. Hog Farm _Talk 17:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Hog Farm, I had unwatched this. I assume that I thought I had already supported. Now done. Good work - as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, I anticipate supporting, pending resolution of nitpicks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Marais des Cygnes/archive1#Comments from SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Temporary gentlemen[edit]

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For centuries the British army was officered by gentlemen, drawn from the upper classes. The requirements of the First World War led to a more than ten-fold expansion in the officer corps and, with insufficient men of the traditional officer class available, the positions were filled with those drawn from the middle and working classes. Such men were given temporary rank only and it came to be considered that they held the status of a gentleman only while they held the King's commission; they were expected to return to their former stations after the war which led to a number of social issues. The article also covers temporary gentlemen commissioned into the British Army during the Second World War and National Service, and those who held similar positions in the Portuguese conscript army of the 1960s and 1970s.

The article has recently passed a MILHIST A-class review and I am indebted to all the reviewers there for their improvements - Dumelow (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Pass per my A-class review. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

• FN15 needs page number. Ditto FN81, check for others

Replaced FN15 and added an archive link for FN112 (for which I didn't have a page number). FN81 is this page on Google Books but I couldn't determine the page number. Is it OK to use the direct link to the page as the URL? - Dumelow (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not alone, because what users are able to see is variable - for example that link doesn't lead to any page for me. You could use a section name if there is one; if there is absolutely no indicator of a page number or other way of identifying location within the source, you could include a quote as a last resort. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the chapter title (all citations are to the first page of that chapter). I've heard that books.google.co.uk links don't work for everyone. Should I convert them to books.google.com? - Dumelow (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges

I'm not sure what you mean here? All the page numbers I could see were prefaced either p. or pp.? - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For example in FN37 you have "191–2", but then in FN112 you have "197–198". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah understood, thanks. I've written it out in full. Think that was the only instance - Dumelow (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• FN68: given work title is the article title, given publisher is the work title. Why cite this to a book review? Ditto FN109

I've got rid of FN68. I don't have a copy of Allport to hand but will have by the end of this week and will convert FN109 into book footnotes - Dumelow (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• FN75 is missing author and date

Book review now replaced with references to the actual book - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am never quite sure how to approach Hansard references, hopefully I have corrected this? - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is now FN74 - ODNB. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for clarifying. I've converted it to a tempalte:citation format and included author, date etc. Hopefully I've not forgotten anything? - Dumelow (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hansard is a work title

Fixed, I think? - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• FN117: NATO is the publisher, Defesa Nacional is an organizational author

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Formatting should match between References and Bibliography

I've swapped all of the "template:cite web" etc. for "template:citation"; is that what you meant? - Dumelow (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Partly, but now you've got inconsistencies between those and the source-specific templates like ODNB. The other piece is what information is included: for example in FN108 you've got an author affiliation, which doesn't appear in Bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. I think I've fixed the ODNB by switching it to template:citation. Are the Gazette references OK as they are or should I convert them also? FN108 should be fixed once I have the book and convert it into a standard biblio ref - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

When I was studying I was told not to use locations for obvious publishers (Cambridge University Press etc.) but I have no real objection either way. I've added them to all for consistency - Dumelow (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Bibliography

Think I caught it (Lewis and Leeson were transposed) - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• You cite several theses - how do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • PhD theses are usually reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised..." (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Tony Gould is identified in the text as a historian - what is his background in history?

There's a profile at the Royal Literary Fund. He's largely a medical historian but served in the Ghurkhas which inspired him to write the history used here. I've no reason to doubt his military history credentials and Imperial Warriors is widely cited by other works - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• What makes Root a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Root is cited by Hodgkinson (2013) and Deeks (2017) who are used in this article and in related literature: Tracey (2018), Williams (2017), Paxman (2013), Hall & Stead (2020), Paul (2017) and Williams (2019) - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

What has this been cited in that is not a student work? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

For what its worth, I see a DPhil thesis at a major research university to be closer to a journal article or academic work than student work --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Two books, plus a journal article, plus a handful of DPhil theses is more than the average peer reviewed paper gets citied in. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

Sorry I missed the ACR. I saw this there but didn't get time to do a full review while it was open.

• Some of the image captions could benefit from more detail or be worded to be more relevant to the text the images support.

I'm wary of making them too long but I've had a go at providing some context and would welcome any feedback - Dumelow (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• The prices in the background section are interesting but something to compare it to would be nice. I'm wary of the inflation template but it gives some idea, or perhaps a soldier's pay? Just something that gives a little context.

Agreed. I've converted all values into modern equivalents in footnotes and added some background on pay levels in the different classes and the pay of private soldiers (the basic rate of which remained the same between the 18th century and 1915, though efficiency and re-enlistment supplements were introduced in the later period) - Dumelow (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weren't/aren't OTCs a university thing rather than a school one?

Prior to 1948 the cadet corps in schools, what we now know as the Combined Cadet Force, was the junior division of the Officers' Training Corps (which is now solely university age). It's covered a little at Officers' Training Corps#General history of the units, though I've often thought we need an article covering the history of cadet forces in the UK as it is quite complex - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I always thought "enlisted" was an American term. Do sources commonly use it to refer to private soldiers and NCOs in the British Army?

Good point. I've switched to the Commonwealth term other ranks and linked at first use - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• had to be "forced to take commissions to their financial detriment" Who are you quoting here?

It was an unnamed Ministry of Labour official but I don't think it adds much. I've paraphrased it - Dumelow (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• However Macmillan came from a family of good social standing I'm sure you'll have seen "however" seized upon at FAC in the past. It is over-used on Wikipedia and I'm not sure this adds anything. Check for others.

I'm a bit out of touch with recent FACs but I agree, particularly where I'd used however at the start of sentences. I've been through and addressed this - Dumelow (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Temporary gentlemen were demobilised relatively quickly at the war's end Relative to what?

No idea. Removed, they were demobilised quickly - Dumelow (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• this was rare happening only on 1,109 occasions Missing some punctuation there I think. Also, out of how many? A percentage might be helpful here.

Reworded. Percentages would be problematic as there is uncertainty on the number of temporary commissions granted (I've added a footnote on this), but I've added a comparison to the number commissioned by the traditional military college route during the war - Dumelow (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hugh Pollard wrote in February 1919 Tell the reader who Pollard is and what his expertise is in the matter

Done - Dumelow (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Many temporary officers found their financial situation worsened by demobilisation Is it worth mentioning the wider context of tense industrial relations and economic recession that followed the war?

Yes, good call. The sources are clear that the civilian wages were lower than the army's even in 1919, but I've added a bit later on about the effects of the 1920-21 recession - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• were often barred from making use of the labour exchanges Why?

Hopefully clarified - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• former public school boys and the sons of serving officers; with only 5% of the intake from the other ranks that seems an odd place for a semicolon, also MOS:% would have that written as "per cent" or "percent", not "%".

Removed semi colon and spelt out % - Dumelow (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Frederick Hubert Vinden reformed the system What was his position?

Added, his boss was involved also - Dumelow (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

These are all quite minor and I'm sure I'll support in due course. Thank you for an interesting read. I find these sorts of unintended social consequences of war fascinating! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Harry, some really good points and the article is much improved for them. I think I've addressed everything above now, but would welcome a review of my changes - Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look through your changes and they are indeed improvements. Glad to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION; MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Heartfox. I've had a go but I am never quite sure what is pertinent to add and would welcome any advice - Dumelow (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Heartfox (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This nomination has been open for four weeks and has attracted only the one support. Unless there is a little more interest over the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Mysteries of Isis[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Greco-Roman mystery initiations dedicated to an ancient Egyptian goddess may be little-known today, but they seem to be indirectly responsible for the vague pop-cultural impression that ancient Egyptian religion was something secretive and mystical. And what other religious tradition has to be studied by reading a bawdy novel about a man who's been turned into a donkey?

This has been a GA since 2016, but I only considered it comprehensive enough to nominate for FAC after incorporating some German-language sources, translated by User:Ermenrich. There's also a French-language source, translated for me by User:Iry-Hor; many thanks to them both. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 05:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ffranc[edit]

Very fascinating article! I'll start reviewing and hopefully that can inspire more people to join in.

• I fixed a bunch of links that went to redirect pages and did some light copy editing. Feel free to revert any error I might have introduced.
• The M in "mysteries" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not when the article mentions the Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries. I think either way is acceptable, but consistency would be good.

@Ffranc: The sources themselves differ (people seem more likely to capitalize "Eleusinian Mysteries" than the others), but I made it consistently lowercase.

• Note 1, which explains the use of the word "cult", is attached to the first use of the word in the section Spread of the Isis cult. But the word appears already in the section before. Not sure what to do here, and it might not be necessary to do anything. Move the note if you think it's a good idea; it could perhaps even be in the lead section.

I removed instances of the word "cult" (except in one quotation) before this point in the text.

• the only known sites where the mysteries were performed were in Italy, Greece, and Anatolia. The article brings up a theory about a locations in modern-day Egypt, so this formulation may be too strong. Something along the lines of "the only sites where the mysteries are known for certain to have been performed..." might work better. And since these sites are among the few things known for certain about the mysteries, I think it would be a good idea to provide more specifics about them. Where are they and how do we know that mysteries were performed there?

I've adjusted this paragraph to clarify; see what you think.

• Hanson 1989, pp. 333–335 is a reference to three pages, but it's only used to support one short quotation, which presumably is on one or at most two pages. Might be a remnant from a previous version where it was used to support more material.

It's not; the book is one of those that have the original language on the recto and the English translation on the verso, so the quoted sentence begins on page 333, jumps past the Latin on page 334, and finishes on page 335.

Ah, OK. Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "adorned like the sun and set up in the manner of a divine statue", as Apuleius describes it. Similar thing here. Can you add a citation with a page number specifically for the quotation?

I could, but it's really only two pages, for the same reason as in the bullet point above, and the structure of the article text makes it awkward to cite the quotation separately from the rest of the passage, unlike in the bullet point below.

OK, not needed then. Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Apuleius calls it "the nocturnal mysteries of the foremost god" but gives no other details. Same as above. The main citation covers multiple pages and can be complemented with one specifically for the quotation.

Done.

• In either case, it indicates that Lucius's vision transports him beyond the human world. What is meant by "beyond the human world" here? I think this needs to be more clear or more cautious, since it could indicate radically different concepts - a non-human existence within this world, or transcendence to another world entirely.

I've deleted this sentence, as the point I was trying to convey—that Lucius visits regions of the cosmos where it shouldn't be possible for a living human to go—is made clear enough by the rest of the text.

• The commented edition from 2015 could use some basic credential when it's first introduced, like the name of the publisher or just that the authors are scholars.

I've never been sure how to handle it, given that it has five authors, so it's inconvenient to list all their names, and the parts that I cite aren't individually attributed.

Just saying that it's from Brill would be enough as far as I'm concerned. Or you could go with Keulen et al. which is used in the reference section. The way it reads now just makes it look a bit suspicious, like if someone is trying to hide what the source really is! Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• The transition from the discussion about symbols to the discussion about Osiris and Serapis could be better. Are Gasparini's arguments written in a polemic against the astrological interpretation, or are they unrelated? The section heading says "contact with the gods" but the last two paragraphs seem to be about Osiris/Serapis in general, not necessarily contact with him.

This one will get thorny; I'll have to think about how to rearrange things in this section.

• Isiac initiation, by giving the devotee a dramatic, mystical experience of the goddess, added emotional intensity to the process. Wouldn't this apply to other mystery cults as well? Is someone arguing that the experience was more intense in the Isiac mysteries than in the others? If so it needs inline attribution.

Bøgh is contrasting conversion in the Isis cult with the Bacchic mysteries, where there doesn't seem to have been a very significant change in religious identity, and with Mithraism, which seems to have been less mystical and more based on abstruse intellectual concepts. I'll try to think of a way to clarify that.

• The article could make it more clear if the term Isiacus/Isiac refers only to those initiated in the mysteries, or to anyone who participates in the cult of Isis. Likewise, this distinction could be more clear whenever other sources than Apuleius are brought up. Did Plutarch write specifically about the mysteries or about the cult in general?

I get the impression that Isiacus just referred to a devotee, not specifically to an initiate, but the sources don't explicitly say so. Plutarch refers to "those undergoing initiation" (Griffiths 1970, p. 121) but doesn't provide detail. I've clarified Plutarch, but I don't know how to address Isiacus.

• Christian emperors increasingly restricted the practice of non-Christian religions, which they condemned as "pagan". I removed the second clause here, but feel free to restore it if you want to. The word "pagan" is such a can of worms - what it "originally" meant, who used it in ancient times, what intent it was used with and so on - that I think it's best to just leave it out, since it's not important here.

No problem.

• The "Influence on other traditions" section could be more clear and concise in general. It's not always entirely clear when it's about the mysteries of Isis, mystery religions in general, or the cult of Isis in general, and some of the info that isn't about the mysteries of Isis might be too detailed for this article.

The discussions on this subject always seem to treat the mystery cults as a group when contrasting them with Christianity, except when citing particular points of comparison found in Apuleius. But The Golden Ass is the most detailed source we have on any of the mystery cults centered on non-Greek deities (Isis, Mithras, Cybele), which are the ones most often compared with Christianity, so it comes up in these debates a lot. Which passages do you think need cutting or clarification?

When it comes to comparisons between Christianity and mystery cults in general, I think there is currently too much detail. There doesn't need to be more than a concise explanation that there is a tradition of comparing them, that it always has been controversial, and then the article can focus on the arguments about the mysteries of Isis in particular. Some of the paragraphs can possibly be summarized in one or two sentences, without creating confusion or losing info about the Isiac mysteries. Some of the other info could be moved to Greco-Roman mysteries, which currently has a shorter section about Christianity than this article, and is missing some of the details mentioned here. Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think there is an important gap in the reception history. There is a mention of early 20th-century theories about "dying and rising gods" in a footnote, and there is coverage of the impact of Life of Sethos under "Influence in modern times". Were there no other early modern readers of The Golden Ass who commented on the mysteries of Isis? Was the rationalist cult of Isis in France also based on Terrasson, or did it use other sources, and how does it tie in with the mysteries in particular? When did people realize that Sethos wasn't an ancient work, and how did that impact the view of the mysteries? Was there any particular consensus, or major dispute, among 19th-century scholars? Can something be said about contemporary scholarship, does it follow some trend? Take all of this as suggestions; I don't know how much this has been studied, but I think the article should say something about how we got from Terrasson and Masonic mythology to where scholars are today.

As far as I can tell, Sethos was virtually forgotten, starting in the early nineteenth century and lasting until Lefkowitz dug it up in 1996. I've added a sentence to that effect, which is as much as I can squeeze out of the sources. The French revolutionary tradition was drawing on other sources as well as Apuleius, and I'll add something to that effect soon. I can't tell that Apuleius's account of the mysteries had any major effects outside the influence of Sethos until the emergence of the modern scholarly debate about mysteries, in the late nineteenth century.

• Are the temple ruins in the pictures known sites where mystery rites were performed, or are they more general cult sites? Wouldn't hurt to have this explicitly in the image captions.

As far as I know, they're not known sites for the mysteries. These images were added by GPinkerton in December, and I wouldn't mind removing them if they seem to give a misleading impression that the mysteries were performed there.

Up to you. My spontaneous impression was that I wanted to know whether they were sites of the mystery cult or not, but I couldn't find the info in the article. Ffranc (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to have trans-title and trans-chapter parameters for the sources and further reading entries that aren't in English.

I can do that, though Google Translate renders one word in those titles in a way that may be wrong; maybe I can check with Ermenrich. A. Parrot (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. The article generally looks very good. Will see if I find more things to bring up. Ffranc (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I read through the material about Isis mysteries in Burkert 1987 and Bremmer 2014. Some thoughts:

• On p. 17, Burkert makes a point about how the initiation/conversion in Apuleius does not imply any withdrawal from the world. Could make a good addition to the discussion about conversion and the nature of the religion.

• Bremmer lists what he says are all relevant inscriptions (some with reservations) on p. 114. There aren't that many of them, so all can be mentioned in the article (for example, by naming each location + the number of inscriptions found there). On p. 111 he says there's a total of six Isis aretalogies that have been found "inscribed on stone", and on p. 113 that the two earliest don't mention mysteries, which I think is relevant info. I also think the relevant line from the aretalogies from Maroneia and Andros, "I revealed mysteries unto men", deserves to be quoted. It's already discussed as a link between Isis and mystery rites, and it would help readers to know what the link looks like.

• Burkert says on p. 66 that "The interpretation of romances as mystery texts was inaugurated by Karl Kerényi and ingeniously persued by Reinhold Merkelbach", with some more details in a footnote. Bremmer comments very briefly on "the older literature" in a footnote on p. 114. It's not much, and it might be better covered in other sources, but this is the kind of material I think the article is missing. Since so much is unknown about the mystery rites, the study of them becomes an important topic in its own right. Various aspects of this are already present in the article but the coverage seems incomplete.

• The abstract of this paper (I haven't read the paper itself) says a "visual indicator" left by the Isiac mysteries is "the mystical cista". A web search on Isis and cista gives several other hits but it's not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

• I see several sources bring up Tibullus ("The oldest literary witness for mysteries of Isis is in fact Tibullus", Burkert 1987, p. 40) but he's not mentioned here.

Nothing more for now. I hope I'm not sounding too negative. The article is impressive and there's not much that needs to be done before I can support on comprehensiveness. Ffranc (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ffranc: I'm working on significant revisions to address these concerns, but it's slow going and may take a couple of days. A. Parrot (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ffranc: I've reorganized somewhat and incorporated better treatment of the evidence outside Apuleius. Some of it is based on machine translation of Veymiers 2020, so I'll have to check with Iry-Hor to confirm that my text is correct. As for Kerényi and Merkelbach's hypothesis, I'm not sure what to do about it. Despite Merkelbach's significance, I'm not sure how current it really is—the only recent source to discuss it is Alvar 2008, which mercilessly derides it. And, as is the problem with a lot of the sources' discussion of the history of the study of mystery cults, I'm not sure how much the hypothesis was applied to the mysteries of Isis specifically as opposed to mystery cults in general. A. Parrot (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks good at a first glance, I'll read through it more properly soon. One thing I spotted is a sentence that ends abruptly: One possible piece of evidence is a stela from Thessalonica in the late second century BCE that [41]. I might be misreading Burkert, but the point doesn't seem to be so much about specific arguments in Kerényi's or Merkelbach's works, but the very concept of treating romances (i.e. Apuleius) as serious sources for the mysteries in modern scholarship. If that's the case, it seems relevant considering how prominent Apuleius is in this article. But my main concern - how we got from Sethos to something approaching current scholarship - has been addressed with the addition about 19th-century Egyptology, so it's not of major importance. Ffranc (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness looks excellent now. I only have a few minor issues about clarity:

• Scholars dispute whether the mysteries of Isis existed before the time of the Roman Empire... This is from the Sources section, after the Origins section already has discussed the dispute over the origin of the mysteries (and potential earlier dates). I think it would fit better in the Origins section, where it can introduce the dispute and make it unecessary to repeat the same discussion under Sources.

I moved it into this section because discussing these details requires going into the evidence, and I wanted to collect and survey all the non-Apuleian evidence in one place. But I've moved it up per your suggestion, and it does seem more fluid.

I see your point. I was really just thinking about the introduction of the dispute. I left that sentence in the Origins section and moved the survey of the evidence back down to Sources. But either way could work, I won't mind if you restore it or move it around some other way. Ffranc (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Several texts from Roman times refer to people who were initiated in the Isis cult. Similar thing here. This is relevant in the Fragmentary evidence section above, and should be superfluous in the section about Apuleius where it currently is.

Yes, I meant to cut this line when adding the new section, but I missed it. Gone now.

• Do the aretalogies really say that Isis "gave sacred or hidden writings to initiates"? The line quoted by Bremmer only says she "revealed mysteries", which doesn't have to mean writings. Are there other lines in the aretalogies that talk about writings?

On p. 113, Bremmer quotes the Maroneia aretalogy as saying "She (Isis) has invented writings with Hermes, and from these the holy ones for the initiates, but the public ones for everyone". Pakkanen, incidentally, quotes the one from Andros as saying "I terrifyingly pronounced the sacred words to the mystai".

Yes, I misread that, sorry. Maroneia and Andros don't include the "I revealed mysteries" line, but they do talk about holy writings. Ffranc (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat hesitant about describing aretalogies as "poems in praise of the goddess". I'm sure they can be said to have poetic qualities by modern definitions, but aren't they primarily lists of attributes and achievements, not written according to any particular poetic form?

I was under the impression that they were poems (because they're often likened to hymns), but looking back I see that the sources don't say so explicitly, so I changed it to "texts".

• Such inscriptions are only found in Italy and the eastern Mediterranean ... In Egypt itself, there are only a few texts that may allude to the mysteries of Isis. This would benefit from more cautious language to avoid contradiction.

Done.

• the evidence about Mithraism suggests it was less the process of joining it was less mystical and more intellectual. I think you've formulated this in two different ways at the same time.

Yes; I've fixed it. A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully that's it. I'll take a few more looks at the article but I doubt I'll find anything major. You've done a really good job. Ffranc (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks great as far as I can see. Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives some false positives from sites that have copied from Wikipedia, as is to be expected from an article like this. I'll leave the prose review to native English speakers, I haven't done spot checks and I know little about image license tags beyond "clearly free", but I support on everything else. Ffranc (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been up for over three weeks now and has attracted little interest. If you can call in any favours from experienced reviewers I would suggest that you do so if the nomination is to avoid being archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm intending to review this. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

Just a few things:

• "The element of Greek mysteries that certainly did not exist in Egypt was the opportunity for ordinary individuals to undergo initiation" - one gets the impression that (perhaps unlike the Mithras mystery cult) the Isis mysteries were a rather posh affair - do the sources have anything to say about this?
• Likewise on "gender balance".

I can't find anything on the demographics of initiation, unlike the demographics of Isis's priesthood. Bowden has a short section on "Who was initiated?", but it's mostly saying that our evidence is so sparse that we don't know.

• Nothing about the "sacred knot" featured in both the statues illustrated (and here), which is often said to mark a devotee - or initiate?

Agh, I thought I had added something about it. Now I have, for real this time.

• You should work Agape feast into the Xtian section i think - the usual term for Early Christian feasts.

I'm not sure; the sources on the mystery cults mention communion but not the agape feast.

• The mysteries feature largely in Enemy of God (novel) by Bernard Cornwell, indeed a ceremony in Guinevere's Isis temple on the English South coast (c. 495) provides the climax. As usual he seems to research carefully, then riffs freely on that. Special "beds that were "forbidden to the laymen"" feature, as you might imagine. At the least there should link here - well, i've added one.

Are you suggesting mentioning the novel here? If secondary sources don't bring it up, I'd prefer not to.

• "the evidence about Mithraism suggests the process of joining it was less mystical and more intellectual" - "less mystical" ok, but perhaps wrongly, I don't associate Mithraism with anything very intellectual. It seems rather more like modern Freemasonry, with a strong military tinge.

This is Bøgh's characterization of Mithraic conversion, so perhaps it should be attributed to her, but Mithraism was riddled with abstruse symbolism that seems to have meant something to its participants. Bøgh cites Richard Gordon, one of the foremost scholars of Mithraism, who says on the pages she cites, "The attainment of wisdom was an object of particular ambition in fact. Although the details of this lore escape us, it must have it must have comprised an account of Mithras's achievements, perhaps newly allegorized for each grade; an account of the human condition and the urgency of escape in the spirit; and a mass of symbols and correspondences".

• Was there nothing relevant in Renaissance/Early Modern Neoplatonism/Rosicrucianism & such like - it sounds just like their sort of thing?

Not that I can tell. I haven't found any discussion of the influence of The Golden Ass (the only source for the mysteries that would have been available in that era) before Terrasson's time, except the existence of an English translation by William Adlington in 1566. A. Parrot (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Generally seems pretty exhaustive, given how little we know. Some intriguing possible echoes of Minoan religion, about which we know a good deal less.

Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• ok, Support Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Comments to follow Ceoil (talk)}

Yazid I[edit]

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta), Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The second caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate, ruling from April 680 to November 683. The first person in Islamic history to benefit from hereditary succession, his reign was marred by opposition from the representatives of the old Islamic elite. His efforts to impose his authority resulted in the death of Muhammad's grandson Husayn, as well as attacks on the cities of Medina and Mecca. These disasters have earned him the reputation of evil among many Muslims. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: since you did the GA review, would you mind giving the article another look? Thank you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Some thoughts

• Can we refer to Michael Jan de Goeje as a modern scholar? He is an orientalist from before the Great War.

Thanks for the comments Guerillero. I have replaced de Goeje's views with a more recent historian's. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Has the scholarship on Yazid I changed after colonialism? You use lots of sources from before 1940

No, there isn't much current research on this subject going on and Lammens' Le Califat is the standard, although a little pro-Umayyad, treatment of the subject. Hawting's article in Encyclopedia of Islam (published 2002) can be compared with ours. This article is modeled upon Hawting's treatment. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just wanted to check --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable with Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 being used for facts. Can we get a more recent scholarly source?

It is cited only once now, twice previously, and that is for uncertainty in his birth year. Pretty harmless;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It can be replaced with Lammens 1921 though. If you prefer that, I can replace de Goeje with it. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems reasonable as it is --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I am skeptical of Lammens 1921 and Lammens 1934 due to their age and the fact that Lammens was a monk. Has his work been cited recently?

His Le Calfat (i.e. 1921) is the most comprehensive account of Yazid's caliphate. Hawting in Encyclopedia of Islam refers the readers to Le Califat for further information. The 1934 one is from the first edition of Encyclopedia of Islam and is very much reliable. It could be replaced with 1921, but is more recent and reduces reliance on the 1921 one. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Similar feelings from Wellhausen 1901 and Wellhausen 1927

Wellhausen is arguably the Einstein of Umayyad studies. His Arab Kingdom is still used as textbook in the universities. Modern historians cite his views as an authority, although, of course, not always agree with him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Why is Encyclopaedia Iranica a high quality source?

Madelung is one of the foremost Islamicists of the current era, albeit a little anti-Umayyad. Although it is possible to replace that source with books, even those already present in the biblio, I decided to keep it for its easy accessibility. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Passes my source review. Spot checks are not done --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

• Important article, I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Chronicle of 741 is duplinked.

Thanks for the comments FunkMonk. Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "who became caliph in 661." This paragraph ends without citation.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Yazid was born in Syria circa 646." The note says this, though, so isn't it better to just give the range than a made up midway number?: "His year of birth is uncertain. Reports vary from 22 AH to 30 AH".

Done, and clarified further.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link Mecca?

Mecca is already linked at the first instance both in lead and body.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• You give a lot of information in the caption of the coin images in the rest of the article, but not for the one in the infobox. Could it get dates, links, and other such info?

Thanks for this. Previous coin was from Mu'awiya's time (I had never noticed that;)) Now changed and links/date added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps the previous image[9] should have its description and categories changed accordingly? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have requested move on commons. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems a bit arbitrary to show a 1950s photo of Damascus? Wouldn't some old artwork be more appropriate? The 1950s are only marginally closer to the time than we are now in any case...

Added a 19th century painting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "the Umayyad Caliphate from 661 until their replacement by the Marwanids in 684." Link the terms Umayyad Caliphate and Marwanids here?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "after which Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, became caliph" Perhaps state how/why he became so?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "On his way back to Damascus, he secured allegiance from the people of Medina. General recognition of the nomination thus forced Yazid's opponents into silence. The orientalist Julius Wellhausen doubted the story, holding that the reports of the nomination's rejection by prominent Medinese were a back-projection of the events that followed Mu'awiya's death.[29] A similar opinion is held by the historian Andrew Marsham." Where does the former belief come form then?

It is from the account of the medieval historian Ibn Athir. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• "instructing him to secure allegiance from Husayn ibn Ali" Any reason to spell his name out again, when you already did so earlier (and only refer to him as Husayn in the meantime)?

Shortened to Husayn. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• No speculation on what he died from?

Detail added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The killing of Muhammad's grandson caused widespread outcry" I think you could repeat his name here.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• After first mention, yu don't need to spell out the full names of for example Bernard Lewis and Henri Lammens.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looks good, nice to see something on his cause of death added, even if it's just speculation or hearsay. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

• "His appointment was the first hereditary succession in Islamic history." Do you mean 'His appointment was the first hereditary succession of the Caliphate in Islamic history.'?

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "several Muslim grandees from the Hejaz". Suggest adding 'region'.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "His Caliphate was marked by". Why the upper case C?

@Al Ameer son: would you please look into this?

@AhmadLX: I would reserve capitalization when referring to the empire, as in "civil war in the Caliphate" as this would be a proper noun, while lowercasing in the case of the office, as in "he acceded to the caliphate". I could make these adjustments, if you agree. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Yes that would be great. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "called for a shura to elect a new caliph". Shura needs an in line explanation - or replacing by one. Likewise its first mention in the main article.

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The killing of Husayn caused resentment in the Hejaz, where Ibn al-Zubayr called for a shura to elect a new caliph and the people of Medina, who supported Ibn al-Zubayr, held additional grievances toward the Umayyads." I think there is too much in this sentence.

Sentence split into two. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• "After failing to gain the allegiance of." 'regain'?

Ibn al-Zubayr had not payed him any allegiance, so for him it should be "gain". On the other hand, you are right it should be "regain" for the Medinese people. But making it such in the lead would require splitting the sentence I think. What do you say?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point. I am easy. Leave it as "gain" if you wish.

• "the city was plundered for three days" Was it plundered, or was it sacked?

I checked a couple dictionaries, and it seems both mean the same.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Plunder" can be a relatively civilised business, with valuables looted and money extorted. A sack suggests a less controlled affair, with rapine, drunken destruction, torturing of inhabitants to reveal the location of (possibly non-existant) buried valuables etc. It is something of a spectrum, but a sack is the nastier end. Eg see the Sack of Baghdad.

I've changed it to "sacked" for now. Let's see what Al Ameer has to say on this, as he knows the al-Harra stuff better.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "and the tribal nobility." Should that be 'tribal nobilities'?

I think no. Tribal nobility=elites and chiefs of the tribes.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know what tribal nobility is. "the tribal nobility" means the nobility of one tribe. Is that what you mean. Or are you, and the sources, referring to the nobilities of two or more tribes?

I mean by "tribal nobility" the chiefs and elders of the tribes, and sources too usually refer to it as the tribal nobility/chiefs in addition to just ashraf.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Yazid was born in Syria between 642 and 649." Well, no, he probably wasn't. Ie it would be a very unusually protracted childbirth!

Haha lol . How to formulate it then? "His year of birth is placed between 642 and 649"? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Personnally I tend to use the formula "His year of birth is variously placed between 642 and 649".

• "During his father's caliphate, Yazid led several campaigns against the Byzantine Empire". Perhaps a sentence or so on the reasons for the enmity between the Byzantines and the caliphate?
• "annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca". Perhaps preface with a definite article?
• "was recognized caliph by the Medinese people". 'as caliph'.
• "In 656 Uthman had been killed by rebels in Medina." Perhaps a little background on the rebels and their motivations?
• "and instructed him to defeat them if they did." Delete "him" - for grammatical consistency with the first part of the sentence.
• "town of Basra, which paid homage to Yazid"; "paid allegiance to him." Suggest replacing "paid" with 'pledged'.

Changed to "pledged allegiance to Yazid" as "him" would imply allegiance to Mu'awiya. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "signalling that the latter should enter the city. The news of this prompted Yazid to". It is unclear to me how Yazid obtained this "news".
• "which Husayn refused" → ' which Husayn refused to do'?
• "while his family were taken prisoner". "were" → 'was'.
• "played with Husayn's head with his staff". Link "staff" to the relevant meaning.
• "He showed compassion towards the captives". Seems PoV; is this the consensus of scholarly sources?

Wellhausen: treated them compassionately; Vagliere: treated them kindly; Madelung: treated them well. I went with Wellhausen. Since Al Ameer also raised this issue previously, I take it does seem to come across as POV. I've modified it to match Madelung.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "who secretly began taking allegiance in Mecca". I don't think one can "take" allegiance. I am unclear as to what al-Zubayr was doing.

I think I've clarified it now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "They were unpersuaded and on their return to Medina narrated tales of Yazid's lavish lifestyle and practices considered by many to be impious, including drinking wine, hunting with hounds, and his love for music." There is a lot happening here for a single sentence.
• "the city was plundered for three days, whereas per the account of Awana (d. 764) only the ringleaders of the rebellion were executed." From this, should a reader assume that by the first account the city was plundered but the ringleaders were not executed?

No, they were excuted according to both accounts. But according to Awana "only that": i.e. no sacking. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "during which the Ka'ba caught fire" And the Ka'ba would be?

I don't quite get this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You and I know what the Ka'ba is, but many readers won't. If this were a trivial or unimportant issue I may be content to leave it with just the Wikilink, even though I know that few readers click through Wikilinks, and feel that an FA should not rely on a non-FA explanation to be comprehensible, and it is against the MoS. But I feel it is an important point, and so would like to see a brief in line explanation of what the Ka'ba is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "like Mu'awiya had". Suggest "like" to 'as'.
• "He continued to rely on the governors of the provinces and local tribal chiefs (ashraf), like Mu'awiya had, instead of relatives, and retained several of Mu'awiya's officials, including Ibn Ziyad, who was Mu'awiya's governor of Basra, and Sarjun ibn Mansur, a native Syrian Christian, who had served as the head of the fiscal administration under Mu'awiya." Too long. Perhaps split after "relatives"?
• "from the provinces in order to persuade and win their support". The use of "persuade" is ungrammatical. (And is it necessary? 'from the provinces in order to win their support' would work.)
• Sources: Madelung (2004). Could you add the publisher location (New York) to be consistent.

Done upto here (exceptions responded to above). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Provinces retained much of the tax revenue". Maybe "the" → 'their'?
• As you give the religion of the Najranee, it would seem appropriate to do the same for the Samaritans.

Samaritans have their own religion and are not considered Jews. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would you think that I supposed they were? (Although there are those who would give you an argument.) I meant, could you indicate that the Samaritans were a religious group, rather than, or as well as, an ethnic or geographical one.

• Is there a reason ashraf is not linked?
• "forward bases they had occupied on the Byzantine coast." Is known where this coast was geographically?
• "Yazid established and garrisoned the northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin out of the district of Hims." This does not flow well. Maybe something like 'Yazid established a northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin from what had been a part of Hims, and fortified and garrisoned it.'?
• Link Ifriqiya and state in line where it is.

Was linked. Stated inline. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Could we be told in line at least roughly where Khurasan was?
• "without gaining a permanent foothold in either place". You mention three places in the first part of the sentence.
• "the authors of anti-Umayyad leanings". You need a different word to "leanings". ('chronicles'?) (Or do you mean 'authors with anti-Umayyad leanings'?)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Pleurisy". Lower case p.
• All foreign language non-proper noun words should be in lang templates, not just italics.
• "By 692 Abd al-Malik defeated Ibn al-Zubayr" → 'By 692 Abd al-Malik had defeated Ibn al-Zubayr'.
• "caused widespread outcry among the Muslims". Delete "the".
• "After the Battle of Karbala, Shi'a Imams from Husayn's line". Why the upper case I?
• "his ban on pilgrimage to the holy sites". "pilgrimages'.
• "Among the Sunnis, Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi considered cursing Yazid permitted". 1. Could we have some idea of when al-Jawsi gave this opinion? Likewise al-Ghazali, 2. 'Ibn al-Jawzi considered that cursing Yazid was permitted'.
• "As such, his accession is considered by Muslims ..." The following three sentences are cited to Hawting. Is this the consensus of modern scholarship? Are there any dissenters? (You say "is", not 'was', so you are talking about the current view held "by Muslims".

Gimme a day or two for this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this is outstanding.

Gog the Mild, let me first thank you for this Hawting talks about historical tradition and not Muslims in general. Modified to reflect that . AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Extant Muslim histories"> I assume you mean 'Extant contemporary Muslim histories'
• "as opposed to the title Commander of the Faithful". Lower case f and c.

Sources are split on this. Some use lowercase (e.g. Hawting), some uppercase (e.g. Kennedy) and some mixed (c and F/B; e.g. Donner). EI2 uses uppercase. I prefer EI2 on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

In this case it doesn't matter what the sources do; the MoS mandates lower case.

• "to exonerate Yazid of Husayn's death" This is missing something. Eg 'to exonerate Yazid of blame for Husayn's death' or similar.
• "attempted to stress the positive qualities of Yazid" → 'attempted to stress Yazid's positive qualities'.
• "stress .. stressed". Perhaps "stressed" → 'emphasised', to vary the language?
• "Yazid was a transmitter of hadith". Should that be 'Yazid was a transmitter of the hadith'?

It is how the cited author, and I checked a couple others too, writes: "transmitter of hadith". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In view of Hugh N. Kennedy". 1. 'In the view of Hugh N. Kennedy'. 2. Kennedy needs introducing; as do Hawting and Lammens.

Lammens should be introduced at first mention.

• "According to G. R. Hawting, he tried to continue". "he" → 'Yazid'.
• "More interestingly" - PoV. According to whom?

It came from the cited source. Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "although Ibn al-Zubayr had not publicly claimed the caliphate" → 'although Ibn al-Zubayr did not publicly claim the caliphate'
• "roughly from the time of his accession" → 'from roughly the time of his accession'
• "Mu'awiya died in Rajab 60 AH." → 'Mu'awiya died in the month of Rajab 60 AH.' Link Rajab.
• Introduce Lammens and de Goeje, and indicate that they are not joint authors.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Done all (exceptions responded to above). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A few comments in response above. Otherwise it is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Changes implemented. Thank you for the review. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

A fine piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from A. Parrot[edit]

Only a couple of minor points before supporting:

• "Thus the Sufyanid dynasty, named after Mu'awiya I's father Abu Sufyan, was replaced by the Marwanid dynasty." It seems worth clarifying that both these dynasties were part of the Ummayad dynasty. The accompanying image does so, but the article text does not.
• "Another coin bearing the mint date 60, which is assumed to be the Hijri year, and mint location Nishapur, but without the name of Yazid, is also thought to be from Yazid's first regnal year." This sentence is a bit awkward; maybe it should be split. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments A. Parrot. I have addressed both points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. A. Parrot (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Huaynaputina[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a rather inconspicuous volcano in Peru which was however in 1600 the source of the largest volcanic eruption in recent history of the Andes. This eruption resulted in widespread devastation of the surrounding area and in a volcanic winter that led to the Russian famine of 1601–03 and may have played a role in enhancing the Little Ice Age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed. It's a shame there aren't more/better photographs of the mountain itself. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Aye, although it's not really a mountain - more like a group of small craters nested in a lateral valley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Accessibility improvements: add alt text to the images per MOS:ACCIM and row and column scopes, row headers, and a caption to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Heartfox:Added ALT text to the non-decorative images. I confess though that I have no idea how to do table accessibility. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  None of the images are decorative (I'm pretty sure that's just like a basic background image or something), so they do need an alt attribute as they serve a purpose (otherwise they wouldn't be in the article). You can just do "refer to caption" if it makes sense. For the tables, everything is listed at MOS:DTAB under the data tables header. It's just adding a couple of words and symbols. Heartfox (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done, mostly, but the explanation for the table is a little opaque so I don't guarantee I got it right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  I added row scopes for you :) For the California map alt text, it's probably better to just say "a 1650 map of California" as "California used to be depicted as an island in maps" is not really a text-version of the image. Heartfox (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe "A 1650 map of California depicting it as an island" or something. Idk I'm not an expert. Heartfox (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Went with the latter as showing California as an island is an important point here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Can the words fumarole and amphitheatre be explained in the lead?

  Added a note and a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Footnote b is missing a "the" before Visuvius

  Added, although I am not sure if it's necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• the radiative forcing of the volcano is now given in three significant digits. Given we can't give too many ifs and buts compared to a scientific paper, two significant digits is more appropriate I believe.

  Now in two digits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a more recent estimate of temperature decrease? Those reconstructions have become vastly more accurate of the last 20 years.

  Probably, but I am not sure where to find one. Google Scholar shows 1430 sources on the volcano and finding specific ones is going to be hard. If this is what you have in mind it endorses the in-article estimate I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how the source about sunspots should be interpreted. The way I read it, visible sunspots are potential phenomenon of atmospheric aerosols, but not particularly of this volcano. Table 1 of that paper includes a list of actual observations, which don't include the sunspots.

  I see. Would it better to remove the claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, or replace it with one of the observations in Table 1. Or prove me wrong by following the three citations given, if you have the time. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  The three citations do not support sunspot changes, so removed the mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• What is Petrological data?

  Explained this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is known that volcanic eruptions -> Volcanic eruptions FemkeMilene (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• In Arequipa, houses[23] and the cathedral collapsed during mass[169] after an earthquake[73] on 27 February,[96] concomitant with the beginning of the second stage.[77] -> can this be reworded so that the sentence rolls without as many mid-sentence cites? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• It is the largest volcanic eruption during recorded history in the Andes[6] redundant
• dacitic -> link once per section? Seems to be important jargon
• For comparison, another large Holocene eruption in the Central Andes[131] which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size,[132] the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE, erupted a bulk volume of 110 km3 (26 cu mi) of rock, equivalent to a volcanic explosivity index of 7.[133] -> which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size redundant, leaving it out makes sentence flow better. Starting with For example, the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE further improves flow
• The tephra was emplaced in a major westerly lobe and a minor northerly lobe -> dont understand. Easier synonym for emplaced?
• A colonial wine industry -> the?
• and the Spaniards for poor habits -> sentence doesn't roll for me.. Not sure what is meant with poor habits
• analysis showed that seismic activity was concentrated around the amphitheatre with no recorded earthquakes within it -> redundant with previous clause
• reconnaissance of georadar -> should of be with?
• and self potential of the volcano -> not sure what that is and wikilink doesn't make it clear
• and on the pumice deposits from the 1600 eruption it only occurs during the wet season -> change word order. Only on third reading I discovered that deposits wasn't the verb. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment, I engaged pre-FAC on talk, please ping me after other, lesser involved reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AhmadLX[edit]

Will do in a couple days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "...Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600". The cited source says 19 February
• "it is also spelled ... Guagua Putina".[4] The cited source doesn't say that it is spelled as such. It is talking of a supposedly erroneous reference in a newspaper article that Guagua Putina and Misti are the same. Web search shows that the newspaper article was indeed correct i.e. Misti is called Guagua Putina.
• [5] "Volcán Huaynaputina" [Huaynaputina Volcano]. Recursos Turisticos. Retrieved 27 March 2019: unreachable. Any archived link?

  @AhmadLX:All corrected so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• link tephra, ignimbrites, dacites.

  Linked the former, the latter were already linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "been about 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide" --> 400 metre; "200-metre (660 ft) wide" → 200 metre (also 70-metre, 30-metre etc.)

  Hmm, my impression was that the hyphen is the correct grammar here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO, when describing it, hyphen isn't used (e.g. The well is 100 meters deep); when referring to something, it is used (e.g. A 100-meter-deep well). That's how I think. Maybe a native speaker may better guide here.

• "a 2006 viewpoint argues" → a 2006 study argues

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "dated to 9,700 ± 190, less than 7,480 ± 40 years ago[72] and 5,750 years before present, respectively." Drop "years ago"

  No; "years ago" and "before present" are not the same unit. I think the former needs to be made "present"-independent but I am not sure how. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• "although it is known that non-volcanic mountains were also offered sacrifices in southern Peru." that → whether?

  No, we are making a definitive statement here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, seems I read it as "it is unknown". lol.

• I had sort of abandoned the review as I was unwilling to oppose. Since the nom is going to be archived now, I will describe my main concern. Addressing of which, I believe, will be useful in the future nom and attract more reviews.

• The article is written like a journal paper, assuming good deal of background knowledge and familiarity with jargon. Especially, the sections Geology and Eruption history, to lesser extent also Geography, are very difficult to follow, with number of unexplained technical terms, and allusions to not so self-evident facts, appearing almost every next line, and details that are suitable only in a research article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject will almost certainly be lost. Some examples follow:

• "It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental,[33] although a similar tectonic stress field controlled the younger vents.[30]"
• "Volcanic activity in that zone has moved since the Jurassic from the present-day coast region where remnants persist in the Cordillera de la Costa eastward into the actual Andes[13] and the present-day volcanic arc, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes.[19]"
• "The basement underneath Huaynaputina is formed by almost 2-kilometre-thick (1.2 mi) sediments and volcanic intrusions of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age[33] including the Yura Group[41] as well as the Cretaceous Matalaque Formation of volcanic origin.[42]"
• "In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre,[83] though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents.[83] There is a fumarole on the third vent, and fumaroles occur in association with dykes that crop out in the amphitheatre.[30]" This is unencyclopedic style and typical of research papers. It should be changed, for example, to something like: "Although no fumaroles were detected in 1962,[83] several have been reported in the amphitheatre recently.[83][30]
• "At least one of the vents has been described as an ash cone.[31]" trivial.
• "Northeast-east of Huaynaputina,[28] the terrain drops off steeply (2.3 km or 1.4 mi vertically and 6 km or 3.7 mi horizontally[23]) into the Río Tambo valley, which runs southward and then westward as it rounds Huaynaputina." Stuff inside the brackets is to be dropped and description of valley simplified.

I understand that explaining every term and phenomena is not possible, but relying solely on links is also not helpful. I think creating a balance is possible. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I realize that it's poor form for me to reply to examples of concerns, but I don't agree that these examples are too unclear for a lay audience. Knowing exactly what the Matalaque Formation is, for example, isn't necessary to understand the article subject and it can't really be explained within the text without a lot of distraction. I don't entirely agree with the other points, either - even a layperson knows that "vent" can simply be a hole, rather than a hill. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I partially agree. I think the sentence with the fumaroles is indeed difficult to read, as is the second example. Jargon is easier to place in context when the sentence structure is easier. I don't mind the mention of Matalaque Formation, even though I have no idea what it is. Not important for the overall sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This nomination has been open for nearly five weeks and has yet to attract a support. Unless there are a couple of indications that reviewers consider it worthy of promotion over the next two or three days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I plan to come back on Thursday to finish a source review. Am I right in my understanding that that involves a) checking that all sources are reliable b) spot-checking various sources (how many?) and c) checking if formatting is consistent? Or is c not considered part of the source review? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To my understanding, it's all three points. Of course, I am the nominator so... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Seattle Center Monorail[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at bringing Seattle's other space age icon to FA status. What's not to love about a functional monorail with only one stop in each direction, using the original 1960s trains, and prone to accidents every now and then? Since the last FAC, the article has gone through a fresh copyedit and some minor work. SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Renovations and preservation" section is too long. Can it be split into subsections? (As for what's wrong with the monorail, I can tell you: colossal waste of taxpayer money.) (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • All but the first and last two paragraphs of the section cover the renovation project, which I would rather keep together. I'll look into how I can balance it (maybe by spinning out a station article, if it meets notability), but it'll take a while. Maybe we should use those funds to fix up Main Street. SounderBruce 06:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I reviewed the previous nomination and all my comments were addressed. I was waiting to see how the other reviews played out before declaring support but by then it had been open for a while and was archived. Hopefully it'll get its star on the second attempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99[edit]

Thought I would provide my comments as I did the previous one. Hoping you have some time to provide comments on my candidate below as well. I had two points in the previous fac that doesn't appear to have been addressed yet.

• An emergency repair to the Westlake terminal was made in 1974 at a cost of $100,000 to replace metal shields under the platforms that caught debris. -- debris from what?
  • Seems to have been for stuff dropped from the platform by passengers.
• Expansion proposals -- worth mentioning anywhere here that the proposed service expansions of the monorail (e.g. to Sea-Tac Airport) were ultimately fulfilled by Link light rail

Will do a full read of the article soon. --truflip99 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Added two lines for the Ballard/West Seattle project, but trying to fit in the earlier proposals is a bit of a stretch due to the lack of available sources. SounderBruce 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Be consistent on whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
• Was this source considered for inclusion? Can you speak to the approach to searching for sources?
• Be consistent in how the service's website is cited. (Personally I would argue for the simpler, publisher-only version). There seem to be quite a lot of references to this site - could any be replaced by independent sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

MAX Orange Line[edit]

Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review hoping to make it the third MAX Light Rail-related article to achieve FA after the Red Line and the Yellow Line. Hoping the process is a little smoother this time using the two FAs as models. The Orange Line is Portland's newest MAX extension, having opened in 2015. Its was built following two decades of failed attempts to expand light rail between Portland and Clackamas County. Part of the project saw the construction of Portland's newest Willamette River crossing, Tilikum Bridge, which is notably the country's first major "car-free" bridge (it only allows peds, bikes, and transit). This article has been extensively copy edited and reviewed and would make a great addition to WP's FAs. truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Whoops completely screwed up that nom. Fixing! Thanks, SandyGeorgia! - truflip99 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  No prob .. I have moved this malformed nomination from WP:FAR to WP:FAC, and hopefully corrected all the pieces, including on article talk. Hawkeye7 will need to make sure I got everything and that FACbot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Images appear to be freely licensed
• Stations image bar displays badly along with table (depending on configuration) for some readers. I would use just one station image, or if multiple are absolutely necessary, then use a horizontal gallery. Multiple images is also suboptimal in that it doesn't scale for the reader preference. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. Thanks for the image review! --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• Add alt text to all of the images.
  • Done
• The tables need row and column scopes, row headers, and captions per MOS:DTAB. To keep the same visual appearance, add "plainrowheaders" next to wikitable sortable.
  • Partly done; upon previewing plainrowheaders it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions?
• I believe the line transfers coloured circles should have an alt attribute or be accompanied by text (like Amtrak/Greyhound); not just colour/symbol only.
• Convert the dagger symbol to Template:Dagger and add alt text.
  • Done
• Convert the down arrow to Template:Down-arrow and add alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Done

Thanks for the accessibility review, Heartfox. I've addressed all but one, which I'll need more time for. --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You can add the row headers (!) and keep the same colour with style="background-color:#F8F9FA" I believe. The key table also needs scopes/row headers. You haven't added {{down-arrow|alt=}} yet. Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Heartfox I just used the subst template suggested in the down-arrow template page, and when you save it it reverts to the icon only (shrug). --truflip99 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review, and reserving a place. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• There are a couple of dup links. Are they intentional?
  • I only typically do this for links that are created by templates. Could you provide an example? --truflip99 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I assume Gog is talking about Milwaukie/Main Street station and Southeast Park Avenue station. In the future, you could install something like User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js to find these. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Epicgenius and Gog the Mild: If the one on lead, one on prose, and one on the table -- then yes, they are intentional. But... are they incorrect..? Never mind, found and omitted. --truflip99 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I'll also take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• "It carried an average of 11,500 daily weekday riders in September 2019" - Is this figure just the extension discussed in the sentence before this in the lead, or is it the total ridership for the whole Orange line? Lead implies the former, body and infobox the latter
  • Done
• "Despite the South/North Line's cancellation, North Portland residents and city business leaders continued to push for light rail." - Earlier in the paragraph, we're told that North Portland residents generally opposed light rail, so the use of "continued" seems odd to me
  • It is not stated that North Portland residents ever opposed light rail, but I did change a word to make it less confusing
• "In August 2009, the transit mall reopened with light rail service from the newly rerouted Yellow Line.[58] The I-205 MAX extension opened the following month with a new Green Line service." - This appears to be out of chronological order compared to the material surrounding it
  • I have rewritten this to hopefully make it more clear, but this sentence just supports the statement before it, which talks about the first-phase project and the transit mall light rail addition. I deemed it appropriate to put here just to finish talking about it because both phases were planned simultaneously and the first phase is its own topic.
• "FTA to approve the addition of switch heaters, catenary ice caps" - What's a catenary ice cap? This needs a link or a gloss or something, as its going to be confusing to most readers, including myself. In fact, the vast majority of hits for "catenary ice caps" in a Google search I attempted to try to find out what this means are from mirrors of this article. This phrase will be confusing for the vast majority of readers without an explanation of what these things are.
  • I'm going to eliminate that part for now, as it seems to lack notability
• Link the Yellow Line in the body
  • Interstate MAX and MAX Yellow Line are synonymous, as are I-205 MAX and MAX Green Line. Should I link both?
    • I think the fact that they are equivalent could be made clearer in the article. For instance, I took "which led to the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line opening in 2004" to be referring to two separate things.
      • @Hog Farm: sorry, I misspoke. They are not synonymous. One is an extension and the other is a service. I try to explain this in MAX Light Rail#Network. I will link both per MOS:RDR.
• If the Portland State University connection is important enough to be included in the lead, why is it not mentioned in the prose section of the body; just the table?
  • Because the Orange Line only serves the stations at PSU, but those stations were built not as part of this Portland-Milwaukie project, but as part of the first-phase Portland Transit Mall project (which is also covered in MAX Green Line#Portland Mall reconstruction).
• "The total length of Orange Line service, which includes a segment of the Portland Transit Mall, is undetermined" - I'm not a fan of the use of "undetermined" here. That can mean that they whole length is not known or calculated, while the source just doesn't mention it, which is different than stating that something is "undetermined"
  • Reworded
• " As of 2020, these plans have not been enacted" - We need another source for this statement. The current source is from 2015 and refers to 2016 and 2017 in the future tense, so it's not going to be useful for what has been done by 2020
  • Added some refs, but had to change it to 2019
• Do we have a citation for the list of station names?
  • Added
• "Fewer trains run during weekends" - This seems to be an oversimplification, IMO. Pulling up a current to Milwaukie weekday schedule and a current to Milwaukie Saturday schedule, the difference appears to be two trains in the 7am-8am span, unless I missed something. Two fewer trains in a service of that size doesn't seem to be a particularly large drop, and the un-nuanced "fewer trains run during weekends" would imply a bigger drop.
  • I've simplified it because the schedule gets updated sometimes. But I've gone ahead and removed that sentence.
• This makes it seem a little significant that the line doesn't link to the Milwaukie bus hub, is that worth mentioning?
  • I've not mentioned it, because TriMet insists that it does
• We seem to have a comprehensiveness issue: the topic of public art along the line has some coverage such as [10], [11]. In fact, we even have an entire Category:Sculptures on the MAX Orange Line. I find it hard to believe that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all.
  • It was decided a while back that these topics should be covered on the individual stations which house the public art pieces. I will work on that eventually.
    • There still seems to be enough coverage of these that I would at least expect a sentence or two along the lines of "Many of the stations along the MAX Orange Line have public artwork ..." or something like that. Agree a list or full detail is probably undue, but at least some sort of mention seems warranted here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I have added this blurb. --truflip99 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm thank you, I really appreciate it! --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, and 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

These aren't necessarily part of the FA criteria, but I think these should be cleaned up while we're at it.

• Bower (sculpture)
• MAX Gold Line
• Flooded Data Machine

These are not mentioned in the article. Either they're significant and represent non-comprehensiveness of the article, they're mispointed, or they're just junk, in which case WP:RFD is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

These for now have been redirected elsewhere. Although I've never heard of the MAX Gold Line, I'll have to request a deletion for that. --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've sent MAX Gold Line to RFD. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak[edit]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness. Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work. Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• If Hawkeye7 is the co-nominator, you should adjust the nominator parameter to reflect that; "Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work." doesn't mean that. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: Tag. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Sources Since there is a recent academic biography of this person (the Moore book, published by University Press of Florida), why is it only cited 6 times? (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  The article was written before it was published in 2020. It isn't as comprehensive as Fanning's 2007 biography, but it is an important source for events that happened after 2007. Despite the publisher, it isn't an academic biography; Kimberley C. Moore is a journalist who covered the case. Her newspaper articles are used in fn 101, 104, 110 and 117. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Accessibility review please add alt text to the images per MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

• she was selected by NASA with NASA Astronaut Group 16 --> "she was selected by NASA for NASA Astronaut Group 16" Would that be appropriate?

  I guess so. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• she stayed on at Patuxent River --> "she remained at Patuxent River" Once again, I may be wrong and just familiar with the military lingo.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• pepper sprayed U.S. Air Force Captain sea of blue

  Moved one link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• link Washington, D.C.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Her parents thought that Brown was the better choice --> "Her parents preferred Brown" more concise

  It would be ambiguous though, as to whether it meant for them or Caputo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• clssrooms --> "classrooms"

  well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure what is going on with the images in the Astronaut training section (missing a "]")

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

More later. ~ HAL333 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• she transferred to the Restricted Line as an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer, and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River Is the comma needed after "and"?

  Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty, although he continued to fly in the United States Naval Reserve. is a it of a run-on.

  Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I got. :) ~ HAL333 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi HAL333, I was wondering if you were intending to either support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I'm happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full review for this, but I have three quick questions about the "In popular culture" section.

• Is there a reason that this information is presented as a bulleted list rather than as prose? I have mostly seen information presented in prose rather than as a list so this section sticks out to me.
• Do you think the Lucy in the Sky part would benefit from some minor expansion? I remember during the film's release, there was a lot of press about the film's connection with Nowak, like comments about it not including the whole adult diapers thing. I suggest this as I think having a little more information would make this seem less trivial.
• Continuing off my second point, what makes these entries non-trivial and relevant enough to be included? I have never personally worked on a section like this, and I know there are Wikipedia essays like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content specifically about this. I'm not saying that these parts should be removed (as I believe the coverage around Lucy in the Sky makes it non-trivial for instance), but I was curious on your point of view about this.

Apologies for the drive-by comments. These are just a few questions I had about a specific section. I am glad to see this in the FAC space as it is such a huge part of pop culture and recent history. And I'm a native Floridian so something about reading about NASA-related subjects is oddly nostalgic for me. Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Short reviews are always welcome! Especially from editors who aren't part of the usual suspects. (They deserve a break,) To address the issues you raised:

• I originally did have the section in prose. MOS:PROSE: Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. However, WP:TRIVIA says: This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format but MOS:POPCULT says: If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. In any case, it was changed to a bulletted list by PCPLUM118 with this edit

• Thank you for the links to the different areas in the Manual of Style. I always enjoy learning more about different areas of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in the links. I will leave the prose/list part to your judgement. I wanted to ask as it was something that drew my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't finished watching Lucy in the Sky; the Saints game was on. Lucy was disturbing to me, as several of the things presented in the show would have prevented the real-life incident from ever taking place. Like being interviewed by the shrink after a flight. In fact, the last time any of Nowak's class fronted a shrink was for the job interview ten years before. (The film made $55,000 from 37 theatres in its opening weekend, which was described as "terrible".)

• It is certainly a very odd film and I am honestly quite confused on how the film was trying to handle its connection with Nowak or its tone n general. I was just curious if you think it would be helpful to add a sentence or two to expand on how the film was a loose adaption to provide some context to this. But since the other parts of this section are only one sentence each, it may put undue weight on this one pop culture reference. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• The short answer to your third point is that other editors thought them worthy of mention. I hate Popular Culture sections, and will ruthlessly purge anything that is not properly referenced. For more commentary on them , see WP:POPCULTURE and xkcd

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think this is a point that still generates a good deal of discussion. Since the citations are from third-party, reliable sources, then I think this part should be okay. Thank you for the explanations for each of my points. That clears it up for me at least, and I think the section should be fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think the article looks good to me. I support the article for promotion as it looks ready to me and HAL's support above also encourages me to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

• The lead looks a bit heavy on the links. May I suggest you drop links for "aeronautical engineering" and the second California link?

  Dropped the link to "aeronautical engineering", but there is only one "California" link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would move "Born in Washington, D.C." to the second paragraph, to keep the first one focussed on the key items.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• August 2010 --> since this date is different from the others, it drew my attention to dates .. is it really neceassary to have the exact date 3 times in the lead? It somehow makes it seem realy important to me if you say February 5, 2007. Like September 11, 2001. I would think February 2007, March 2007, November 2009 are sufficient.

  Reduced the dates in the last paragraph lead to month/year or year only, matching the first two paragraphs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• In the January of her junior year of high school -> I'm not a native speaker, so it may very well be just fine, but to my foreign ears this "the January" sounds odd

  It's fine; leaving the article out would be incorrect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• those women that did so were often resented by men who were passed over --> I don't have access to the source, but just checking if this is the author summarising research or the author's opinion?

  She doesn't have footnotes, but is summarising published research. The whole thing blew up in what is called the Tailhook scandal, which generated a great deal of material. There is no evidence that Nowak was personally affected, but it would be far more surprising if she wasn't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• In February 2006, it mission was rescheduled --> the mission I presume?

  Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• a host of problems --> that doesn't strike me as the right tone here. Maybe just problems?

  Changed to "multiple". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• prelaunch and pre-launch are both used. I would go for pre-launch

  Standardised on "prelaunch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• 8.0 million kilometers (5×106 mi) --> I couldn't see on MOS:NUM that this is the right way to do it. I think "8 million kilometers (5 million mi)"

  A matter of fiddling with the {{convert}} template. Changed to "8 million kilometers (5 million miles)"

• Nowak (center) and the rest of the STS-121 crew inspects --> no final s

  The final s is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• that caption also needs a full stop. Three of the other captions as well, they seem full sentences to me.

  Full stops added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida --> Florida was already linked

  Corrected, along with a couple of other duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• suit case --> suitcase?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• a well thought out plan --> I'm guessing there should be at least one hyphen somewhere

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• A pre-trial hearing was held on July 17, 2007 --> not sure why we're going back in time now

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• ex girlfriend --> hyphen?

  Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I reached the end but shall have to look at the sources another time. I found the article interesting and easy to read. Well-written and informative. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources: a few questions:

• #26: LinkedIn is misspelled. For which part of the sentence is it needed? (Sorry, I don't have access to #27 so can't see for myself)

  Reorganised so the relevant piece is separate. It reads: "Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty." It is sourced from his LikedIn profile. Per WP:RSPSRC: "should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description".

  My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is probably more strict: I'm thinking more along the lines of the spelling of one's middle name. Job titles and job descriptions are most prone to be embellished, and in this case, with prestigious NASA, even more so. I welcome views from more experienced FAC source reviewers, but if they fail to materialise, I would suggest that if you either try to find an alternative, more reliable source, or you simply drop this sentence. I don't think that would weaken the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• • My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is less strict. In this case, all it provides is exact dates. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• #141: Vice.com is listed as No consensus on WP:RSPSRC. Is there a better source?

  Added an additional reference from Dazed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• #143: appears to be a user-generated site. Is there a better source?

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise sources seem ok. I hope to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Edwininlondon: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I am. A fine piece of work. I Support on prose. Once I have dealt with the comments on my own nomination I will do a spot check of the sources. I believe that is still needed. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lawrence Khoo[edit]

• Generally well sourced, and neutrally written.

• The lead sentence lists 5 different jobs. Some of those roles may not be notable, and a couple may be redundant. Please review WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on what to list in the lead sentence.

Nowak is notable as an astronaut, although if she were not, she may have still been as a test pilot or naval officer. These are noteworthy and covered at length in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Since all these roles are covered in the lead, I think they should stay. However, I think she's most notable as an astronaut, so I would put that role first. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment I was asked to take a look at this but as the matter appears resolved will not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Would you be willing to do a quick review? The review has lots of comments but only one formal support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A sentence in the last paragraph of the lead about what she is doing today, would not be amiss.

Unfortunately, all we have is that she works in the private sector. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

LK (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Lawrencekhoo: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Still having problems with the lead sentence. If I understand correctly, "naval flight officer" and "test pilot" were roles she held as United States Navy captain. As written, it implies that those are 3 different careers. Suggest something like "... is an American aeronautical engineer, former NASA astronaut, and United States Navy captain, working as naval flight officer and test pilot." LK (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

They are indeed different careers. She never actually performed them while she was a captain because she was promoted to that rank after she became an astronaut. Still trying to think of a wording that works. Note that the rank is different from the USAF one. I would have written "US Air Force Capitan" but then we have the problem of three blue links in a row again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I feel she is best described as a "former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain", as those other roles were undertaken as part an parcel of being NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. The other roles can be expanded on subsequently. Something like "... is a former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain, who worked as aeronautical engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." How's that sound? I think it's best to avoid making it seem like she had 5 different careers. LK (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

It's very clumsy, but it may work. Changed as suggested. As long as it is understood that she did have five different careers: naval flight officer, test pilot, astronaut, navy captain and aeronautical engineer, in that order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to say that she had five careers. For example, if a person only ever held one job, such as Professor of Sociology at a public university, but as part of her job, she wrote academic papers, authored books, sat on administrative committees, and lectured classes, one would not say that the person had multiple careers. One should not state that the person was a Professor of Sociology, a writer, an author, an administrator, and a lecturer. See WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on this.

I'd note that for the Nowak article, the article body currently divides her career into two sections, Naval and NASA. Since the lead should reflect the content in the body, I think it's appropriate for the lead sentence to imply that she has had two careers. LK (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the right place to hash it out, but the current lead sentence is a mess. If I understand the situation correctly, she has only ever had two employers, the US Navy and NASA. The Navy employed her as an aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot. NASA employed her as a flight controller (not notable) and astronaut. She was fired from both jobs, and will not return to those roles. Her post discharge career is not notable, so we needn't mention it in the lead paragraph. The question is, how to accurately reflect that in one sentence. My preference would be for "... is a former NASA astronaut and former US Navy captain, who worked as aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." Alternatively, she can be described as "... a former astronaut, aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot, who was NASA mission specialist and US Navy Captain." This implies that she had four notable careers, and notes the two highest ranks she held. LK (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

NASA did not employ Nowak as a flight controller; it employed her husband as a flight controller. She was only seconded to NASA and remained a naval officer the entire time. The Navy did not employ her as an aerospace engineer; that has been her post-Navy career. It is not notable (ie worthy of an article in its own right) but it is noteworthy, and another editor argued strongly for its inclusion. As noted already, Nowak is not a former aerospace engineer; she is currently one. The Navy employed her as a naval flight officer and then as a test pilot. This is not part an parcel of being a naval officer; few naval officers pursue these career paths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

US Air Force doesn't need to be linked. In fact, looking at it, the lead is a little overlinked. Per MOS:OVERLINK, words that most English speakers would understand usually should not be linked. LK (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Clearly "captain" is not one of them, so changed to "U.S. Air Force captain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Just noticed the bullet point list "In popular culture" section. MOS discourages trivia sections populated with bullet point lists. See MOS:CULTURALREFS and WP:POPCULTURE. It suggests folding the content into the body of the article, and writing about cultural references with flowing text. If this is too much trouble for now, the bullet list could be moved to the talk page and formatted for inclusion in a properly written Cultural References section. LK (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not applies here. As noted elsewhere on this page, I wrote it in prose with flowing text, and it was rewritten into its current point form by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and while attracting a reasonable amount of comment has only one support. I will add it to urgents, but it may be an idea for you to contact those who have commented so far to see if they are able to support promotion, or have further comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

• Perhaps given the limited length of Google previews, and the brief period many of our readers spend here, the opening paragraph should contain some hint of her notoriety for the circumstances that got her sacked as an astronaut, since that is what probably she is best known for. I do not wish it, of course, to overshadow a distinguished career in the service of the United States to that point.

  What do you suggest? Something like "Was dismissed from NASA after an incident in 2007"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

  Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "she watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing" was the landing televised? I thought what people saw was Armstrong walk on the Moon.

  Hmmm Looks like it was recorded on 16 mm. Changed to "Moon mission". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The STS-121 mission was originally scheduled for March or April 2005, but was postponed to July. During the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery for STS-114 in July 2005, debris had separated from the external tank, which previously had caused the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia." The timeline here feels a little unclear.

  Tweaked the wording a little. The chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• "It was more challenging to operate than the one of the Space Shuttle, since it was larger and had an additional joint.[57]" I might change "of" to "on".

  Changed as suggested. I think I used "of" because it was not always carried. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Accolade (company)[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision, and going on to create several notable franchises. Article is very complete, thorough, and well-sourced. I'm happy to work on the prose and formatting to bring it up to quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I have made some copy edits as I went. Flag up here any you don't like or don't understand.

• "before facing more difficult competition in the following years." More difficult that what? You haven't previously mentioned competition.
• "consolidated into a singular Infogrames brand". Why "singular" rather than 'single'?
• "The Accolade brand has since been revived in 2018". The grammar of that doesn't quite work. Maybe 'The Accolade brand was revived in 2018'?
• Infobox: "Merged out" is jargon. Although I am stuck for a better brief description. Just 'merged' maybe?
• The first quote box - I suggest deleting "Retro Gamer feature".
• "Activision became the first ever third-party game developer". Delete "ever". First is first.
• "After the large devaluation of their stock". Do you mean 'After a large devaluation of their stock'?
• "Miller and Whitehead left Activision to form Accolade in 1984." No need to repeat "in 1984".
• "They also hoped to take advantage of the emerging medium of floppy disks compared to the more expensive cartridge format seen on consoles". You are talking about two different things. It may work better as two different sentences.
• "not to mention the licensing fees that console brands were charging developers." Again, perhaps a separate sentence?
• There are a lot of duplinks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and changed some of those sentences. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I didn't see any duplicate links outside the normal standard of linking once in the lead and once in the body, but let me know if there's anything I can modify. Happy to keep working on this once you have more notes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

To take just the first four of many: Porting; Mean 18; Adventure game; and Steve Cartwright. If you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk they will tell you how to load the dup link checker tool. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "multiple dialog options to be seen in later games." "to be" is a little clunky. Could it be tweaked? (Maybe 'multiple dialog options which later became common in games' or similar?)
• "which led to HardBall! as his Accolade debut." Perhaps mention which sport features in this game.
• "and also introduced new features". Delete "also".
• "It became of Accolade's best selling games". Word missing?
• "Accolade aimed to balance their role as both developer and publisher". 'roles'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Still chipping away at this. Keep it coming. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "with external groups handling ports so that Accolade". "ports" is jargon and needs either a different word or phrase, or an in line explanation.
• "selling 500,000 units on a budget of less than $80,000." "budget"? Sales budget?
• "previously helped Accolade with ports". "ports" again.
• "towards a market they previously abandoned." → 'towards a market they had previously abandoned.'
• "Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed that" → 'Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed the opinion that'.
• "The company soon released several games on the Sega Genesis" Open question: should "on" be 'for'?
• "was that Accolade would meet a quota of games for Sega" . What does "meet a quota of games" mean?
• "as a way for Sega to preserve its advantage over other consoles", How did it do that?
• "Despite Accolade earning an agreeable court ruling and settlement". I am not sure that "earning" is the best word, and if "agreeable" is not a typo, it looks like one.
• "lost somewhere between $15 million and $25 million". Profit or revenue, and why/how?
• "As the company rushed to fulfill its mandate to Sega" I don't understand this at all.
• "feeling that he lost interest in the diluted quality of their games." The grammar has gone wrong here Do you mean 'stating that he had lost interest in their games because of their diluted quality.'?

• "As the company transformed". This is the first mention of a transformation.

• Cite 80: 16 pages!?
• "including their soccer game Pelé! and football game Mike Ditka Power Football". Anyone outside north America will wonder why you are using two synonyms for football.
• "while fighting the injunction in court". Suggest "the" → 'Sega's'.
• "the company hired former FAO Schwarz head Peter Harris as CEO in 1994" 1. Abbreviations should be give in full at first mention. 2. What is a "FAO Schwarz head"?

• "to attract new investment." How did hiring Harris do this?
• "and largely doubled down on existing series." I am unsure what either half of this means. Perhaps express it more formally?
• "releasing the game on-time." Why the hyphen?
• "The unstable release would ..." What unstable release?
• "hurt the reputation of Bubsy series" → 'hurt the reputation of the Bubsy series'.
• "as well as Accolade as a company." Did it hurt "Accolade as a company" - which is what you say here - if so, how and why? Or did it also hurt Accolade's reputation? (In which case 'as well as that of Accolade as a company.')
• "at the same budget". At the same budget as what?
• "did not enjoy the acclaimed legacy of the first two games". I am not sure if this is gamer speak, USVar, or if I am just feeling sleepy, but what does it mean?
• "as well as the release of Deadlock that same year". Do you mean 'as was the release of Deadlock that same year'?
• Explain what "E3" is in line.
• "By that fall". See the MoS on seasons "Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres."
• "Accolade cancelled their plans" → 'Accolade had cancelled their plans'.
• "Development also completed on Redline" → 'Development was also completed on Redline'.
• "to acquire Accolade's employee base of 145 employees". Can we avoid employee twice in five words? Maybe 'to acquire Accolade's 145-strong employee base'?
• "brands such as Major League Baseball". Why the italics?
• "were published as Infogrames North America starting in 1999." Do you mean something like 'were published by Infogrames North America starting in 1999.' or 'were published under the Infogrames North America brand starting in 1999.'?
• "What followed were a series". "were" → 'was'.
• "The game was met with negative reception" → 'The game was met with negative reception'.
• "where Metacritic aggregated "generally unfavorable reviews". I don't think that "where is correct, and what is "Metacritic"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed most of those. The legal stuff is particularly complicated, but hopefully it's clear that (a) Accolade shifted strategies to consoles, but (b) it backfired with the courts enjoining them from developing or selling the "unauthorized" games, and (c) while they won on appeal and settled with Sega, (d) they still lost millions of dollars due to the interruption, which (e) led to a scramble to make new games and attract new investment, and (f) the change in strategy rippled into the company's leadership. I don't mind taking another stab at it if the rephrasing has introduced new errors. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made some minor copy edits as I have gone through. If you don't like any, could you flag that up here? The article looks to be in good shape and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The copy edits are great and make things more clear. Thanks for the review and the help. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• I removed one of the images that did not comply with WP:NFCC. The others appear to be appropriately licensed. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• If there's no objection, I'd like to re-add it. The article definitely mentions the historicity of Hardball, with the statement "The game was the first to emulate the behind the pitcher viewpoint seen on television, and also introduced new features such as coach-mode and player data." Unless I misunderstood your rationale that the article doesn't describe the gameplay of Hardball. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's no in-depth coverage of the gameplay of this particular game, such that it's not the case that the screenshot's "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of the article topic (Accolade) as required by NFCC. Using in both the game article and the company article also goes against minimal use IMO. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I know that the WP:NFCC standard is deliberately more strict than fair use, which is sort of frustrating for the non-commerical use of an image of a game from 1985 that isn't commercially available, published by a company that no longer exists. It is hard to find relevant images, so let me know if you find a good image to improve this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine. A common mistake is adding too many images to an article that doesn't really need them. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• Add alt text to all of the images per MOS:ACCIM.
• Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the gameography table per MOS:DTAB.
• Convert <br> to plainlist or unbulleted list per MOS:PLIST. Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. Let me know if you see any other errors or omissions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You can add logo_alt to write alt text for the infobox image.
• The table still needs row scopes and headers (! scope="row" | SunDog). You can add "plainrowheaders" next to "wikitable" to avoid bold centred text. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Should be done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Great! Heartfox (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

• "The Accolade brand was later revived in 2018, when their former assets were acquired by Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo. " The text states 2017 and mentions an announcement but not any new publications
• Source for headquarters being in San Jose?
• FN2: author name doesn't match source
• FN4 is a dead link
• Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
• What makes Saltzman a high-quality reliable source? Hardcore Gaming 101? Retrovolve? VGF? Lendino? Allgame? Sega-16?
• FN20 is malformatted
• Gamespot or GameSpot or gamespot.com? Check throughout for consistency
• FN30: where does this page range end?
• Some inconsistencies on what's listed as a work title vs publisher - eg. Kotaku is listed as both in different refs. Check throughout.
• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
• Fn41 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other refs
• Use a consistent date format
• Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates
• Ranges should use endashes
• FN73 is malformatted. Ditto FN81, check throughout
• FN96 is incomplete. Ditto FN108, check throughout
• FN98: what kind of source is this?

Lots of formatting cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Added another source for the Bubsy revival, and for the location being in San Jose. I managed to clean up most of the other references and thanks for catching those.

I went ahead and removed VGF and Sega-16 to be safe. But the other sources should check out very strongly. Saltzman is a prolific journalist for major publications in and outside gaming, and the passage is about Chris Taylor, who he interviewed directly. It passes the highest standard for WP:RS with flying colors, as well as the lower standard at WP:SELFSOURCE for uncontroversial claims about the interview subject. Hardcore Gaming 101 is considered a reliable source among the Video Games Wikiproject and Kurt Kalata is a highly reputable authority as the editor -- their site says "Contributors of articles may not be professionally affiliated with the developer or publisher of any of the games covered. All submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff." Retrovolve is an interview with the developer Michael Berlyn, quoting his experience with the game's production, so I think this is a WP:SELFSOURCE situation. Jamie Lendino is a reputable author among gaming publications and is really only there to verify the title of the game and its existence. AllGame is similarly only there as a database, and should be as reliable as AllMusic which is in frequent use around Wikipedia. It's since ceased operations due to budget issues, but should be reliable by every standard.

Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the fact of being an interview doesn't automatically make the source reliable. Regarding HCG101, FN20 is not attributed to Kalata - why would this specifically be considered high-quality? AllGame is listed at RSP as questionable. I'm also on a quick look still seeing considerable formatting inconsistencies. For example, FNs 85 and 86 are to the same title on the same site, but have different date formats, different dashes and different italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right about the date formatting, and I hadn't been as thorough checking the accessdate field. I'm hoping I've caught them all now, but you can let me know if you spot any other inconsistencies. I'm happy to keep chipping away.

The HG101 source is for sure edited by Kurt Kalata, especially considering it's the site's official top 200 list. To be safe, I found this longer form published book that's attributed to Kalata as editor, and this is the "top 200" book that the article is summarizing and referencing in its contents. As for the Retrovolve interview, the important part are the statements from developer Michael Berlyn, which give important context about the company's development challenges. They are important but non-controversial claims, and I was able to verify a similar statement to another interview so that there is no doubt about the authenticity, as per the WP:SELFSOURCE section at WP:RS. I did read the consensus about AllGame being questionable, so I went ahead and replaced those with more reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Still seeing lots of formatting errors and inconsistencies here. Please go through and make sure that similar sources are formatted similarly, and that the same information is provided where available for each. A few more quick examples, emphasizing that these are examples only rather than a comprehensive list: Computer Gaming World is unitalicized and unlinked in FN79 but both in FN80; Kotaku has a retrieval date in FN20 but not in FN35; Gamespot has a publisher in FN140 but not FN131; FN36 is missing pages and has the edition statement as part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, Nikkimaria. I went through them again and tried to dig into the guts of the citation templates. I fixed several more, including the few that you highlighted. There's a lot of references for this lengthy article, and they're from a variety of media (magazines, websites, newspapers, books). Hoping once again that I noticed the last bunch, but I will continue to chip away if you see any other issues. Your help is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

... believe me, Nikkimaria, I am trying my best. To your suggestions, I tried to (a) add access dates to all "cite web" templates, (b) replace all ranges with the emdash format, (c) fixed the misplaced italics markers, and (d) replaced all "publisher" and "magazine" fields with "work", except where the field is truly just the name of the publisher. I believe that's everything but once again I appreciate any pointers. This is still my first FA nomination but hopefully we're getting close. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I worked through another round of edits. I did a quick scan for quotes within quotes and found one other, which I fixed. Scanned dates and fixed two or three of those. I made the SF Chronicle cites consistent in name and form. I went through the author field for commas / first-last format. Checked the page(s) field to be consistent. I found just one more place where an ndash is appropriate. I removed the new Sega-16 interview, which was only to confirm the accuracy of another interview saying the same thing. Let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the remaining issues are inconsistencies rather than errors, so they're things that need deciding. For example, some periodicals currently have publishers and others don't - neither is wrong, but we need to pick one or the other and run with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little outside my element, so I don't know which sources count as periodicals or not. But my guess is it would be easier to just remove the publisher, assuming that there is still enough relevant information to identify the source. Where should I be looking? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Periodicals are magazines, journals and newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Took care of that to the best of my knowledge. See anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In what cases are you intending to include retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to use an access date for anything with a URL, and just went over it all again for consistency. It should include a mix of web sources and magazines that are archived online at certain urls. Double checked the book references and found they should all have publishers. Also linked to pages for magazines that have Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate your patience, Nikkimaria. I checked once more to make sure the "cite book" templates have "publishers" and not "works". Is there anything else that you see? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Should be the last issue: FN102 is missing page(s) (and check that it doesn't need combining with FN124). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed both of those. Let me know if that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)