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 статьюследует проконсультироваться с регулярными редакторами статьи перед ее номинированием. 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. Такие графики, как  Done и Not done, замедляют загрузку 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 только координатор не получит 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. Бот будет обновлять страницу статьи разговора после того , как статья способствует или выдвижение архивируются; задержка в обработке бота может составлять от нескольких минут до нескольких дней, и {{FAC}}шаблон должен оставаться на странице обсуждения, пока бот не обновится {{Article history}}. Оглавление - Эта страница: очистка кеша , контрольные ссылки , проверка переадресации , Dablinks

Ярлык WP: FAC v т е Рекомендуемое содержание: Избранные статьи ← Избранные списки Избранные изображения Избранные темы Кандидаты в избранные статьи (FAC) Обзор избранных статей (FAR) Сегодняшняя избранная статья (TFA) : Очередь этого месяца Последние TFA и статистика Текущие запросы TFA Возможные запросы TFA Странности TFA Самые просматриваемые TFA Избранные статьи еще не появились как TFA Скрипт для отслеживания последних изменений TFA Инструменты для избранных статей: Критерии избранных статей Наставничество для FAC Журнал избранных статей Статистика избранных статей Случайная избранная статья Бывшие избранные статьи

Как номинировать статью Порядок номинации Ящик для инструментов Анализ Устранение неоднозначности ссылок внешняя ссылка Альтернативный текст 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 Чтобы ответить на номинацию, щелкните ссылку «Изменить» справа от номинации статьи (а не ссылку «Изменить эту страницу» для всей страницы FAC). Приглашаются все редакторы просматривать номинации; см. FAQ по обзору для обзора процесса проверки. Чтобы поддержать номинацию, напишите * '' 'Support' '', а затем укажите причину (ы), которые должны быть основаны на полном прочтении текста. Если вы внесли значительный вклад в статью до ее номинации, укажите это. Рецензент, специализирующийся на определенных областях критериев FA, должен указать, применима ли поддержка ко всем критериям. 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 простоты 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 подразделов 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 ]

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)

@ 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)

Мах Лака Бай [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Omer123hussain ( разговор ) 09:04, 15 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о; Поэтесса 18 века, куртизанка, дипломат и филантроп. Она достигла положения придворной знати и участвовала в войнах и охоте с правителем. Omer123hussain ( разговор ) 09:04, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Выступите против пункта 1b, так как есть несколько пунктов для дальнейшего чтения, не упомянутых в статье. Если они не содержат дополнительной информации по теме, их следует удалить в соответствии с WP: ELNO # 1 , в противном случае они указывают на то, что статья не является исчерпывающей. Этот вопрос был поднят Sandy Georgia в ходе экспертной оценки, но, очевидно, не был рассмотрен. ( t · c ) buidhe 10:40, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Некоторые из них были обрезаны и теперь очищены, за исключением ссылки на стихи урду. :) --- Omer123hussain ( обсуждение ) 12:32, 16 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)

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)

Амбулоцетус [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 20:04, 13 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

Эта статья о ките-амфибии, обитавшем в Пакистане около 50 миллионов лет назад, который плавал как выдра и вел себя как крокодил. Это один из самых известных и знаковых древних китов. Пользователь: Dunkleosteus77  | нажмите и говорите, 20:04, 13 марта 2021 г. (UTC)   

• Изображение лицензирования появляется ОК. ( t · c ) buidhe 20:16, 13 марта 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)   

• 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. Какой 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)   

• 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)   

Мировое турне Blond Ambition [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Кристиан ( разговор ) 18:09, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о третьем концертном туре Мадонны , мировом турне Blond Ambition World Tour в 1990 году. Очень влиятельный и символичный тур, он оставил свой след в творчестве множества современных артистов. Я считаю, что она заслуживает того, чтобы ее признали одной из избранных статей Википедии. Кристиан ( разговор ) 18:09, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Комментарий Разделы «Разработка» и «Устаревшие» длиннее оптимальной для чтения. Может, разбить на подразделы? ( t · c ) buidhe 18:34, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения - пройти

• Файл: JPG på ArtDes 2013 6 (cropped2) .jpg корсеты будут защищены авторским правом, не так ли?
• Файл: BAT Rome Flaminio.jpg, по- видимому, является copyvio, основанным на этом веб-сайте, заявляющим авторские права на него: [1]
• Другие изображения подходят для лицензирования

( t · c ) buidhe 18:34, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я номинировал сценическую картину на Speedydelete (как бы мне это ни было больно). Вы предлагаете мне удалить корсеты один @ Buidhe : ? - Кристиан ( разговор ) 21:24, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Да, потому что он показывает основную работу, защищенную авторским правом, в качестве основного элемента. ( t · c ) buidhe 22:11, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Весь набор @ Buidhe : ! Как это выглядит сейчас? - Кристиан ( разговор ) 22:26, ​​10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор специальных возможностей : добавляйте замещающий текст к изображениям для WP: CAPTION / MOS: ACCIM . Heartfox ( разговор ) 01:39, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника [ править ]

• Я бы счел заархивированные URL-адреса для веб-сайтов важными для FA.
• Вы пишете регистр предложений или регистр заголовка? И без заглавных букв (сноска 21 и т. Д.). (быть последовательным)
• Некоторые работы связаны в каждом упоминании цитат, а другие только впервые? (быть последовательным)
• В Fn 9 отсутствует номер страницы, место публикации, агентство и via = Архив новостей Google.
• То же, что и выше для fn 12
• NYTimes , LATimes url-access = limited
• Fn 44 отсутствует номер страницы
• Fn 49 url у меня не работал
• fn 50 номер страницы и издатель (я считаю, что последнее должно быть выделено курсивом агентство) указаны неверно, отсутствует место, требуется место публикации и через
• fn 51 возможна ссылка на автора; проверить для других
• ссылка fn 52 не работает для меня
• fn 53 отсутствует агентство, номер страницы, возможно, через (я не думаю, что через требуется для книг из Google Книг, возможно, другие люди могли бы прокомментировать для газет / уточнить)
• fn 54 отсутствует агентство (текущая работа должна быть агентством), место`` работа, номер страницы
• fn 59, 60 urls у меня не работали
• fn 61 говорит, что источником была вечерняя версия газеты; смените работу на The Baltimore Evening Sun
• fn 62 ​​url = доступ = ограничен; в названии есть опечатка, также отсутствует место
• fn 68 отсутствует агентство, место, место публикации, номер страницы
• fn 72 недостающее место, через
• fn 73 отсутствующее место, место публикации, агентство, номер страницы
• fn 78 недостающее место, через
• fn 79 недостающее место, через
• Параметр формата fn 87 используется для даты?
• Fn 93 агентства = канадская пресса , это не Toronto Sun ' работы s.
• fn 98 недостающее место
• Fn 114, uDiscoverMusic, принадлежит Universal Music Group, которой принадлежит Interscope Records, с которой Мадонна была подписана в 2017 году, когда была опубликована статья. Несмотря на какие-либо полномочия потенциального автора, я не думаю, что это можно использовать, поскольку существует явный конфликт интересов.
• fn 119 url не работал у меня
• Нет ли вторичных источников дат тура?
• fn 133, 135 отсутствует через
• fn 136 HighBeam находится через, а не издатель
• fn 137 url не работал у меня

Почему вы считаете эти источники «качественными»?

• http://harada-sound.com/sound/handbook/rfmics.html
• https://www.idolator.com/7908725/madonna-uploads-live-performance-of-vogue-from-blond-ambition-tour
• Такур 2012

Надо немного поработать ... также это не является обязательным требованием, но ничего не получалось от ProQuest или Newspapers.com, вы все еще уверены, что статья "хорошо исследована" в соответствии с критериями? В этих базах данных может быть что-то большее из того периода времени, который может улучшить статью. Я еще не проводил выборочных проверок. Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:25, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

Благодарные бедняги [ править ]

Номинант (ы): GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 03:46, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о картине 1894 г. Благодарных бедных по Генри Ossawa Таннер . GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 03:46, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Обзор изображения - пройдите, подробности см. В разговоре ( t · c ) buidhe 09:48, 13 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии Герды [ править ]

Спасибо за предложение необычной темы! Я посмотрю на свинец в последнюю очередь.

Фон

• "сфотографированные модели, которые снимал Таннер" звучит немного жестоко;)

Я не осознавал этого до сих пор! Формулировка изменена. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:13, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Анализ

• Мы говорили (в экспертной оценке) о том, что средний читатель, возможно, не знаком с Благовещением, - что вы думаете о создании коротких статей об этих двух картинах? Это помогло бы понять, не взрывая эту статью.

Мне кажется, что писать статьи для этих двоих не так уж сложно, тем более, что на WikiMedia Commons есть изображения обеих картин. Я посмотрю что я могу сделать. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:13, 10 марта 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.

Ритуал означает, что согласно Google, это религиозная церемония, проводимая в «установленном порядке». Я считаю, что молитва за стол удовлетворяет одновременно «ритуалу» из-за религиозности и жесткости, а также «обыкновенности» из-за своей частоты. Однако я согласен с тем, что использование слова «обычный» действительно подрывает особенность момента (я даже использую цитату в следующем предложении, описывающую сцену как «экстраординарную», так что определенно противоречие!). Я заменил «обычный момент» на «афроамериканский религиозный обычай», так как в этом смысле я считаю его более описательным. GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:13, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Подумайте о том, чтобы перенести урок банджо из галереи наверх, где он упоминается, - он немного теряется рядом с большим, более легким уроком.

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 подожду 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 самую первую, 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 ]

• Раздел «Фон» стал довольно длинным, кажется, часть этой информации не имеет прямого отношения к картине. Например, я думаю, что большая часть материала в абзаце, начинающемся «Первой крупной работой Таннера такого рода был Урок банджо», принадлежит статье «Урок банджо», но не этой. ( t · c ) buidhe 22:02, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Привет, буидхе , да, я должен сказать, что раздел «Фон» становится довольно раздутым. Я вырезал одну несущественную деталь и переместил другую в сноску, но не уверен, стоит ли мне продолжать. Я хочу сохранить здесь стереотипную критику, потому что она задает социальный контекст для «Благодарных бедняков» . Такие ученые, как профессор Вудс, утверждают, что такие комментарии, возможно, способствовали уходу Таннера от афроамериканских субъектов после «Благодарных бедняков» , и эта идея упоминается в разделе «История». GeneralPoxter ( разговор ) 22:11, 11 марта 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 » )?» Если нет, прекратите это. В статьях Википедии иногда «Совершенство достигается, а не тогда, когда есть больше нечего добавить, но когда 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 следует это интересовать. 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
• Историческая ассоциация Белого дома - это издательство, а не произведение. Дитто Смитсоновский музей американского искусства, посмотрите другие
• На сайте Принстонского университета "Commons" размещены работы студентов - кто является автором конкретного цитируемого источника?
• Как Бейкер встречает WP: СТИПЕНДИИ ? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 23:10, 13 марта 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 (т.е. 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 ]

Номинант (ы): 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, что 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 рассмотрю это в ближайшее время. 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 специальные 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.

Пока я буду проверять только lede (в основном потому, что я нахожусь 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 «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)

  Я вижу, что вики-ссылка ведет к разделу о желтой карточке в штрафной карточке, так что я в порядке, оставив ее там, где она есть. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:39, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

• "как Дэвид Сильва из заголовка Рахима Стерлинга". Отсутствует ли глагол? Кроме того, предложите заменить его на «поскольку Дэвид Сильва забил гол после передачи от Рахима Стерлинга головой».

  Да "голевой" не хватало, ура. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• "кто играл с мячом боком" Что значит "боком"? Можем ли мы упростить этот язык? Может дриблинг ?

  Нет, он ударил его ногой. Ничего общего с дриблингом. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 15:43, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Можем ли мы поменять «косолапый» на «пинутый»? Я знаю, что есть разные способы забить мяч в сетку, но я не думаю, что леде нужна информация о том, как игрок ударил по мячу. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:39, 9 марта 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)

Конечно. Я сбит с толку, почему именно мои FAC всегда привлекают столько внимания такого рода. Но я ценю ваше время, потраченное на просмотр статьи. Я не могу обещать, что смогу согласиться внести предложенные вами изменения просто потому, что (как указано выше) некоторые из них просто не будут работать, если использовать правильную футбольную терминологию. Проблема в том, что если у вас возникли трудности с фразами типа «боковое движение мяча», когда просто используется сторона ноги для удара по мячу, я обеспокоен тем, что статья будет сокращена до чего-то, что больше подходит для Simple Английская Википедия. Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 16:42, 9 марта 2021 г. (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).

Что касается того, почему ваши FAC привлекают такое внимание: я согласен, ваши статьи привлекли такое внимание, и я постараюсь помнить об этом во время этого обзора. Я не ищу активно терминологические проблемы; Я рассматриваю прозу в целом и отмечу терминологические проблемы как часть проблем с прозой. Если я чего-то не понимаю, я опубликую это, и мы сможем обсудить изменения, если они потребуются. Я продолжу обзор позже, так как я все еще на работе, но дайте мне знать, если у вас возникнут какие-либо вопросы или опасения, прежде чем я продолжу. Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:11, 9 марта 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)

  Я думаю, что при перечитывании рядовой читатель поймет, что «сторона» и «команда» - синонимы без каких-либо изменений. Вам решать, заменять ли. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 19:04, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Уотфорд

• «В четвертьфинале они играли в Премьер-лиге« Кристал Пэлас »на Викаэдж Роуд». Итак, вы упомянули, что в предыдущих трех матчах команда играла на выезде, но потом не упоминаете, что это игра дома. Либо удалите проигравшие в предыдущих матчах, либо добавьте в это предложение «дома».

  «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

• «Гомес не смог претендовать на установленную деталь» Что означает «требовать установленную деталь»? (или, что такое набор?)

  Изменена формулировка "собрать" вместо "требовать" и связанная фигура (футбол) . The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Я продолжу это позже. Z1720 ( разговор ) 03:18, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Вторая половина

• «На 60-й минуте за фол на Хьюзе». За что был фол? (Я предполагаю, что есть несколько способов сфолить против кого-то в футболе)

  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 выиграли бы". 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.

Прочитав статью еще раз, могу поддержать этот FAC на основе прозы. Поздравляю и дайте мне знать, если вам что-нибудь понадобится. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 20:25, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо. Нет проблем с неразрывными пробелами. MOS, похоже, не дает жестких указаний по этому поводу , вероятно, он должен, потому что, очевидно, где пробелы будут разными для абсолютно всех, поэтому можно представить, что либо все из них (в прозе, по крайней мере) должны быть неразрывными, либо ни один их. Ваше здоровье. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 20:34, 10 марта 2021 г. (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 позже вы дадите ссылку на The Guardian , я также сделаю ссылку на 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 не было забито ни одного гола. 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.

  Думаю, странность заключается в том, что я храню их в хронологическом порядке, но я вижу путаницу, я просто поставлю одну цель в конце. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• В заголовках следует ли связывать стадион «Уэмбли» , Кевина Фрэнда , Кевина де Брюйна и лучшего игрока матча ?

  В этом нет ничего плохого. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Следует ли ставить запятую после четвертьфинала ?

  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)

Это все, что у меня есть. Хорошая работа. Надеюсь, вы не против, что я заархивировал два источника. ~ HAL 333, 23:31, 9 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

HAL333 спасибо за ваши комментарии, и, конечно, архивирование двух источников было полезным, ура. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:52, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Рад поддержать . ~ HAL 333 13:18, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор специальных возможностей [ править ]

• В первых двух таблицах отсутствуют подписи

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

Комментарии Косака [ править ]

• "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 спотом, 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 раздела «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? [2] 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)

Кубки (песня) [ править ]

Номинатор (и): The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 09:51, 8 марта 2021 г. (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 пятый номер. 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 рассказывая о ней, в том числе о том, 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), что 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 сделала что-то, чтобы побудить 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.
• «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 продюсировал сингл?) "
  • Я почти уверен, что он помогал продвигать ремикс еще в 2013 году.
• «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? (и где он это сказал?) ".
  • Я полностью удалил цитату из статьи.
• 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.

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, что кто-то исполняет ее на Reddit. [9]» HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 12 : 50, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Измененный

• «Он достиг топ-30 [...] и в чартах Бельгии, Фландрии и Валлонии. [58] [59]» Нет. Он занимал 2-е и 11-е место в чарте Ultratip, который в основном соответствует чарту Bubbling Under в бельгийском рейтинге Ultratop 50 . Проще говоря, это не было 30 лучших хитов Бельгии. HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 12:52, 16 марта 2021 (UTC)

Удаленный

• 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. [54] «Я думаю, что это более творческий способ заявить, что песня была успешной благодаря фильму. , но это нужно представить более формально. HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 12:57, 16 марта 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)

Обзор специальных возможностей [ править ]

• В изображениях в теле отсутствует замещающий текст. Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:56, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Heartfox добавил к фотографиям оба альта . The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 04:41, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии К. Пика [ править ]

• На первый взгляд очевидно, что вы не придерживаетесь MOS: TABLECAPTION для диаграмм и сертификатов на конец года. - К. Пик, 16:29, 15 марта 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Кайл Пик: Я исправил это. The Ultimate Boss ( разговор ) 04:08, 16 марта 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 раз. - К. Пик, 13:04, 16 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Выбросы парниковых газов в Турции [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 06:54, 7 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья в основном посвящена углекислому газу, хотя в ней также следует подробно рассказать о метане и упомянуть другие парниковые газы. Он должен полностью охватывать политику изменения климата и экономику изменения климата и избегать слишком большого совпадения с изменением климата в Турции . Я подозреваю, что это еще очень далеко от представленного стандарта, но я надеюсь, что вы дадите мне много конструктивных отзывов о том, что нужно улучшить, и я надеюсь, что смогу сделать это быстро, а затем вы сможете прокомментировать больше. Одна из причин, по которой это важно, заключается в том, что я предполагаю, что Турция скоро ратифицирует Парижское соглашение, и тогда такие люди, как журналисты и активисты, будут интересоваться тем, что определяется национальным вкладом страны.к ограничению глобальных парниковых газов должно быть. так что эта статья должна стать прочной основой для дискуссии. Chidgk1 ( разговорное ) 06:54, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Сразу могу сказать, что раздел ссылок нуждается в серьезной очистке. Во многих новостных статьях не указаны автор, дата публикации и / или дата доступа. Есть много ссылок, например: «Декарбонизация экономики Турции: долгосрочные стратегии и немедленные вызовы» (PDF) .что всего в шаге от голого URL-адреса. В статье также цитируются препринты [3] и MDPI , отрывочное издание с открытым доступом [4], и в значительной степени используются официальные источники и государственные СМИ Турции. Для удовлетворения требований к качеству поставщиков может потребоваться значительная работа. ( t · c ) buidhe 08:04, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо - надеюсь проработать их в следующие несколько дней и вернуться к вам с вопросами Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 08:14, 7 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Я еще не начал работу с «Ссылки», но в порядке ли сейчас раздел «Источники». Я исправил это? Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 11:02, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Я не так много редактирую научные темы, поэтому мне было бы неудобно пытаться выполнить полный обзор источника. ( t · c ) buidhe 11:23, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

В статье не так много науки. Если кто-то найдет в статье какую-либо научную информацию (или что-то еще), он не поймет, что означает, что я не объяснил ее должным образом, поэтому, пожалуйста, отметьте ее тегом «прояснить». Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 15:05, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Противостояние от Femke

Спасибо за такую ​​усердную работу над этими статьями. Боюсь, что в нынешнем состоянии мне придется выступить против. В целом, это читается как цепочка фактов, а не как исчерпывающая статья, но с моими прозаическими навыками я не могу в этом сильно помочь. Многие научные детали не совсем верны, поэтому позвольте мне помочь.

Абсолютно верно - я борюсь с потоком / рассказыванием историй, поэтому надеюсь, что у Г. Дж. Митчелла может быть время, чтобы дать мне несколько идей по этому поводу. Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 07:37, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

С радостью помогу с прозой / рассказом. Это одна из вещей, которые мне больше всего нравятся в написании статей. Меня не будет много до середины следующей недели, но у вас должно быть время для решения других вопросов. HJ Mitchell | Пенни за твои мысли? 19:07, 11 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Источники до сих пор не очищены полностью. Шаблон: отчет цитирования обычно следует использовать для источников без ISBN. В качестве примера: цены на энергию и нерыночные потоки в энергетическом секторе Турции имеют ISBN.

Я только что заметил, что есть Template: Cite techreport, который разрешает isbn, поэтому я заменю некоторые цитаты на этот Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:44, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Слишком много внешних ссылок

Вынесли несколько. Сейчас их 15. Я мог бы удалить больше - ребята, что было бы максимумом для избранной статьи? Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 13:45, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Все ли они соответствуют требованиям Википедии: внешние ссылки ? Я скептически отношусь к любой статье, содержащей более 5-10 внешних ссылок. FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 17:05, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Уменьшено до 3 Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 07:27, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Мне грустно видеть, что первое предложение возвращается к неоптимальной прозе. Я думаю, что предыдущая версия (выбросы парниковых газов в Турцию составляют около 1% от общего количества в мире или около того) была лучше.

Хм - наверное, вы правы, это не самое лучшее. Но с другой стороны, я не уверен, что предыдущая версия была лучше. Если я правильно понимаю, не обязательно выделять заголовок жирным шрифтом. Вместо этого можно было бы связать «парниковый газ» и «Турцию». Кроме того, вместо того, чтобы давать процент от общемирового показателя, было бы более справедливым подчеркнуть, что на человека это примерно средний мировой показатель. Так как о чем - то вроде " Турция «s парниковых газов выбросы в среднем на одного человека , и, в основном , двуокись углерода ( CO
2) от сжигания угля , нефти и природного газа » . Не могли бы рецензенты, которые менее знакомы с предметом, прокомментировать первое предложение, пожалуйста. Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 14:33, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Я никогда не видел аббревиатуры GhG вместо GHG

Я получил эту идею из страницы 59 этого отчета ОЭСР, и я думаю, что она более читабельна, чем GHG Chidgk1 ( выступление ) 14:33, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я никогда не видел эквивалента в CO2eq в нижнем индексе.

А теперь вы упомянули, я заметил, что это непоследовательно, потому что иногда я индексировал и «2», и «экв», а иногда только «2». Я только что посмотрел на потенциал глобального потепления, и я вижу, что они в основном используют CO.
2е. Поэтому я перехожу к этому стандарту, так как он кажется наиболее читаемым. Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 14:33, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Цель Парижа не ниже 2, но значительно ниже 2 градусов.

исправил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 15:29, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Когда экономический рост возобновится после конца 2010-х годов в Турции и рецессии COVID-19, появится возможность расширить потенциал страны в области возобновляемых источников энергии и инвестировать в энергоэффективность с помощью устойчивой энергетической политики -> Не следует; Во время кризиса в периоды спада делается много инвестиций в устойчивую энергетику.

внесены поправки - но, пожалуйста, не мог бы кто-нибудь перечитать первый абзац раздела экономики, чтобы увидеть, понятно ли сейчас Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 15:39, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• потенциал возобновляемых источников энергии -> По определению потенциал остается неизменным, мощность увеличивается.

исправил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 15:39, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Экономика очень сильно фокусируется на денежно-кредитной политике; как насчет политики стимулирования спроса и политики стимулирования спроса (производство фи и другие более мягкие инструменты)? В разделе субсидий на ископаемое топливо упоминается только одно предложение (которое не является субсидией)

Добавлена ​​информация из отчета ОЭСР, ссылка на который приведена выше, но я не уверен, что понимаю все ваши замечания («производство», возможно, опечатка, но для чего?). ОЭСР, похоже, заявляет, что освобождение нефтяного кокса от налога считается субсидией. Поскольку существуют аргументы по поводу определения субсидии в других странах (например, в Великобритании меньше НДС на электроэнергию, чем на газ), обсуждение этого, возможно, относится к статье, не относящейся к конкретной стране, например Economics_of_climate_change_mitigation # Stop_subsidizing_fossil_fuels . Больше комментариев по экономике приветствуются от вас или кого-либо еще. Chidgk1 ( разговорное ) 11:47, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Приобретение , извините. Другая экономическая политика, не относящаяся к налогам или субсидиям, включает регулирование эффективности, запрет определенных отраслей (мораторий на уголь является популярным), белые сертификаты, строительные нормы и правила и т. Д. (В этом документе есть крутой глобальный обзор). Возможно, все исследования сосредоточены на налогово-бюджетной политике (а не на денежно-кредитной ...), поскольку многие модели комплексной оценки не способны имитировать всю экономику. Если этого не было сделано, это тоже нормально. Люди, изучающие эти типы политики (включая меня), сказали бы, что их игнорирование не является нейтральным способом объяснения вариантов экономической политики. FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 19:28, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Когда я недавно написал одному исследователю, она сказала мне, что в то время не было интегрированных моделей оценки для Турции, включающих столько всего. Но я думаю, что исследование декарбонизации, проведенное Шурой, которое должно быть опубликовано в конце этого года, скорее всего, будет включать IAM со многими из того, что вы упомянули. Тем временем я добавлю кое-что из нового отчета МЭА. Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 06:39, 12 марта 2021 (UTC)

• В разделе экономики большое внимание уделяется ВВП; как насчет занятости.

добавлены рекомендации ОЭСР по вакансиям в раздел "здания" Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:04, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Следующий заголовок с ратификацией Парижа не говорит о ратификации Парижа; в нем говорится о глобальных инвестициях параллельно с Парижем.

Заголовок, возможно, не самый лучший, но я не совсем понимаю, что вы предлагаете. Я пока не нашел никаких количественных прогнозов об экономических последствиях углеродного тарифа ЕС. Поскольку основная количественная экономическая выгода, по-видимому, заключается в экономии на счетах за импорт ископаемого топлива, возможно, мне следует еще раз подчеркнуть это? Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 12:45, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Вы можете изменить его на «Цены на углерод». FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 19:51, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Выполнено Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 06:28, 12 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Согласно Climate Transparency, чтобы получить справедливую долю для достижения 1,5 ° C, Турции необходимо будет сократить до 365 Мт CO2-экв к 2030 году, до 226 Мт CO2-экв к 2050 году и до нуля к 2070 году -> Prose. Запятые необходимы, будьте последовательны в вашей единице для эквивалента CO2 (я считаю, что CO2e / CO2eq действительны)

исправил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:45, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Обязательно запомните дефисы по фазам, например: внедорожники с бензиновым двигателем

исправил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:45, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Богатые люди, выбрасывающие больше, не имеют ничего общего с анализом рентабельности или Парижем.

перемещен в раздел "Политика", но если кто-то думает, что лучше другое место, предложите Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:45, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Анталия, Борнова, Бурса, Чанкая, Эскишехир Тепебаши, Газиантеп, Измир, Кадикой, Малтепе, Нилюфер и Сеферихисар имеют планы по устойчивой энергетике (и климату). [229] Одно предложение в абзаце. Почему заглавные буквы?

исправил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:56, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

• но есть какие-то ограничения ограничения в чем? Законодательство? Выбросы?

уточнил Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 12:56, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 22:51, 9 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• В некоторых подписях есть проблемы с нейтральностью - например, «Есть надежда».

исправил пару подписей - если есть еще какие-то, по вашему мнению, не нейтральные, пожалуйста, дайте мне знать Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 07:00, 14 марта 2021 года (UTC)

• Другие нуждаются в цитировании, например, «один из немногих крупных европейских городов без зоны с низким уровнем выбросов».

процитировал это - я думаю, что любые другие без ссылок либо очевидны, либо процитированы в тексте или на самом изображении - но если необходимы дополнительные ссылки на подписи, пожалуйста, дайте мне знать Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 07:00, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Предложите увеличить изображение лесовосстановления

Выполнено Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 07:00, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Каков источник данных, представленных в файле: Greenhouse_gas_emission_and_absorption_by_Turkey.svg? То же самое: Fossil_fuel_CO2_Turkey.svg

Причина, по которой я помещаю ссылки на источники в сами диаграммы, заключается в том, чтобы люди, которые ищут изображения в Google, могли видеть ссылку на источник, не находя эту статью. Я переделаю круговую диаграмму, когда через несколько недель будут опубликованы данные за 2019 год, и добавлю ссылку на источник в изображение. Следует ли мне также добавлять цитаты в подписи? Chidgk1 ( разговор ) 07:00, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Предлагаю добавить на страницы описания изображений. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 15:01, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Готово Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 14:56, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Файл: Zonguldak_port_and_breakwater, _Turkey_Ottoman_era_postcard.jpg: ссылка на источник мертва, когда и где это было впервые опубликовано?

Османская эра закончилась в 1922 году - если этой информации будет недостаточно, дайте мне знать, и я удалю ее из статьи Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 07:01, 14 марта 2021 года (UTC)

Есть ли источники, поддерживающие утверждение «Османской эпохи»? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 15:01, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Это не было важно для этой статьи, поэтому я удалил его и добавил другое изображение из Зонгулдака Chidgk1 ( обсуждение ) 14:49, 15 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Текумсе [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Kevin1776 ( обсуждение ) 23:36, 6 марта 2021 г. (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 воздвигнуты новые мемориалы. 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.
• Информационное окно: все записи должны начинаться с заглавной буквы.
• Есть много повторяющихся викилинков.

Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 23:55, 6 марта 2021 (UTC)

Очень помогло, это исправлено, спасибо! Kevin1776 ( разговорное ) 02:01, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

ВЧ

Я посмотрю на это в ближайшие дни. Может претендовать на очки WikiCup. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 06:21, 12 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Поскольку у нас возникли проблемы с включением большого количества материалов на отдельные страницы FAC, а затем с проблемами, когда не вся страница FAC будет отображаться, я оставлю свои комментарии на странице обсуждения этого FAC . _{Разговор о} Hog Farm 04:18, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии опубликованы. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 05:09, 14 марта 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка на WP: FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4 , остальные не проверял. _{Разговор на} Hog Farm 06:33, 14 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Марджори Паксон [ править ]

Номинанты : —valereee ( talk ) 14:57, 5 марта 2021 г. (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)

Я исправил 1, 2, 3. Я переупорядочил книгу, в которой нет мест, некоторые из них являются межбиблиотечными абонентами, так что это может занять пару недель. По поводу предложения и заглавного регистра ... Я думаю, вы имеете в виду использование заглавных букв в заголовках статей? Да, IIRC, 5: 33: 205 была информацией с нескольких страниц, но это одна из книг, которые я заказал, поэтому я перепроверяю. Есть ли лучший способ передать эту информацию? Я заказал книгу Р. Дж. Берга, посмотрю, даст ли она мне дополнительную информацию о том, кто это. :) —valereee ( разговор ) 19:25, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо, получил книгу RJBerg. Конечно, это небольшой издатель, и большая часть контента создается самостоятельно. Я действительно помню, что материал, который я для него использовал, упоминался в других местах, поэтому, если кто-то захочет удалить этот источник, я, вероятно, смогу найти источник этого контента в другом источнике. —Valereee ( разговорное ) 21:32, 10 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Если есть основания полагать, что это будет считаться высококачественным, я определенно сказал бы, что мы должны заменить его. Для номеров страниц я бы предложил разделение запятыми, а не двоеточием - двоеточие для меня означает главу / стих или что-то в этом роде. Никкимария ( разговор ) 01:40, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Разделите запятыми. Кодирование двоеточия, похоже, взято из шаблона RP. —Valereee ( разговор ) 18:15, 12 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от Johnbod [ править ]

• Довольно коротко и как-то тонковато - может, источников там нет. Но, возможно, ключевой момент, вытекающий из ее карьеры, четко выражен в (тоже довольно коротком) отведении.
• Ее последние 2 работы были "издателем" в газетах. Есть ссылка (не при первом использовании) на издателя , но я сомневаюсь, что это вообще поможет читателям. Следует пояснить (в обеих статьях), что в газетах и ​​журналах издатель (как название должности) - это лицо, отвечающее за бизнес, а не за какую-либо редакционную работу.

Джонбод ( разговор ) 18:51, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Да, он короткий и тонкий. Многие из этих женщин при жизни не считались очень важными. Я считаю, что в Государственном историческом обществе штата Миссури есть источники, которые, возможно, могут быть полезны, но многие из них будут первичными, а это 7 часов езды. :) Я поменял трубку для первого упоминания издателя и, думаю, на что-то более полезное. —Valereee ( разговорное ) 19:25, 7 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Сердце Томаса [ править ]

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

Эта статья посвящена основополагающему сериалу манги Moto Hagio 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.за их комментарии, особая благодарность Fowler & fowler за их исчерпывающий обзор источников. Я повторно номинирую эту статью в надежде, что в ее нынешнем состоянии она соберет достаточно содержательных обзоров, чтобы ее можно было принять в FA. ( Примечание: я указал леди Фрейю в качестве со-номинатора, поскольку статья адаптирована из эквивалентной статьи во французской Википедии, которую они были основным автором, и которая сама по себе является FA. Совместное назначение не является ожиданием / обязательство для них участвовать в этом FAC, хотя они, безусловно, могут это сделать.) Morgan695 ( разговор ) 19:18, 4 марта 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 у других потенциальных рецензентов было достаточно времени для комментариев. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 20:01, 16 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:

• Предложение «Вскоре наступил период огромных изменений и потрясений для сёдзё-манги: в 1970-е годы появились новые эстетические стили и более сложные повествовательные истории, сфокусированные на социальных проблемах и сексуальности, что отличает жанр от сёнэн-манги (манги для мальчиков). [ 11] «как бы то ни было, это чрезмерное упрощение; эстетический стиль сёдзё (отклоняющийся от конвенций сёнэн) начал развиваться в десятилетии 1960-х (точнее, в конце 1950-х) с Макото Такахаси, Мияко Маки и им подобных; как правильно объяснено в разделе Визуальный стиль, Хаджио и другие мангака 24-го года только следовали этой тенденции с новыми вкладами, но стилистический сдвиг уже давно произошел 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., что объясняет это развитие. Во французской статье я проводил различие между стилистическим и повествовательным развитием, имевшим место в два разных времени: «À cette époque le shōjo manga est en pleine extension et transform: 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 complex, qui n'hésitent plus à parler de politique ou de sexité [13] ».

• В этот раздел внесены изменения, чтобы отметить разницу между повествовательным и эстетическим стилями. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 22:57, 4 марта 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 введении 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 : Согласно первоначальному загрузчику: «Мне известно, что эта фотография выставлена ​​в Мемориальном музее Ёсия Нобуко в Камакура, Япония, и размещена по адресу https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/yoshiya-nobuko-memorial- музей . Его также можно найти в книге под названием 文学 都市 か ま く ら １００ 人, изданной Литературным музеем Камакура в 2005 году » . Поскольку у меня нет доступа к этой книге или музею, я не могу подтвердить авторство или дату изображения. Пожалуйста, дайте мне знать, если какое-либо из двух других размещенных изображений является приемлемой альтернативой. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 15:28, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
      • Второй должен работать. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 21:57, 5 марта 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)
        • Хорошо, но текущая маркировка зависит от того, было ли изображение опубликовано, а не просто создано до 1926 года. Если мы не знаем, когда оно было опубликовано, как мы узнаем, что это правда? Никкимария ( разговор ) 03:30, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)
          • Я заменил изображение на то, которое ранее использовалось в этом разделе и которое прошло ваше рассмотрение в первом FAC. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 04:57, 7 марта 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.
• Для файла: Amaterasu_cave_crop.jpg требуется тег ДП США и дата смерти автора. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 00:07, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Добавлен. Morgan695 ( разговор ) 00:30, 5 марта 2021 (UTC)

Признать себя виновным. Вся моя работа. Но Morgan695 исправит это, я уверен (альтернативный текст в его приятном стиле). Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 00:16, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка от Fowler & fowler [ править ]

• 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 точку 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, насколько 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? Сериал изначально 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.
  • Заменено на следующее, которое, на мой взгляд, менее пушистое и прямо цитируется в тексте статьи: Оно значительно повлияло на сёдзё- мангу как среду, при этом многие стилистические и повествовательные отличительные черты сериала стали стандартными образами жанра. Сериал вызвал значительный интерес ученых как в Японии, так и за рубежом, и был адаптирован в фильм, театральную постановку и роман. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 05:08, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Мне нравится. Спасибо, что обратились к этому. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 05:31, 8 марта 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, поскольку 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)

• Я уважаю эту интерпретацию, но думаю, что она не обязательно совпадает с тем, как эти термины обычно используются в Википедии (статья о манге буквально определяет ее как комиксы или графические романы, происходящие из Японии ). Вы можете возразить, что термин « комиксы » имеет специфический западный контекст, но термин «комиксы» как общий термин для «идей, выраженных с помощью текста и изображений» является довольно универсальным. Morgan695 ( разговорное ) 06:09, 8 марта 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 ведущей роли и еще два раза в первом абзаце ведущей роли 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 в первое предложение заголовка такой перевод, как (комиксы или графические романы из Японии)? 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, поскольку 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 écrit et dessiné par Moto Hagio». Нынешний язык не поможет обычному, неопытному читателю, в назидание которого мы пишем. Я не уверен, но подозреваю, что статья могла привлечь 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 манга-журнале, 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.

Теперь, когда я прочитал отрывок, я думаю, что более серьезная проблема может заключаться в том, что отрывок не является адекватным резюме статьи. Мне очень жаль, что я избавился от этих незначительных опасений здесь, в стиле запоздалых размышлений, но я постараюсь найти немного времени в следующие несколько дней и немного расширить отрывок, чтобы сделать его более репрезентативным для тела статьи. Я сделаю это на странице обсуждения. Поскольку я уже предлагал поддержку, будет менее запутанно, если другие будут здесь комментировать. И вы можете сказать мне на странице обсуждения, что вы думаете. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 17:44, 9 марта 2021 г. (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 убедиться, что эта проблема была решена в первую очередь. 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)

Оба . Основная проблема со ссылками, помимо этих мелких придирок выше, - это обозначение «Ссылки» и «Библиография»; остается неоднозначным. Я имею в виду, что у вас есть журнальная статья в справочниках (Shamoon) и немного в библио (например, Hori). Я предполагал, что вы помещаете те, у которых есть только одна цитата, в справочные материалы, а те, у которых другие - в bibio, но Нагайке предполагает, что это не так. Точно так же одна из цитат ИНС находится в ссылках, а другие - в библио; Статья Atlantic находится в библио, а статьи Gentosha Plus - в справочниках. Я бы подумал, что самым простым решением (хотя, безусловно, есть и другие доступные), было бы переместить все ссылки с авторами в biblio и заменить текущие цитаты на sfn обратно туда.

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)

СМС Нимфа (1863) [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Parsecboy ( разговор ) 11:35, 2 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Это был первый винтовой корвет, построенный для небольшого прусского флота в начале 1860-х годов; корабль участвовал в боевых действиях во время войн за объединение Германии, в первую очередь в битве при Ясмунде в 1864 году. Я написал эту статью в 2018 году, он прошел проверку класса A в 2019 году, и теперь он прибыл в FAC. Спасибо всем, кто нашел время просмотреть статью. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 11:35, 2 марта 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99 [ править ]

Предоставляю обзор, надеюсь, вы ответите взаимностью моему кандидату, указанному ниже.

Вести

• вооружены батареей из шестнадцати орудий - звено артиллерийской батареи ?
  • Отличная идея
• «Нимфея» была заложена в январе 1862 года, спущена на воду в апреле 1863 года и закончена в октябре того же года. - использование местоимений здесь кажется излишним
  • Удаленный
• Она была активно вовлечена в битву с датским фрегатом , и она получила около 70 попаданий, в основном в ее такелаж, хотя она не была серьезно повреждена. - легкий ce; "битва; она получила"
  • Выполнено
• связать Средиземное море (есть более поздний пример этого в третьем абзаце, который необходимо отключить)
  • Хороший улов
• но она действительно видела сражение с французскими военными кораблями во время франко-прусской войны в 1870 году. - это лучше было бы объединить со следующим предложением; что-то вроде: «Во время франко-прусской войны 1870 года французская эскадра ...»
  • Выполнено
• ссылочная блокада
  • Выполнено

Дизайн

• Экипаж корабля состоял из 14 офицеров и 176 рядовых - офицера звена (ВС) и матроса ?
  • Выполнено
• Нимфея была вооружена батареей из десяти 36-фунтовых орудий и шестизвенной артиллерийской батареи снова.
  • Выполнено
• В 1869 году эти орудия были заменены семнадцатью, а позже девятнадцатью нарезными орудиями калибра 12 см (4,7 дюйма) 23 калибра. Позже в ее карьере их количество сократилось до девяти. - WP: ЧИСЛО
  • 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, которых больше не существует, обычно 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
• Ее заменила бронированная Hansa, что позволило ей продолжить тренировочный рейс. - Ее потом или потом заменили ...
• 1 апреля 1882 года он был повторно задействован для другого учебного похода, в который в этом году отправился - который в этом году прошел ...
• и был вынужден отправиться на Мальту, так как часть ее экипажа была больна - после того, как часть ее команды заболела
• Затем она начала рейс в Германию, и по дороге она остановилась в Лиссабоне, Португалия, где она посетили король Португалии Луиш I. - опускает

В остальном все хорошо. - truflip99 ( разговор ) 00:05, 12 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от HAL [ править ]

• Два корвета класса «Нимфа» были заказаны в начале 1860-х годов как часть программы по укреплению прусского флота, поскольку вероятность конфликта с Данией по вопросу Шлезвиг-Гольштейн становилась все более вероятной. «As» кажется слегка злоупотребляемым.
  • Выполнено
• напряженность с ростом между Данией и Пруссией
  • Фиксированный
• Ссылка снежные ливни . Никогда раньше не слышал об этом в контексте снега.
  • Выполнено
• В подписях можно использовать еще несколько ссылок imo.
  • Добавил пару к ведущему изображению, но я не знаю, что другие оправдывают какие-либо
• Исходники выглядят неплохо.

Подробнее позже. ~ HAL 333 14:10, 5 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Что такое флотилия Северного моря? Должен ли он быть перенаправлен, лишен заглавной буквы, объяснен и т. Д.?
  • Недолговечная военно-морская единица; Я не знаю, оправдывает ли это статью. Где-то в будущем я могу найти статью о прусской военно-морской деятельности во время войны, в которой будет ссылка на заголовок раздела, но это, вероятно, далеко.
• Link Сорти .
  • Выполнено
• Link Рио, как и с другими городами. То же самое и с SF, Лиссабон.
  • Выполнено
• Ссылка на угольную станцию .
  • Выполнено
• В последних двух заголовках я бы вставил запятую:, 1872 г.
  • Выполнено

Вот и все. ~ HAL 333 18:31, 6 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка ~ HAL 333 17:55, 15 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Предложить добавить альтернативный текст
  • Выполнено
• Для файла: Loading_gun_on_the_Nymphe_1872_SLV.jpeg требуется тег US PD. То же самое: Balloon_gun_on_Prussian_corvette_Nymphe_1872_NLV.jpeg. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 03:28, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)
  • Забавно, что я посмотрел на этих двух, прежде чем номинировал статью, чтобы подтвердить, что они подходят, но, видимо, забыл добавить теги США. Судя по странице с описанием , они были подарены Патентным ведомством Виктории в 1908 году, что свидетельствует о публикации до 1923 года. Спасибо, Никки. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 22:49, 8 марта 2021 (UTC)

Бумажный Марио [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): P Anini 🥪 01:23, 2 марта 2021 (UTC)

Эта статья посвящена подсерии франшизы Mario , Paper Mario . Кто-то в Nintendo решил: «Эй, графика на Nintendo 64 плохая», и вместо этого сделал все двухмерным. Эта игра была названа, и команда отдела сверхурочно работала над этой, Paper Mario . Игра получила высокие оценки критиков. Они выпустили сиквел , получивший всеобщее признание. Затем разработчики решили немного сменить жанр для третьей игры, Super Paper Mario , и она была просто встречена. Потом они выпустили Sticker Star , и все это возненавидели. Цветовой всплескненавидел еще больше. Король Оригами , а.

Когда я писал эту статью, у меня появились первые мысли от PresN . Он также получил очень короткую рецензию, отредактированную копию от Willbb234 , небольшие доработки от (Oinkers42), и через все это Blue Pumpkin Pie наблюдал как ястреб. P Anini 🥪 1:23, 2 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от RetiredDuke [ править ]

• Незначительные комментарии для начала:

• разве вторая игра не называется Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, а не «Thousand Year»? Возможно, захочется проверить все это;

  Выполнено.

• пожалуйста, просмотрите, чтобы ссылки были в порядке (например, недостаточно развитый игровой процесс. [99] [13] и чрезмерно сложный, [100] [13] );

  Выполнено.

• согласно MOS: CAPTION , фрагменты предложения не должны заканчиваться точкой . RetiredDuke ( разговорное ) 11:09, 2 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Выполнено.

Комментарии HumanxAnthro [ править ]

Привет, Панини, и хорошей работы над статьей. Однако у меня есть несколько серьезных проблем:

1. В академической или научной литературе нет никаких упоминаний о франшизе, страницы которой я нашел благодаря простому поиску в Google .
2. Это может показаться незначительным, но я не поклонник нынешней организации статьи. Раздел геймплея хорош и выполняет свою работу по описанию общего игрового процесса серии, но после этого раздела возникает проблема. Большинство разделов «разработка» и «прием» (кроме параграфа о критике последних трех игр) описывают конкретные игры, а не франшизу в целом, и содержание в этих подразделах «Игры» слишком мало. и мог бы быть подходящей длины, если бы в них были объединены вещи из разделов разработки и приема.
3. Говоря о приеме, относящемся только к определенным заголовкам, это самая большая проблема, когда речь идет о соответствии 1b; нет ничего о всей франшизы ' s воздействия и наследие, так как есть с Еж Соник франшизы признакам статьи. Да ладно, это успешная франшиза Nintendo, нет информации о том, как игры Paper Mario повлияли на игровую индустрию?
4. Почему в разделе «Игры» нет цитаты о датах выхода?

   Цитируется

Я не буду возражать, потому что я не думаю, что эта статья проиграна: я не сомневаюсь, что игра в прозе со стороны пользователей, упомянутых выше Панини, и, судя по беглому беглому просмотру, большинство цитирований (кроме IGN не форматируется как произведение в одном месте, а источник Metacritic неправильно отформатирован как произведение, а в других отформатирован как произведение) выглядят хорошо отформатированными и взяты из надежных качественных источников. Но я действительно думаю, что приведенная мною выше критика верна. есть идеи? HumanxAnthro ( разговор ) 23:41, 3 марта 2021 (UTC)

• HumanxAnthro , прежде чем я начну, просматривая источники книг, я не нашел ничего, кроме этой , и в большинстве других случаев игры используются в качестве примера. Кроме того, в отличие от всей франшизы Sonic the Hedgehog , эти игры не сдвинули горы; нет никакого большого культурного воздействия или упоминаний в других СМИ. Хотя первые пара абзацев в статье Sonic the Hedgehog посвящены мыслям рецензентов о том, как сериал развивался с течением времени, эта информация уже пронизана разделом критического восприятия. P Anini 🥪 1:28, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Я пингую PresN здесь, посмотрю, что он думает по этому поводу , и подходит ли моя альтернатива слияния наследства / приема. P Anini 🥪 13:08, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

  Спасибо за комментарии. Что ж, если ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО нет освещения о влиянии франшизы в целом, тогда .... Поддержка полноты. Есть пара мелких проблем (например, упомянутые мной цитаты и проза), но я думаю, что их легко исправить. HumanxAnthro ( разговорное ) 16:17, 4 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Джеральда Уолдо Луиса [ править ]

Я скоро сделаю полный обзор! На данный момент я хотел бы отметить одну вещь: в ссылке 28 есть ошибка цитирования. Джеральд У.Л. 14:52, 4 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Фиксированный

Извините за долгое ожидание! Делаем обзор ниже. Джеральд В.Л. 12:23, 12 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• (HATNOTE) Нужна ли вещь "Super Paper Mario"? Если вы утверждаете, что есть слово «Paper Mario», я бы сказал, что оно есть и в других видеоиграх серии. Джеральд В.Л. 12:23, 12 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

• Причина, по которой он здесь, на тот случай, если читатели могут спутать игры с серией Super Mario , к которой это ответвление. На мой взгляд, это безвредно.

• (ГЕЙМПЛЕЙ) Картинка геймплея для меня слишком мала. Хотите немного увеличить его?

• Да, но из-за этого мне пришлось переместить все остальные изображения в статье, чтобы они соответствовали им. Спасибо за это.

• (ГЕЙМПЛЕЙ) «ряд исследуемых областей, известных как миры» - объединить виртуальный мир в «миры»?

• Виртуальный мир и просто «мир» - разные вещи; миры - это разные разделы в игре, например, как в New Super Mario Bros.Wii есть «Мир 1», «Мир 2» и т. д., показанные на этом изображении . «Виртуальный мир» - это просто что-то или где-то в Интернете, где пользователи взаимодействуют, например, чат-форум или игра в виртуальной реальности.

• (ГЕЙМПЛЕЙ) «(XP, известный в игре как Star Points, или SP)» - я думаю, что было бы лучше изменить первую запятую на точку с запятой.

• Измененный

• (ГЕЙМПЛЕЙ) «Элементы РПГ, такие как XP, союзники» - не следует ли «XP» быть множественным числом, учитывая «союзники»?

• Честно говоря, этот термин используется не так; они называют это XP, во множественном числе или нет, вероятно потому, что XP звучит глупо. Однако в данном случае я назвал его полным термином, чтобы избежать путаницы.

• (ИГРЫ) «In Sticker Star» - я бы предпочел заменить «Sticker Star» на «it», поскольку полное имя было сказано всего лишь предложение назад.

• Измененный

• (ИГРЫ) «Когда Марио и Луиджи направляются в Город Жаб в Грибном Королевстве, они обнаруживают, что город заброшен». Внезапный переход к синопсису без разъяснения его в реальном контексте, как это делается в приведенных выше подразделах. Я бы изменил его: «В нем Марио и Луиджи направляются в Город Жаб в Грибном Королевстве, который оказывается заброшенным».

• Измененный

Джеральд Уолдо Луис , спасибо за обзор! Я рассмотрел ваши вопросы. P Anini 🥪 2:27, 15 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от Shooterwalker [ править ]

Обещаю, что доберусь до этого в течение недели, если не раньше. Стрелок ( разговор ) 00:59, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker , да, я тоже для тебя. Я не могу сделать это сегодня вечером, так как у меня был напряженный день, и мне нужно расслабиться. Вероятно, завтра, поскольку я также пообещал двум другим провести экспертную оценку, так что завтра сделаю день обзора. P Anini 🥪 1:01, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Поработаю с прозой и ссылками и посмотрю, чего я доберусь.

• Вести
• Я никогда не видел слова «подсерии». Это может быть немного жаргона, и может быть более простой способ объяснить его отношение к франшизе в целом и то, что отличает его от других платформеров.
• Запятые в предложении о союзниках и антагонистах добавляют много слов в двух подпунктах. Я чувствую, что вы могли бы бросить их, не теряя много информации.

• Убрали, но оставили "В первую очередь Баузер".

• «игра в Paper Mario» → «игра в Paper Mario»,

• Фиксированный

• «Несмотря на то, что ранние игры серии были хорошо приняты, Кенсуке Танабе хотел сохранить стиль каждой игры, такой как жанр и бой, отличный от предыдущей». Этот тип предложений не ужасен, но стараться избегать повторения предложений с большим количеством запятых - это то, к чему нужно стремиться. Как насчет «Несмотря на то, что ранние игры серии были хорошо приняты, Кенсуке Танабе хотел, чтобы каждая игра имела свой стиль, изменяя жанр и боевую систему для каждой новой игры».

• Изменено, но заменено «и боевая система» на «и основной элемент игрового процесса», поскольку это то, что чаще всего меняют (там также была опечатка).

• «переход от ролевых игр к жанру приключенческого боевика» → «преобразование жанров из ролевых игр в приключенческий боевик».

• Измененный

• «Новый формат игр, начиная с Paper Mario: Sticker Star и далее, был встречен неоднозначно: жалобы на новый жанровый стиль, но похвалы за текст, персонажей, музыку и переосмысленные бумажные эстетические визуальные эффекты». → «С выпуском Paper Mario: Sticker Star сериал начал получать жалобы на смену жанра, но все равно продолжал получать похвалу за свои сочинения, персонажей, музыку и визуальные эффекты, вдохновленные бумагой».

• Ты, мой друг, очень хорошо говоришь словами. Вам следует подумать об экстраверсии .

• Геймплей
• Когда подойдет точка, точка с запятой не нужна. По правде говоря, все это предложение представляет собой множество запятых, которые следует разбить на более мелкие предложения.

• Что я могу сказать, я, например, любитель запятых, так как они не только помогают комбинировать предложения, но, на мой взгляд, помогают с течением перехода.

• Может быть, найти способ перефразировать, не используя слова «каждая игра» так скоро друг за другом.

• Поменял первый экземпляр на серийный.

• «помощь в выполнении заданий в мирах или помощь в бою». → (параллелизм) «помощь либо в выполнении заданий в мирах, либо в сражении в бою».

• Фиксированный

• «но расходует очки цветов (FP), внутриигровую статистику, когда используется» → «, но расходует конечное количество очков цветов (FP)».
• «Super Paper Mario отличается от жанра RPG, скорее, это скорее платформер» → «Super Paper Mario - это скорее платформер по сравнению с первыми двумя ролевыми играми в серии».
• Непонятно, что вы здесь имеете в виду: «Хотя Марио не сражается бок о бок с уникальными партнерами»
• «Кроме того, можно вызывать и использовать союзников, известных как пиксели, которые предоставляют дополнительные способности, полезные в бою и для прохождения уровней» → «Кроме того, Марио может призывать союзников, известных как пиксели, которые предоставляют дополнительные способности, которые полезны в боя и прохождения уровней ".
• «Игры Paper Mario больше ориентированы на жанр приключенческого боевика» → «серия сместилась в сторону жанра приключенческого боевика».
• «Элементы RPG, такие как XP, союзники, [17] и сложный сюжет, [18] были уменьшены». → «В серии уменьшено внимание к элементам ролевой игры, без очков опыта, с меньшим количеством союзников и более простым сюжетом».
• Вместо этого игры больше основаны на решении головоломок, и, хотя бои по-прежнему пошаговые, каждая игра имеет уникальный элемент стратегии вместо опыта ». →« Вместо этого игры были сосредоточены на решении головоломок и заменены система очков опыта с новым стратегическим геймплеем вокруг боя ».

• Измененный

• Игры
• «Paper Mario также видел несколько переизданий, а именно:» → «Игра была позже переиздана»

• Измененный

• «В Paper Mario Баузер похищает принцессу Пич и украл ...» → «В Paper Mario Баузер похищает принцессу Пич и крадет ...» (параллелизм)

• Измененный

• «Головоломки Paper Mario делают упор на союзников Марио; большинство головоломок основано на навыках партнеров Марио, каждый из которых обладает уникальными способностями». → «Марио и его союзники также должны решать головоломки, многие задачи которых созданы вокруг уникальных способностей одного из персонажей».

• Измененный

• «В сюжете рассказывается Rogueport, который содержит закрытый портал, в котором хранится большое состояние. Когда Марио и Пич участвуют в открытии, Пич похищается X-Nauts, которые также стремятся открыть портал». → «Основное место действия - Rogueport, где Марио и Пич обнаруживают запертый портал, который может привести к большой удаче. Вскоре после этого Пич похищают ...»

• Измененный

• Опять же, я мог бы просто заменить точку с запятой точкой, но это могло быть вопросом стиля, а не жестким требованием.

• Я также энтузиаст точки с запятой; Я пока оставлю это.

• «который он может использовать, чтобы разрушить вселенную и заменить ее совершенной» → «чтобы он мог разрушить и переделать вселенную».

• Изменено, но добавлено «по своему вкусу», чтобы объяснить, почему еще немного.

• «Чтобы предотвратить это, Марио с помощью Пич, Луиджи, Баузера и нового союзника по имени Типпи решил собрать восемь« Чистых сердец »». → «Марио намеревается остановить графа Блека, собрав восемь« Чистых сердец »с помощью Пич, Луиджи, Баузера и нового союзника по имени Типпи».

• Измененный

• «Королевские наклейки внутри кометы» → «Королевские наклейки, живущие внутри кометы»

• Добавлен

• «шесть королевских стикеров» - множественное число

• Наверное просто опечатка

• «использование монет в качестве валюты» - валютная часть не нужна

• Удаленный

• "предопределяет", вы имеете в виду "планы"?

• Планы показались мне немного странными, поэтому я заменил его на «Prese».

• «против врагов в бою» - в этом особо не нуждаются. Подразумевается, что это нападение.

• Удаленный

• «не видно под обычным углом камеры» → «не видно под стандартным углом камеры».

• Мы получаем фэнси

• «Заметив, что остров также потерял цвет, их подсказывает Хьюи, который объясняет, как шесть больших красочных звезд придают острову цвет, но шесть звезд были разбросаны, что позже было обнаружено благодаря Баузеру». → «Заметив, что остров также потерял цвет, они разговаривают с Хьюи, который объясняет, почему: шесть Больших разноцветных звезд, которые придают цвет острову, были разбросаны, что позже выяснилось, как дело рук Баузера».

• Измененный

• Проблемы с пониманием этого. Попробуйте перефразировать. «Игрок может использовать Wii U GamePad, который позволяет Марио использовать способность« вырезать », которая очищает часть окружающей среды и показывает места, которые ранее не были видны».

• «Игрок может использовать Wii U Gamepad, чтобы проследить дыру в бумажной среде, чтобы раскрыть секреты, известная как способность« Вырезать »».

• «Чтобы вступить в бой, Марио использует карты, которые, как и Наклейка Star, предопределяют, какую способность Марио будет использовать или как он будет атаковать врага». → «Марио планирует свой бой, как и Наклейка Star, используя карты для определения своего действия и цели».

• Измененный

• Возможно, вы могли бы просто разбить это на два более коротких предложения. «Когда они входят в Замок Персика, они обнаруживают, что Персик сложили в оригами и промыли мозги королем Олли, и многие другие жители, включая Баузера, постигли подобную судьбу».

• Раскололась, как бутылка Pepto Bismal, которая на самом деле была тортом.

• «некоторые элементы ролевых игр» → «некоторые элементы ролевой игры»

• Измененный

• «Например, были повторно представлены союзники, но они не так полезны, как в первых двух играх серии». → «Например, в игре вновь появляются союзники, хотя и в урезанной роли по сравнению с первыми двумя играми Paper Mario ».

• Мое любимое изменение причудливого предложения на данный момент.

• Немного странно выводить дополнительные игры из строя, но я понимаю, что это серия внутри серии внутри серии. Просто кое-что отметить на случай, если кто-то еще поднимет эту тему.
• Опять же, я мог бы попытаться найти способ объяснить отношения между сериалами без жаргона подсерий.

• Я рассчитался с дополнительным доходом

• «В Paper Jam Луиджи случайно натыкается на книгу в библиотеке Peach's Castle, которая содержит вселенную Paper Mario». → «В Paper Jam Луиджи случайно опрокидывает книгу, в которой содержится вселенная Paper Mario». (таким образом вы не потеряете никакого объяснения)

• Измененный

• «После того, как жители Бумажного Марио распространились по Грибному Королевству, два Баузера из обеих вселенных объединяются, чтобы похитить оба варианта Персика». -> «Это заставляет две вселенные пересекаться, а жители Бумажного Марио распространяются по всему Грибному Королевству. Два Баузера из обеих вселенных объединяются, чтобы похитить оба варианта Персика».

• Измененный

• «Игрок управляет Марио, Луиджи и Бумажным Марио; Марио и Луиджи могут выполнять свои обычные действия, а Бумажный Марио может выполнять действия, похожие на бумажные, такие как складывание сюрикена в битве» → «Игрок управляет Марио, Луиджи и Пейпер. Марио, используя обычные способности Марио и Луиджи, а также действия Бумажного Марио, вдохновленные бумагой, такие как складывание сюрикена в бою ».

• Измененный

• «В бою он может делать несколько копий самого себя, создавая большой стек, который наносит больше урона в качестве специальной атаки». → «Бумажный Марио также может делать несколько копий самого себя, выполняя атаку с большим уроном в виде большого стека».

• Измененный

Это совсем немного, и я собираюсь это оставить. Но должен позволить вам начать. Я постараюсь в ближайшее время поработать через Разработку и Прием. В целом исходники выглядят неплохо. Стрелок ( разговор ) 21:00, 10 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо, Shooterwalker , за обзор. Я планировал перейти к вашей статье сегодня, но у Plants vs. Zombies были большие проблемы с прозой, и они меня выгорели еще до того, как я попал в Namco . Я займусь этим завтра. P Anini 🥪 1:43, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Пробуем еще несколько предложений. Спасибо за добрые слова! Два общих правила, которые помогают мне лучше писать:

1. Старайтесь избегать предложений, в которых больше трех предложений (например, предложение, содержащее более двух запятых). Подобно статьям Википедии, предложения имеют ограничения по размеру, когда их целесообразнее разбивать, сокращать или реорганизовывать. (Больше запятых для списков - забавное исключение, от которого иногда можно уйти, особенно в конце предложения.)
2. Меняйте темп между простыми и сложными предложениями. Мое последнее предложение было простым, но не обязательно коротким, а это немного сложнее, но не слишком длинным.
3. Избегайте пассивного озвучивания , особенно в более сложных предложениях, потому что это затрудняет понимание того, кто что делает. «Игра была разработана как ...» против «Nintendo разработала игру как ...». Или даже сократите это до «Дизайн был ...», чтобы выразить это в более крупном предложении.

К обзору ...

• Развитие и история
• Я предлагаю вернуться к тому, как эти абзацы разбиты, просто чтобы действительно организовать каждый абзац вокруг игры или периода между играми. Возможно, что все внимание к «объявлениям» - это добавление беспорядка без добавления дополнительной информации, но используйте свое суждение, если объявление важно для понимания истории серии.
• «Компания Intelligent Systems была основана Тору Нарихиро после того, как он был нанят в качестве сотрудника Nintendo для переноса игр с Famicom Disk System на картриджи». Я думаю, проясните, что они наняли компанию, но поначалу фактически это был один человек.

• Поместите там "сам по себе"

• «После своего успеха в разработке видеоигр, таких как серии Wars and Fire Emblem, Нарихиро нанял больше разработчиков и расширил компанию до Intelligent Systems» → «Нарихиро продолжил разработку успешных игр, таких как серия Wars and Fire Emblem, которая позволил ему расширить свою компанию дополнительными художниками и разработчиками ».
• «Теперь современная Square Enix», вы можете отказаться от этого, не теряя много, и получить более простое предложение.

• Удаленный. Все равно они мне не нравятся.

• «Чтобы заинтересовать фанатов жанром», тоже отбросьте это, так как вы лучше скажете это в конце предложения.

• Удаленный

• "следуя за этим" может сократить это

• Удаленный

• «потому что он считал, что игроки устанут от низкополигональной графики, а также от попыток выявить« привлекательность »в персонажах». → «потому что он считал, что игроки могут предпочесть игру с« милым »2D-дизайном персонажей, а не другую игру с низкополигональной 3D-графикой».
• «Процесс разработки игры длился четыре года; она была выпущена в августе 2000 года, на позднем этапе существования консоли, когда было объявлено о выпуске Nintendo GameCube». → «Разработка заняла четыре года и была выпущена в августе 2000 года, ближе к концу жизненного цикла консоли».

• Измененный.

• «Тысячелетняя дверь была объявлена ​​на конференции разработчиков игр 2003 года и была объявлена ​​прямым продолжением предыдущей игры». Вы говорите, что объявили дважды, и это, вероятно, могло бы быть более коротким предложением. Попробуйте «На конференции разработчиков игр 2003 года Nintendo анонсировала прямое продолжение« Тысячелетняя дверь ».

• Немного поигрались, но в целом изменилось.

• «в июле 2004 года в Японии и в конце 2004 года во всем мире» Для резюмирования было бы проще сказать «2004 год».

• Измененный

• «серия Mario & Luigi началась в 2003 году с Superstar Saga для Game Boy Advance, разработанной ныне несуществующей AlphaDream» → «Разработчик Alphadream разработал первую игру в серии Mario & Luigi, выпустив Superstar Saga для Game Boy Advance в 2003 году. . " (Вероятно, раньше вы могли опустить точку с запятой и просто сделать точку.)

• Поменял, и для второго предложения нет;

• «Будущий продюсер серии Paper Mario» Может быть, позже это подскажет более естественно, чтобы не нарушить ход и хронологию.

• Оки Доки

• «что, по его словам, влияет на изменения в персонале или в основной системе игры» → «заставляет их исследовать более значительные изменения в игровом процессе и команде разработчиков каждой игры». (Это то, что еще не произошло, и вот-вот произойдет.)

• Измененный

• «директор игры Рёта Каваде» → «директор игры Рёта Каваде»

• Измененный

• «Когда идея возможности переключаться между 2D и 3D была концептуализирована ...» Попробуйте разбить это на два более коротких предложения

• Раскололся, как тот ребенок, когда он случайно включил пожарную сигнализацию.

• «Изначально планировалось, что Super Paper Mario станет одной из последних игр, выпущенных для GameCube, о чем было объявлено в трейлере на E3 2006» → «На E3 2006 Super Paper Mario была объявлена ​​одной из последних игр, запланированных к выпуску. на GameCube ". (Полная остановка)
• «когда он был переключен на Wii, его средства управления движением не были реализованы» → «он не использовал преимущества новых средств управления движением Wii».
• "полностью объявлено" → "объявлено полностью"

• Фиксированный

• «Разработчики по запросу Миямото, который больше не был продюсером сериала, не сделали этого» → «Поскольку создатель Марио Миямото больше не был продюсером сериала, он попросил разработчиков ...»

• Измененный

• «Кроме того, он также попросил изменить бой из-за схожести с« Тысячелетней дверью »и удалить историю, потому что не многие игроки сочли ее интересной, и он считал, что игра будет прекрасна без истории» → «Миямото также попросил их сделать бой более отличным от «Тысячелетней двери» и убрать большую часть сюжетных элементов из-за ранних отзывов фанатов ». (более простое предложение, и цитата у вас справа)
• «Основные изменения в Sticker Star и других играх серии были внесены, чтобы помочь представить серию новой аудитории» → «Начиная с Sticker Star, серия трансформировалась, чтобы попытаться привлечь новую аудиторию».

• Измененный

• «запретил разработчикам создавать новых персонажей или новые черты характера на основе уже существующих персонажей во франшизе Mario» → «ограничивал сторонних разработчиков изменять или добавлять персонажей во вселенную Mario». (дает вам большую ясность, особенно когда читается со следующим предложением)
• Может быть, еще несколько примеров, когда точка с запятой лучше, чем точка с запятой.
• «последняя основная игра» нуждается в пояснении и, вероятно, может быть перефразирована. Можно просто сказать «игра»?

• Немного прояснено, означает «последняя игра в серии».

• «Художники заставили миростроительство выглядеть полностью из бумаги», - может быть, есть лучший способ сказать это.

• Измененный

• «через Nintendo Direct» могло быть «на Nintendo Direct» или даже «через Nintendo Direct»?

• Изменено на "через"

• Может быть, закончить последнее предложение точкой. Негативный фанатский прием - отдельное событие и отдельная мысль.

• Измененный

• «Игра выйдет во всем мире в начале октября» в каком году? нужно ли говорить об игре Nintendo по всему миру?

• Фиксированный

• "в видео в начале сентября" На самом деле не нужно говорить "в видео"

• Удаленный

• «в середине мая» отсутствует точка

• Да, они мне просто не очень нравятся.

• «Он заявил, что из-за того, что не может удовлетворить каждого фаната, в основном основных поклонников сериала и случайных игроков, он вместо этого пытается тяготеть к новым концепциям, поэтому Король оригами использовал оригами как новую бумажную тему. " Это можно было бы значительно упростить.

• Упрощенный

• Я бы сказал, что в последнем абзаце этого раздела есть несколько продолжающихся предложений, которые можно сократить и / или разделить.

• Немного повозился

Прием

• Может быть, попробуйте изменить график для читателя, начиная с этого раздела. например: Paper Mario - первая игра, выпущенная в 2000 году. Вероятно, не нужно больше, чем несколько удачно поставленных слов, но если она начинает добавлять беспорядок, вы можете попробовать ее собственное предложение.
• Возможно, переместите рейтинг списка 2006 года в конец этого абзаца, чтобы провести различие между его немедленным приемом в 2000 году и его долгосрочным наследием.
• Я думаю, что мои последние два комментария также применимы к каждому дополнительному абзацу, устанавливая год, если не какой-то другой показатель того, как менялась серия (может быть, платформа?). Это поможет выстроить эти абзацы и поможет читателю четко уложиться в сроки. Как есть, это просто похоже на несколько разрозненных абзацев о разных играх.
• Пропуская до конца абзац о трех играх, начиная с Sticker Star, на самом деле действительно информативен. Я видел, как один из вышеупомянутых рецензентов FA сказал, что в этой статье можно было бы использовать еще несколько обсуждений серии в целом, и я думаю, что этот абзац - отличный пример. Я знаю, что это сложно, если источников не существует. Но, возможно, есть способ реорганизовать его, чтобы прием был больше похож на общий комментарий об эволюции серии, а не на серию отдельных приемов для отдельных игр. Иногда кажется, что мы теряем лес, глядя на каждое дерево.
• «Кроме того, сюжет также подвергся небольшой критике за чрезмерную сложность» → «Некоторые обозреватели также раскритиковали сюжет как слишком сложный»,
• Если в цитировании есть три рецензента, которые согласны, действительно ли нам нужно назвать кого-либо из них?
• «Восприятие игры было в основном неоднозначным и критиковалось за то, что в центре внимания были стикеры» → «неоднозначно». Сказать смешанный и критикуемый - это разные вещи, и вы поговорите о критике позже.
• «Наклейки вещи назывались» → «Наклейки назвали обозреватели»
• «презрение» - сильное слово. Просто убедитесь, что вы это имеете в виду.
• Я понимаю, почему объявление Color Splash важно, но вы должны стараться вести более четкую хронологию между объявлением и самой игрой. Немного реорганизуйте первые два предложения.
• "бесцельность" непонятна.
• «Обозреватель Giant Bomb Дэн Рикерт понял, что основная функция монет в игре - покупать карты для боя, которые взамен давали монеты, которые, по его мнению, делали систему бессмысленной». Постарайтесь сказать это меньшим количеством слов.
• «поскольку он вернул старые элементы RPG и удалил другие неисправные в играх до» → «поскольку он повторно добавил любимые элементы RPG и удалил другие элементы, которые подверглись критике».
• «учитывая их укрытия и юмористические диалоги» → «хваля их юмористические диалоги и интересные укрытия».
• «Боевая система игры была одновременно оценена и не одобрена» → «Рецензенты неоднозначно восприняли боевую систему игры»
• Вы можете опустить точку с запятой в разделе «другие медиа».
• В связи с моим комментарием об этом разделе в более общем плане, раздел продаж мог бы выиграть, если бы попытался сделать его потоком в виде комментария ко всей серии, а не нескольких отдельных предложений о нескольких отдельных играх. Это может быть так же просто, как использование большего количества слов, таких как «также» или «снова», и других слов для сравнения, которые показывают, когда полоса формируется или прерывается.

Это подводит нас к концу, и у вас должно быть много возможностей для работы. Я знаю, что комментариев много, но это верный путь. Не стесняйтесь задавать любые вопросы, и мы сможем вернуться к ним после раунда правок. Стрелок ( разговор ) 19:01, 11 марта 2021 (UTC)

Обзор специальных возможностей [ править ]

• Добавьте замещающий текст к изображениям для WP: CAPTION / MOS: ACCIM .
• Добавьте заголовок, области строк и столбцов, а также заголовки строк в таблицу наград и номинаций согласно MOS: DTAB . Heartfox ( разговор ) 04:15, 13 марта 2021 (UTC)

Битва при Ираклионе [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Gog the Mild ( разговор ) 17:14, 1 марта 2021 (UTC)

Крит, 1941 г .; бой на уровне бригады / полка. Яростно боролись, но в итоге ничего не дало. Обе стороны достигли / потерпели пиррова победы. В последнее время сильно расширил мною и поставил через GAN и ACR. Вторая статья о битве за Крит, написанная мной после недавней битвы при Ретимно. Все предложения по улучшению приняты с благодарностью. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 17:14, 1 марта 2021 (UTC)

• Обзоры изображений и источников проходят согласно ACR ( t · c ) buidhe 21:04, 1 марта 2021 г. (UTC)

  Подпись к изображению для потенциальных клиентов, похоже, скопирована непосредственно с исходного сайта изображения, но не имеет ни кавычек, ни цитаты. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 03:26, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо, Никкимария , я это совсем упустил. Теперь перефразирую и процитирую. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 12:43, 7 марта 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Поддержка Indy Beetle [ править ]

• До апреля 1941 года на Крите постоянно не базировались подразделения Королевских ВВС (RAF), но было начато строительство аэродрома, построены радиолокационные станции и доставлены складские запасы. Это предложение повторяется дважды в одном и том же абзаце.

Ага! Один удален.

• Рулевой механизм «Империал» сломался примерно в 03:45 [84], и его команду и солдат пришлось вывозить в море ночью, а затем он был потоплен. Затоплен?

Я добавил Wikilink, но предпочел бы сохранить более прямое описание, чем заменить его на менее понятный технический термин.

• Есть ли информация о попытках восстановить Ираклион после налетов немецкой авиации?

Это очень хороший момент. Я ничего не видел, но буду исследовать дальше. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 09:57, 2 марта 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.

• 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.

• ... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lips Are Movin[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's second single "Lips Are Movin", which she wrote within eight minutes. Almost every critic that reviewed it compared this song to Trainor's debut single, and its release made Trainor the fifth female artist in Billboard Hot 100 history to follow her debut number-one single directly with a second top-five. Additionally, it is noteworthy as the first-ever music video made entirely by social media influencers. After its recent peer review, I am confident that this article has a decent chance of passing an FAC. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The lead states that the song "is about Trainor leaving her significant other after discovering he is cheating on her". However, the text states that this is an interpretation by some reviewers, and indeed quotes a different explanation from the co-author. Be careful that opinions and facts are clearly distinguished throughout.

• I have now made it clear this was just a critical interpretation.

• "The first-ever music video with a cast consisted of only social media influencers" - the text says it's the first with a production team of influencers, which is a slightly different thing. Also this phrasing is grammatically incorrect.

• The producer was not an influencer, so I have amended this.

• I don't see that the cast claim is supported in the text? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Now switched to the Billboard wording: "created entirely by", which can be found in the Reception section.

• FN1: link credits a different author

• Robert Cocuzzo was the author upon the original 2013 publication, but I have now made the change.

• What makes N Magazine a high-quality reliable source? Mashable?

• N Magazine's about page provides evidence of editorial oversight, and its publisher has worked for The Boston Globe. The Mashable piece cited in this article is only used for critical commentary, its author Brian Anthony Hernandez has a documented history of contributing to several reputed sources, including Billboard.

• What evidence of editorial oversight are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• That it has editors. Nevermind, I changed it to Cape Cod Times and Billboard.

• Fn15: don't see that author credit at given link

• Different authors reviewed different songs for this article. The commentary about this particular song is attributed to Hampp here.

• FN17: how confident are we that the sheet music released accurately reflects the song as recorded?

• I am confident about the reliability of this since it credits the songwriters as the author.

• I don't doubt that the source is reliable for what it is; my question is, how do we know that it matches up with the recorded version? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that Trainor has recorded this song more than once. I believe it is safe to assume details like BPM and vocal range are about the one known recorded version.

• I don't think we can assume that sheet music will correspond exactly to the recorded version even if it's the only recorded version to exist. See for example this explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removed, albeit a bit reluctantly.--NØ 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• FN22: what kind of source is this?

• FMQB is only being used to source the radio impact date as the AllAccess archives do not have a snapshot of this particular date. Would you like me to look for replacements?

• If possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is in Idolator too but it is probably better to site a radio magazine directly for this purpose. Your call.

• Pardon my chiming in, but I think FMQB is appropriate for radio releases. It monitored radio releases across the U.S. and could be compared to trade magazines i.e. MusicRow. HĐ (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Are FNs 24 and 25 the same source?

• The first one is the German release and the second is Swiss.

• Best Buy is a publisher, not a work

Amended.

• FN53 is malformatted. Ditto FN63, check charts throughout.

• FN53 is the result of the singlechart template. Should it still be changed? I believe its use is highly recommended.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is this something that can be changed at the template level? It might make sense to normalize, or provide a version that is normalized, to line up with CS1. If that is not possible then yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have done this for the New Zealand ref for the time being. But it seems like every other song FA (literally all) uses the singlechart templates instead. I think a larger discussion about this may be needed at the template talk page. I don't believe it is feasible to manually change them all.--NØ 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review, Nikkimaria. I have replied above.--NØ 15:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria: are you happy with this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Still think it would be better to look for a replacement for FMQB. Otherwise yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, as the above Idolator link and Bustle magazine confirm, "Lips Are Movin" was listed with an October 21 impact date on AllAccess. It just wasn't archived in a timely manner and the FMQB directory is now the best option available to verify this information.--NØ 05:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Oh, man, Meghan Tumblr (it's an A Dose of Buckley joke)'s gonna get her own featured article. An as atheist, I can use this as proof there is no god...... Just kidding around.

I see you haven't treated yourself to a read of this one ;)

Oh.... Oh, man. Well, good work getting that article to FA anyway. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The lead section categorizes the song as "A retro-tinged doo-wop and pop song with girl-group harmonies and bubblegum pop hooks." (1) Girl group is not a doo-wop genre, it's a type of band and there have been many of all genres; we wouldn't categorize Destiny's Child, Spice Girls and Tegan and Sara as doo-wop groups, for instance, and I don't think this songs sounds like any of them. (2) This is a non-objective characterization from a Slant Magazine review. I understand this specific statement is in the lead cause it describes the genre of the song, but I'd like it presented it as an attributed saying to the Slant writer in said lead.

• From what I've read at Girl group, it does seem to be a genre in the US that denotes doo-wop-influenced female pop groups from the 50s. For international readers' understanding, I will add a link to that page. And I understand where you are coming from, but musical elements are always covered unattributed in the lead and attributed in the article body. The lead is just supposed to be a brief summary that compels readers to read the rest of the article. (See Diamonds (Rihanna song), Style (Taylor Swift song), etc.)

• I have no problem with context or background sections if they connect to the primary topic, but the only part of the background that seemed to influence the song's creation was "All About That Bass"'s commercial success. I'd only include that plus the making of "Lips Are Movin" itself.

• Removed Trainor's independent albums. I believe keeping the details of how Kadish and Trainor met and the doo-wop pop nature of "All About That Bass" is reasonable, though, as it had a direct bearing on the creation of this song.

• Why have the sample be the intro? Why not during the hooks where the "girl group" vocals are prominent as well as the handclaps and other instruments?

• The current sample includes the hook: "lyin', lyin', lyin'", and the handclaps in the production. It most aptly demonstrates the song's "upbeat and catchy" nature, and is the part most similar to the chorus of "All About That Bass", aka the song's two qualities that were the biggest focus of critical commentary.

• Actually, I just listened to it again. The intro actually does have girl group vocals, it's just they played the same pitch, hehehe. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments soon. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that's absolutely correct :) NØ 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have some issues with the composition section

• "Trainor told The Tennessean that "Lips Are Movin" and "All About That Bass" follow the same formula," Specify. I know "formula" means the composition of the song, but I'm an experience editor who's worked on music articles before. I don't think the general audience (which is most WP readers) will get this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for offering a wider perspective on this :) Clarified.

• I just noticed a misinterpretation of a source, and I didn't even plan on a spot check of this article to find it: "saxophone beat.[15]" (1) Saxophone is also not a genre and a type of instrumental and (2) The source actually says "sax bLeats." Notice the "L." "Bleat" is defined as "a characteristic wavering cry"; in other words, it's not synonymous with "beat." I don't blame you if you didn't notice this, since it's one skinny letter hiding between fatter letters, but it shows you the importance of being healthy to have a fully-functioning brain (like I've been doing ;).

• Whoops, definitely takes a smart one to notice this. Corrected.

• A major problem with redundancy. The review summaries of "equally inspired by "vintage 45s and Amy Winehouse's snazzy new-millennial revival,"" "doo-wop throwback" and "Gary Trust characterized "Lips Are Movin" as doo-wop and pop" all state the same thing when you boil them down: it's a retro-inspired doo-wop track. If the genre is this widely agreed on, attribution is not needed.

• Done. But imo "Lips Are Movin" being a doo-wop track should be stated explicitly once even after the line about its formula, just for readers' clarity.

• Another redundancy issue in the last paragraph. In addition to word fluff, I don't think the quote is needed. I would write something like "While Kadish explained that the lyrics of "Lips Are Movin" were about by Trainor's frustrations with her record label,[8] critics Dave Paulson and Christina Garibaldi interpreted the track's lyrics as about leaving a significant other after being cheated.[12][19]"

• Done. Although, chronologically, Kadish's explanation came after both the reviews were published so I framed it accordingly.

• For completeness sake, I also found FN15 (The Billboard Singles "Worst to Best" piece), bringing up "a sly self-reference into its snappy chorus. "I gave you bass/You gave me sweet talk,"" I think we all know what that "self-reference" refers to, so I would put it in the composition section.

• Already there in the composition section.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Other comments:

• The Tennessean archive link is now dead, as Internet Archive has excluded the site from the website. Man, Tennessean newspapers are such pu- uh, anyway...

• Removed the archives and tagged it for subscription.

• The reception section is disorganized and, while not another quotefarm, has a fair amount of problems commonly associated with the way of writing. In simplier words, it doesn't have the best prose it could:
  • First, the beginning is presumably a section of "negative reviews," as the second paragraph prefixes with "Other reviewers were positive of the song" which indicates the paragraph will summarize the song's supporters. However, there are two reviews in the middle of the first paragraph that make positive comments: "Billboard's Carl Wilson complimented the lyrics, saying that they proved Trainor had "more going on than a topical trifle" [...] Brian Mansfield of USA Today called "Lips Are Movin" the "better record" of the two despite it lacking novelty.[36]" WTF?

• • Calm down... I have fixed this.

• Sorry if my response was a little lengthy here HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Second, while there is an attempt at summarizing multiple opinions with the prefix sentences of both paragraphs, the section still suffers from redundancy. The Time quote establishes nothing new, while some of the other quotes give the same skepticism and criticism of "Lips are Movin" being the same song as "All About the Bass." The Clash and USA Today quotes also make the same statements of it having less novelty than "All About That Bass."

• • Definitely disagree on removing the Time review. Feeney's comment that "Lips" was created only to milk the commercial success of "Bass" isn't repeated by other critics so I fail to see how it constitutes redundancy.

• • Oh, that's not what I said. Probably should clarify. We already know in the background section that "Lips are Movin" was created to follow "All About That Bass"'s success. I think Time's statement means it's trying to be another "All About That Bass," as it "replicate[s]" the success of the song's style, but I'm pretty sure the later review quotes are similar. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• That makes perfect sense, fixed. Sorry for not getting this earlier. HumanxAnthro, I believe all of your comments are addressed now ;) NØ 14:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Also. what's up with FN 53? HumanxAnthro (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have made some of the changes and addressed the rest of them above.--NØ 07:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Good work, although I still have more of the article to read. I have to say, when I searched the song on Google News for later coverage for completeness, it was a bunch of results unrelated to the track all because they described her as the "Lips Are Movin singer." Things us Wikipedians do for research, hehe. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I remember when I use to read Billboard's coverage of the Hot 100's top 10 back when I was a mid-teenager, and they would bring up the number of sales, streaming and radio for that week. Since the citation for "Lips are Movin"'s.... uh... move to the top ten brings up these numbers ("The similarly doo-wop/pop-styled cut soars to the Digital Songs top five (8-5; 110,000, up 2 percent) and the Streaming Songs top 10 (13-7; 7.8 million, up 20 percent). On Radio Songs, "Lips" lifts 44-36 (36 million, up 26 percent)."), plus I don't want just being another list of chart numbers and certifications when we already have those below, plus for completeness sake, these should be added. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not necessary--per WP:CHARTTRAJ. Adding them for the sake of demonstrating weekly moves could constitute WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We should adhere to summary style i.e. peak positions, debut positions, charting weeks, should be enough. We are not meant to collect each-and-every detail. We are not a newspaper. HĐ (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait. I didn't say to talk about every week on the chart. I just said to add info of the sales numbers for that one week, since it's covered in the Billboard article. I'm talking about the number of sales for a single week, which I'm pretty sure summary style has tolerated in every other music article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• This was brought up during the PR as well. Weekly sales numbers are usually noteworthy when a song debuts high on the chart. "Lips Are Movin" is a sleeper hit, and highlighting its sales numbers during a random week when they were high is random and not in compliance with INDISCRIMINATE. The certified units sold in the US are already included to give people an accurate image of its overall success. Also, pardon me but I don't understand what is being implied with the excessive amount of periods in "'Lips are Movin''s.... uh... move into the top 10".--NØ 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• (1) The periods you're talking about, it was a joke. The joke was that the song had "Movin" at the end of its title, and that I couldn't think of an alternate word for "move" to avoid it sounding repetitive. It's a kind of joke I took from video reviews of movies and video games. Now you know the importance of real-life communication instead of just texting every time.
• (2) "Sail" by Awolnation and "Somebody I used to Know" by Gotye are sleeper hits. "Lips are Movin" isn't; it got from 93 to 8 within a month (four weeks), with upward movements of around 20 positions each week, which is a pretty substantial move if I say so myself. Also, when a song gets to the top 10, that ain't no random week.
• (3) Excuse the tangent here, but this relates to 1b of the FA criteria. I've seen the WP:Indiscriminate rationale used in other discussions, but with no explanation why it's "indiscriminate" or what the heck that even means. Aren't all encyclopedia articles already collections of information from sources? On a side note, why aren't we considering list of peak chart positions and certifications WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections of information? While we're at it, why not extend the indiscriminate label to lists of albums and singles in discographies, or a list of personnel that worked on a single or album, causes the sources never cover the behind-the-scenes people, ya know? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: Discography lists and credits section are not INDISCRIMINATE--they simply summarize the most vital details i.e. chart positions, certifications that an album or a song received (accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability), so I think you are confusing these two things here. Top 10 weeks are acceptable if you insist, but specific sales figures for specific weeks raised the question--if we mention the sales each week it moved upward, shouldn't we mention the sales each week it moved downward, or even until it dropped out of the chart? I do not see anything significant about that, unless the song saw a sudden surge in sales somewhere in the middle of its charting trajectory. HĐ (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• On another note, I also do not think Lips Are Movin was a sleeper hit--but that makes sense to not include specific sales week to prove its success. In the digital age, songs that move 20-30+ positions on the Billboard charts are the norm, I'd say. HĐ (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• HumanxAnthro and HĐ, I am going to let you two decide what to do about this. I had included this information in the article before HĐ asked for its removal: [5]. So quite frankly, I am perfectly fine adding it back, and have done so for the time being so both of you can see how it looks. Best.--NØ 03:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comparing the before and after edits (on the U.S. chart and sales paragraph)--I do not think the before section adds more substance to the readers' understanding with week-by-week sales and streaming figures. They are redundant especially when the song has sold millions way beyond the 100k-200k weekly sales (unless it received commentary from Billboard i.e. it was one of the highest weekly digital sales in the chart history). The most important takeaway, which is the fact that Trainor was fifth female artist to have two debut top-ten Hot 100 singles, is already mentioned. I am not seeing if week-by-week sales add anything substantial, and I shall reiterate my stance that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so even if the data per-se are mentioned by Billboard, we shall design the article in an encyclopedic manner--concise, straight to the point, no excessive details. HĐ (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with HĐ that it would be unnecessary to bring up weekly moves (unless they are noteworthy and have received coverage, like a huge drop or rise in the charts) and it would be best to stick the summary style. Apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to second HĐ's point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, got busy working at my dad's small business, editing other Wikipedia articles on video games and learning Japanese. Here's a few more comments.

No problem.

• "AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine described the track as Motown bounce.[17]" This stylistic description doesn't come close to reflect the most widely-agreed upon genre of the song by critics, that being a retro-tinged doo-wop number. I think it's redundant and unnecessary. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's being fairly attributed to Erlewine and not being misrepresented as anything more than his opinion. He is a reputed critic and his take is necessary to include for the sake of completeness.

• "Spin's Dan Weiss dismissed the song as "the oldest-joke-in-the-book-ask-a-lawyer".[34]" Can someone clarify what the heck this means or saying? Cause (1) it breaks the flow of the paragraph and (2) it seems to be a simple "it's good," "it's bad" opinion, which we want the sentences to add substance to the topic. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely an "it's bad" opinion. Clarified.

• "Yahoo! Music writer Lyndsey Parker compared the latter to the ones featured in a poster for The Rocky Horror Picture Show.[73]" I'd say this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue. Why are we devoting an entire sentence to this? I wouldn't mean if it incorporated the concept of being like the Rocky Horror lips in the previous description about the other lip visualizations, but why a full sentence about one person's abstract view not shared by any other critic? HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Merged into preceding sentence, works much better in my opinion.--NØ 08:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the comments a bit delayed again. I'm on a general food and sugar detox (I mean, I still a little bit of a sugar, but far less) and focus on getting my brain as well as editing VG articles.

• Most of the music video section looks good, but "She expressed excitement about the video's concept and concluded "it still feels very 'Meghan Trainor,' which is amazing!".[70]" (1) "Expressed excited" just sounds weird, and (2) we've already established she's talking about the "video's concept" in the previous sentenece.

• Fixed.

• Not sure why the first paragraph of the synopsis section is in there instead of the background and concept section.

• Moved.

• The music video reception sub-section is another quotefarm, with some of the quotes being summaries instead of real opinions. For example,
  • "Pell wrote that the clip continued the "bubbly and bright" theme of the "All About That Bass" video.[74]"
  • "Parker noted Trainor's fashion in the video, and stated that it "seems to be an unofficial campaign to land her own M.A.C. Viva Glam endorsement deal".[72]"
  • She described the video as "a super-meta technicolor dance party".[73]
  • Mashable's Brian Anthony Hernandez wrote that "the visuals are what you would expect from a bouncy pop song: young dancers, colorful backgrounds, quirky outfits and exaggerated expressions".[75]
• These quotes are equivalent to review of music analyzing the genre of the song instead of giving a good/bad opinion.

• I picked out more critical quotes from the article and rewrote the section. Mashable removed as it didn't offer anything critical.

• The live performances paragraph also has a bit of a quotefarm vibe; I mean, there's no quotes, sure, but it's got that indiscriminate list feel to it. I think it's just the first paragraph.

• Hmm, it doesn't have any quotes. I rewrote it a bit though and made the first paragraph more informative.

OK, I think these are all the comments I need to make, plus Nikkimaria's checking the sources, so I'll let them take care of that. Best of luck HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, everything has been addressed.--NØ 08:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Welp, Support. Should've commented this the instance you responded but, hey, self-discipline requires slow building. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I participated in the article's last peer review. I am leaving this up as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will wait to further comments until the above review as I do not want to step on anyone's toes. Apologies for interrupting their discussion above. Just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would revise the following part from the lead, The song had a premiere on MTV News on October 15, 2014, and was released to United States contemporary hit radio stations by Epic Records, to the following, Epic Records premiered the song on MTV News on October 15, 2014, and released it to United States contemporary hit radio stations. I am recommending this for a few reasons. I think it is important to clarify that the MTV news premiere was also done by Epic Records. This revision would also put this part into a more active tense, and change up the sentence variation as most of the first paragraph has the song at the start of the sentences.

• Sounds better to me. Done.

• I am uncertain if the novelty part of this part of the lead, it too derivative of its predecessor and thought it lacked novelty, is really supported in the article or if it is really needed.

• Given the equal amount of weightage negative and positive reviews have in the article body, I think it is important to represent the negative ones in this sentence too. Therefore, I have tweaked and kept some of it. Please feel free to change it to wording you think represents it better.

• To be clear. I was not asking you to remove the negative criticism part entirely. I was only referencing the thought it lacked novelty. I think the revision looks good though. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would revise this part, 2015's That Bass Tour and MTrain Tour, and the Untouchable Tour (2016)., to 2015's That Bass Tour and MTrain Tour and 2016's the Untouchable Tour, as I actually think the repetition makes it read better than having the year represented in two different ways.

• Done.

• I am confused by this sentence, The two had an additional day to work together and went into the studio., in the "Background" section. What do you mean by "an additional day"? There was not a time frame or schedule set up prior to this so "an additional day" lacks any context to be really understand (at least in my opinion).

• I could have sworn the part about it being after the album's initial completion used to be in the article lol. Just added it back.

• For this part, He spoke fondly about writing with Trainor: "It's almost like we share a brain musically when we're writing a song. I've never had that with anyone before.", I would add in the prose the year that he said this to just clarify that to readers. I would say something like In a 2014 interview.

• Done.

• Since single is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first mention in the article for consistency.

• Done.

• I have a clarification question about this part, "Lips Are Movin" was briefly available to stream on mobile application Shazam. Why was it only briefly available on Shazam?

• Shazam does this thing called "First listen", where a song exclusively premieres on there for a while and is available to stream upon shazamming the artist's previous single. This stops working when the song is officially out and is replaced with links to retailers like Apple Music instead.

• I have another clarification question about this part American actress Liza Koshy. I never really associated Koshy as an actress (no offense to her, but I think she is far more well known as a YouTuber). Is that a fair assessment? I would put a description next to her that reflects what she is most well known for and I frankly do not think actress is it (but feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

• I had initially gone for "actress" as it was the first profession listed in the opening sentence of her bio but you're right, her being a YouTuber is way more relevant to the context of her starring in this video. Changed.

• I would either paraphrase or remove the "fierce" quote. I have always been told to avoid one-word quotes as they are never particularly useful, and the quote used later in the same sentence is much more interesting and informative anyway.

• Removed.

Great work with the article. I have focused primarily on the prose. I do not notice anything obviously wrong with the images or the citations, but I have admittedly only looked at them superficially and without any deeper analysis. All my comments above are quite nitpick-y, and once they are addressed, I will read through the article again (and will likely support this FAC for promotion at that time). I am happy that you have gone for another FAC and I hope this encourages other editors who may have less-than-stellar experiences in the FAC space to consider doing future nominations. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Aoba47, thanks for your kind words and comments. I believe I have addressed them all :) NØ 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

• File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.png and File:Lips Are Movin screenshot.jpg have appropriate FURs
• When there's no evidence to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:KK color pic.jpg is the uploader's own work as claimed
• File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg appears to meet WP:SAMPLE
• No copyright concerns with File:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Moving (Jingle Ball) (cropped).jpg

The media assessment passes. I might come back later with comments on other details. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the media review. I eagerly await your comments!--NØ 06:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe SNUGGUMS now only reviews media and nothing else. HĐ (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I assess only that during FAC's, other times (like this) I review more. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from HĐ[edit]

I participated in the article's peer review, and will look through the article one more time to make sure it meets FA criteria. HĐ (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "However, critical commentary has described it as a song about Trainor leaving her significant other" I am uncertain if using "However" is correct--removing it would cause no harm.

• Grammarly did not pick up any mistake in this sentence. I think the word "however" is beneficial here to represent the contrast between what the song was actually inspired by, and what critical commentary interpreted it as.

• "it conceptually portrays" shouldn't "it portrays" suffice?

• Done.

• Very nice improvements with why "All About That Bass" was rejected!
• The composition section is also very nice!
• "have deemed" I don't think present perfect tense is encouraged--simple past ("deemed") should be enough.

• Fixed.

• "and was quoted as saying" by whom?

• Kadish. Added.

• "manufactured sass" shouldn't this be in quotes?

• I turned it to "factory-produced sass" so it would be a direct quote but done.

• Link feminism

• Linked.

• The Andrew Hampp link has the title "Best and Worst Singles of the Week"--I think it would be helpful to note whether Lips Are Movin was among the worst or best of the week.

• The article does not make an explicit distinction between these but the tone of the review seems favorable so I added that.

• "versatility, confidence, vulnerability and smartness" shouldn't this be in quotes?

• Done.

• I see that the weekly sales for its top-10 entry was re-added. I don't press to remove it completely--it's just that it reads incomplete that there is weekly sales for one week, and then this information disappears in thin air.

• This was a re-addition insisted on by another reviewer. Since this information is also available for the following week, I have now added it.

• Link laptop (I know this is a common term, but still..)

• Linked.

• "Andelman suggested showcasing behind-the-scenes events occurring during a music video shoot, which was used as the video's theme" convoluted. Is there any more straightforward way to word this?

• Clarified.

• "The x360 was utilized by each influencer who participated in the clip" I think something like "The x360 laptop appears frequently in the music video as a product placement" would sound better.

• Changed.

• Ref 9 has a harv error (to see this error, you must install this script).

• It doesn't show the error anymore. Please feel free to verify if I have done this correctly.

The rest of the article is in very good shape. HĐ (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ:, I have resolved the concerns. Please let me know if you'd like anything else done.--NØ 06:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I revised the wording for one sentence--please feel free to revise/revert if you think it reads awkwardly. Other than that, all of my concerns are now resolved. Happy to support this article for FA. Well done! HĐ (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

HĐ Please remove your blue templates from everywhere in FAC. Transclusions are to be avoided at FAC because they cause the page to exceed template limits, meaning FACs later on the page get cut off. Hopefully people can read a quote by ... using quote marks rather than colors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for informing me about that. Just curious, could {{tq}} be appropriate for FACs?` HĐ (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

See WT:FAC; in the past, it was encouraged, but it seems that it may now be a problem. I prefer just to use straight quotes without any transclusions at all, as we now have such a problem at FAC. It is being discussed on FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Extended commentary moved to talk (t · c) buidhe 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Following sufficient changes (which include a couple compromises), I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from LOVI33[edit]

Overall, I would say this article is extremely well done. Congrats MaranoFan! The prose is engaging, I see no original research and this article is definitely broad in its coverage. The only issues I have are with the citations, although all of them seem reputable and high quality. Here are my concerns:

• Note 'A' cites six sources at the end (WP:OVERCITE?). I see that ref 2, 8, and 12 are used throughout the article so maybe remove those or convert ref 9-11 to a bullet point list ref.

• Fixed.

• Repeating a wikilink is okay on citations per MOS:REPEATLINK. I would recommend adding them in as it could enhance understanding.

• Added in.

• Idolator should be cited as a work or website on all citations per this discussion.

• Fixed.

• Ref 138 is missing a translated title and language.

LOVI33 20:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Added.

All addressed, LOVI33. Thank you for this :)--NØ 05:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Great MaranoFan! I am now happy to support this! LOVI33 18:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

• @WP:FAC coordinators: , this nomination has accrued five supports and complete source and media reviews as well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention since I am excited and this seems to be the average count at which recent nominations got promoted. Regards.--NØ 03:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I see no particular problems, but it has only been nominated for two weeks. I intend to leave it open for a few more days to allow time for other potentially interested reviewers to chip in. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Delicate (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Back in 2018, everyone thought Taylor Swift was no longer relevant, until she launched a massive tour and released this song, which slowly climbed onto the charts and raked in hundred millions of YouTube views. After expanding the article from reliable, high-quality sources, including one peer-reviewed journal paper, I believe this article now meets FA status. Thank you in advance for any comment regarding the article's prose and sourcing issues. HĐ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Source Review by Guerillero[edit]

Spot-checks not done

The thing that you knew was coming. Why are these high quality sources

• https://www.idolator.com/7675640/taylor-swift-next-single-delicate

• Removed since I think it is of marginal reliability

• https://web.archive.org/web/20180311154126/https://www.allaccess.com/hot-modern-ac/future-releases

• All Access is powered by Mediabase, which monitors airplay information across the U.S. and provides information for other music industry magazines [6]. The editorial board consists of music industry insiders, radio managers, and contributors to other publications i.e. Billboard, The Hollywood Reporter, [7]. Subscribers to All Access also gain access to Billboard Pro [8]
  • Works for me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20180311153716/https://www.allaccess.com/top40-mainstream/future-releases
• https://earone.it/news/taylor_swift_delicate_radio_date_20_04_2018_28526256/

• À la All Access in Italy. It has partnership with many record labels and networks including Universal, MTV, Warner, to name a few, to promote songs on Italian airplay [9]
  • The about makes it seems like a PR agency. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't know how you're getting a PR agency from that?? It's a company that monitors radio airplay in Italy and also happens to publish statements from record labels indicating when they make a song available for radio airplay in the country. If you look at the bottom right of the reference the writer of the statement and the record label who employs them are clearly visible. In the article, the source is obviously citing the "radio date" only. EarOne has also been cited/noted by Rolling Stone Italy. Heartfox (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

      Meh. I won't stand in the way -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-04-13/taylor-swift-records-delicate-and-earth-wind-fires-september-for-spotify-singles/

• Replaced with a non-primary source

• The peer reviews are only from the editorial board who are all students at a single university. MIT press is linked at the bottom, but the association is not discussed in any of the about text. https://www.sonicscope.org/pub/jr3x2zx6/release/2?readingCollection=b9637a4a

• I was initially dubious about whether a "student journal" should qualify as high quality. I believe that this journal does satisfy in terms of quality, if my understanding of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is sufficient. The advisory board consists of professors in the music and media fields, which sort of explains that the journal is not wholly dependent on student operation. It has an open DOI access, which (to me) does not appear as original research, and proves that it has been vetted by the scholarly community.
  • I go back and forth on this one, tbh. I want to wait for other reviews to comment on it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.slantmagazine.com/music/taylor-swift-reputation/

• Listed among reliable sources at WP:RSMUSIC. Reuters acknowledged Slant among the reliable side of online publications, alongside the New York Times, WSJ, and LA Weekly. The magazine is quite valued within the film review community, with Cineaste describing it as "smart, idiosyncratic, well-written".
  • Works for me. We (the people who write FAs about pop music and the people who do source reviews) should probably work out WP:HQRSMUSIC to make these sorts of things easier. Sources can easily be RSes, and on WP:RSMUSIC, without being High Quality RSes to pass through FAC. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

I will do my standard grumble about the use of Apple Music. Also

• RÚV need a language code

--In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the source review. I think Apple Music usage can be justified in this case, given that digital music releases most likely happen on such sites, and the two remixes in the article seem to have been released to Apple Music only. HĐ (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, HĐ, that is as good as we have. I just don't like it because the source isn't in the industry of reporting correct dates, but of providing music --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

• Swift described the song as one of Reputation's few songs about vulnerability → suggest changing to "Swift described the song as one of the few on Reputation about vulnerability" or something similar to avoid "song" twice in the same sentence.

• Reworded. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The song's accompanying music video → maybe change "accompanying" to something else, reword, or remove it as it's already used two sentences before.

• Removed. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• dancing in a pouring rain → I don't think "a" is necessary.

• I am uncertain if that would be grammatically correct..

• inspired by the tumultuous relationship with the media that she had experienced. → I would cut this; already explained in the background section

• Removed. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• wondering, "Could something fake like your reputation affect something real, like someone getting to know you?" → I would cut this or the previous quote; both mostly say the same thing.

• Reworded. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I had to go to the Slate article to fully understand what he was saying about her being liberated.

• Rephrased. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The song incorporates R&B elements, dense synthesizers, and house-influenced beats. → I would expect this to be a bit more detailed than a copy of what is in the lead.
• The music video images are missing alt text
• social media account → social media accounts?

• Specified that it was Twitter.

• She later uploaded the video → she didn't upload it herself

• Rephrased.

• Five sentences for Payne is a bit of undue weight I think, given that in the previous paragraph six sentences are given for three critics combined. I would replace the em dashes with commas and cut her comments down by a couple sentences.

• I cut down one sentence... The rest are rather hard to remove since they provide in-depth analysis on the video's content. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• throughout the year → redundant

• Removed. HĐ (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I read the whole article and these were my immediate thoughts as I went through it :) Great work! Heartfox (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Lmk if the article needs more work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The spaces between the Payne em dashes shouldn't be there per MOS:EMDASH, and the access date for ref 42 is odd given the published date. Heartfox (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant "2021". Revised. HĐ (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. Congratulations on another great article. Heartfox (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• In the lead, there are two sentences in a row with "perceived" (i.e. perceived image and perceived reputation). Would it be possible to change one of these instances?

• Changed one, perceived reputation to "blemished reputation"

• The repetition of "Swift" in this part, Swift and Martin manipulated Swift's vocals with a vocoder., seems rather awkward to me. Also Swift is not credited as a producer for the song, so do you mean "Shellback" in the beginning? I have the same question for when this is repeated in the "Production and composition" section.

• In the interview Swift used we, so I assumed it was her and the other producers. Changed to "Martin and Shellback"

• In the lead, I would include a brief part about how critics considered the music video to be an autobiographical reference and the plagiarism allegation since it does form a separate subsection (i.e. Analysis and reception).

• Added.

• This is very nitpick-y, but I find the music video summary to overly wordy, and I think it can be condensed somewhat to be more concise.

• I cut down some words here and there. It was a hard task because the video is so cinematic lol.

• Is there a reason why the prose does not clarify what number single this is from the album?

• Added a note.

• For this part, Swift continued to be a major target of, I would say was a major target of instead as continued does not really make sense in this context as the previous sentences do not refer to Swift being a tabloid target prior to this.

• Rephrased.

• I have a comment for this part, "Delicate" is the fifth track on Reputation. I do not think it is particularly notable or worthwhile to mention where this song appears on the album track listing. I could see this being notable if critics discussed this in a meaningful way, but right now, it seems trivial.

• The following paragraphs of the Composition section talks about how the track differs from its four preceding songs, so I do think it is relevant to some extent.

• In the "Production and composition" section, I think the iHeartRadio sentence is awkwardly constructed. I think the first two paragraphs in this section could be improved to better convey the information. For instance, it seems off to start the first paragraph a sentence on how Swift wrote the song, then go into production information for the rest of the paragraph, and go back into the song-writing process for the second paragraph.

• I rearranged the whole section; the first paragraph is about the credits and recording locations, the second about the songwriting inspirations, and the third about critical analysis of the song.

• That looks much better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was intrigued by the R&B elements bit as this sounds like a very pop song to me. I believe the R&B elements part is sourced through this New York Times article (but correct me if I am wrong here). Apologies in advance as this will be super-nitpick-y, but the source says "soft-core pop-R&B" not just R&B. I think saying just R&B elements is a little misleading.

• I adhere to WP:EXPLICITGENRES. As the Times does not exactly describe this song as "pop-R&B" (but among the few of the album that are), I think it is best to leave it at "R&B elements"--or I could rephrase it to something like "R&B sensibility". This is different from the source I used for electropop--Time--which explicitly describes "Delicate" as an "electro-ballad".

• I still disagree with connecting this song with R&B as I do not see how this is supported in the Times article. You are correct that the "soft-core pop-R&B" part is not explicitly tied to this song, but it is the only instance in the article where R&B is mentioned. I would suggest removing the R&B part entirely as I just do not see this being supported by the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I concur with your opinion. Removed R&B. HĐ (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• The word "released" is used many times throughout the "Release" section. I know it is inevitable considering that this is what the section is about, but it may be worthwhile to find ways to revise some of these instances.

• Revised some instances to "available".

• In a random aside, I think it is interesting that a critic compared the video to "Lucky" when I think a more apt comparison would be to the video for ""Overprotected" (The Darkchild remix) since both focus on the singer's relationship with fame and have a sequence with dancing in the rain lol.

• Haven't checked out the Overprotected video, but I think critics did so because "Lucky" was a more popular song (which is really catchy and memorable imo).

• In the "Live performances", I would avoid having two sentences in a row saying (On X date) as it comes across too much like a list and makes the prose not as engaging as it could be.

• I tried my best to make it not like a list, but I guess for live performances I cannot include much.

• I am not sure about the value of File:Taylor Swift performs Delicate during Reputation Stadium Tour in Minneapolis - 2018-2.jpg as it is rather low-quality image and to be honest, it is hard to make out what is being shown when looking at the image as a thumbnail in the article.

• Unfortunately that is the best image I can retrieve from Commons... Would it be a miss to remove it from the article?

• I would remove from the article as it is a low-quality image and it is awkwardly cutting across section titles anyway, but I will leave this up to whoever do this image review. I will leave this up to you as the image will not hold me up from supporting and it will likely be more beneficial to get other editors' opinions about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Are there any notable covers that can be included here? I know that Kelly Clarkson as one of the many, many, many songs she covers on her talk show. I was just curious if there were any notable covers out there as this song was very popular. Apparently, Kelsea Ballerini also did a cover of it (according to Billboard).

• I don't really know about this... A popular song can be covered by other musicians, so I don't see how it could be beneficial to the article as an encyclopedic entry (inspired by a comment at the "Shake It Off" FAC). I'm open to discussion on this, though.

• That's a fair point. I did not have a strong opinion either way tbh, but I just wanted to ask you to get your opinion on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the "The Making of a Song" video is only included as an external link and not used a source? I have not seen the video, but I would think it would have at least some helpful information?

• The video is more or less what Swift had shared during the iHeartRadio interview. It's just that it features more scenes where she writes in her bedroom, which I think is a way for fans to get close and personal to her. Not much substance to add (you could watch to verify my words and check out whether I missed something..)

• Thank you for the follow-up explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article one more time to make sure I do not miss anything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, which are as helpful as always. HĐ (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the responses. Once the R&B issue is cleared up, then I will support this. My issue is that the Times article does not explicitly connect the song with R&B. I would recommend removing the R&B part entirely since it is not really accurate to the source. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you again for the review. I believe everything is good now. HĐ (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support the nomination for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

Can already tell it had a major glow up since the last time I was here. I will leave some comments soon.--NØ 04:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Swift explained that, while she could feign disinterest in what others have to say about her, things began to get complicated" -- Is the usage of "have" and "began" correct here? It's a little confusing if the feigning of disinterest happened in the past or is currently happening. The quote directly after this part seems to go back into present tense.

• Switched all to past tense. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• This part still feels a bit off to me: "things turned complicated 'when you meet somebody that you really want in your life'". But I'm no Grammar expert so I'm going to leave this to your preference.

• In this part: "really emotional, and really vulnerable, and ... sad but beautiful", maybe the repetition of "and" can be eliminated.

• Revised. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "At the beginning of the song, Swift confesses to her love interest that, because her reputation has "never been worse", he must have liked her for herself." -- I think this part is sung in present tense in the song. Maybe it's just me but the way this is framed seems to imply he stopped liking her.

• Changed to the exact lyrics. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• "[breaking] free from the pressures of society and acts freely as though nobody is watching". - I believe "act" should be singular here.

• Revised to "breaks... and acts". I hope it is grammatically correct. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• In the last sentence of the Critical reception section, the citation for the 2019 ASCAP Awards will probably look better at the end of the sentence.

• Moved. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That's it. The article is really well-written.--NØ 09:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all. HĐ (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support--NØ 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are adequately licensed. I would keep the performance image, it may not be the greatest quality but I don't think it detracts at all from the article. The sound file should be shorter, I think it's longer than necessary to convey the fair use purpose and it's best to keep under 10% of the track. (t · c) buidhe 10:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I cut it from 23.2 to 22.6 seconds. Not a dramatic change, but still short enough and under 10% of the original. Thank you for the image review. HĐ (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The stated purpose of this non-free content is that it "illustrates Swift's manipulated vocals by a vocoder." I don't see how 22.6 seconds is necessary for this purpose. I think it could be done with more like 5 seconds. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• My bad, I updated the non-free rationale, which illustrates the muted pulse (as discussed in Pitchfork) and the synthesizers as well. I choose not to expand the caption because I believe it is supposed to be succinct, but I could expand it to include all matters the sample is supposed to illustrate. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 26 February 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)

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 pass per my A-class review. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review - 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: 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 - 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)

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".
• Nothing about the "sacred knot" featured in both the statues illustrated (and here), which is often said to mark a devotee - or initiate?
• You should work Agape feast into the Xtian section i think - the usual term for Early Christian feasts.
• 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.
• "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.
• Was there nothing relevant in Renaissance/Early Modern Neoplatonism/Rosicrucianism & such like - it sounds just like their sort of thing?
• 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)

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[10] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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
• "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
• "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
• "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.
• Link the Yellow Line in the body
• 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?
• "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"
• " 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
• Do we have a citation for the list of station names?
• "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.
• This makes it seem a little significant that the line doesn't link to the Milwaukie bus hub, is that worth mentioning?
• We seem to have a comprehensiveness issue: the topic of public art along the line has some coverage such as [11], [12]. 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.

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 16 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)

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)

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".

• #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)

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)

Coordinator note[edit]

• This has been nominated for over three weeks and has only attracted one general review. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's annoying. I'll see if I can scare up some interest from the video games WikiProject. Do you have any ideas to address the lack of reviews? I don't mind doing some QPQ if that's consistent with normal practices around here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild, wasn't SandyGeorgia attempting to fix this issue? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere. Panini🥪 00:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

Wow, we really need more reviewers over here. Would it be a good idea to put a little icon in the corner of an article to show readers that the article is at FAC, in hopes to attract more attention? Panini🥪 00:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, I'll publish my thoughts piece by piece so you can work while I'm reviewing.

Thoughts

• Like Namco and Nintendo, the subheaders under history should explain the time range of the events in that section ("(1990-2006)" as an example)
• The quote box under origin should be moved to the right, as it breaks up the text and its subheader
• Are there any navboxes for this topic?
• The lead doesn't really explain why it was purchased by Infogrames, when just before it says they won a profitable lawsuit.
• I'd link Activision in its first appearance under Origin
• There should be a "Main article" template under Console and legal challenges to Sega v. Accolade, rather than a link in the text.
• "New leadership", second paragraph: I think starting a sentence with "So the publisher" is a bit off, maybe try "Instead, the publisher"
• There's a couple of duplicate links here, so I recommend User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to point them out.

This is a very solid article in my opinion. So much, in fact, that this is all I had to say and I feel guilty about it, considering you left an 8,000-byte review in return! I hope my future support will make up for that... (I will not be claiming points in the Wikicup for this one). Panini🥪 13:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Don't feel the least bit guilty -- the review is still helpful and a lot of the other issues were caught by other reviewers. I incorporated all your suggestions, including a clearer lead. Thanks for the review and hoping this means the article is suitable for FA status. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support on prose and other related. Panini🥪 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Owen[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a Welsh boxer by the name of Johnny Owen. A shy youngster, he became noted for never drinking, smoking or even dating to focus on his career. He won several national and international bantamweight titles before getting his shot at the WBC world title in 1980. However, the fight ended in tragedy after he was knocked out in the 12th round and never regained consciousness, dying at the age of just 24. I nominated this around six months ago but the review attracted no attention and was subsequently archived. Hopefully another run now will gain some traction. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Source link for File:Juan Francisco Rodríguez (cropped).jpg is dead.

Licensing looks okay - FOP is fine in the UK (statue image), and since the other image looks to have first been published out of the USA before 1978 and was PD on the URAA date, it's fine. Just need a working source link. Hog Farm _Talk 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review, I've replaced the link on that image with a working one now. Kosack (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• The boxing record table needs a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Heartfox: Think I've taken care of that now. Kosack (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  Great. Heartfox (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox/lead don't appear to be explicitly cited anywhere - for example the "Merthyr Matchstick" appellation

  I've sourced the Merthyr Matchstick nickname, other than that everything seems to be appropriately sourced. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly while the Professional boxing record table is broadly supported by the text, some of the specific details are not - eg the precise date of the fight with Hanna

  Added ref for the table. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Dictionary of Welsh Biography is a work title

  Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• What makes BoxRec a high-quality reliable source?

  BoxRec is the go to source on Wiki for boxing really and is used on pretty much every article we have. It's gone through several FACs in the past that I know of. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on why it would be considered high-quality? See this guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, only just spotted this. The site is used pretty widely by other reliable sites as a source for boxing info, for example Bleacher Report, South China Morning Post, Bloomberg, World Boxing News, etc. The Athletic also has a pretty lengthy piece on it HERE which notes that the site is the official records keeper of the Association of Boxing Commissions, which I didn't even know. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include location for books

  Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Formatting of Bibliography entries should match that of books cited in full inline

  Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• FN103: work title doesn't match source.

  Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Addressed all of these points now, thanks. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am not an expert in boxing so please consider this a non-expert review. I will complete this in sections due to my time constraints.

Prose review - Lede and Early life

• "Three further victories led Owen to challenge for the British bantamweight title in only his tenth professional fight." Remove "only"
• "becoming the first Welshman in more than 60 years to hold the belt." I assume "hold the belt" means "win the title"? Clarify or rephrase this.

  It does. It's a pretty common term in boxing, I've wikilinked belt to Championship belt to help make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "He defeated the experienced Australian on points" Define or wikilink "on points"
• "Owen went on to win seven consecutive bouts in the space of a year" Replace "in the space of" with "within"
• "losing a torturously difficult contest by way of a twelfth round knockout." Replace "by way of" with "with"

  With doesn't quite fit right I think, you can't really lose with a knockout so to speak. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "of 25 wins, 11 by knockout, 1 draw and 2 defeats." Is the 11 knockouts included in the 25 wins? If so, it should be in brackets.
• "Edith Owens (née Hale).[3][1]" References should be in numerical order ([1][3])
• "The Owens family hailed from Llanidloes but had moved south," Remove "had"
• "Will worked in an ironworks and was also an amateur boxer." Remove "also"
• "His mother had also been born in Merthyr" Rephrase: "His mother was born in Merthyr"
• "council house" Should be wikified, this not a commonly used term outside the UK.
• "when the family was struck down by a flu virus," Replace "struck down" with "infected"
• "Owen's father had worked as a miner for 13 years" Remove "had"
• "However, his wife had suffered complications during the birth of the couple's" Remove "however"
• "In his desperation, Owen's father nearly placed his children into care in order to be able to continue working but eventually reversed his decision after receiving assurances over his job safety." Remove "In his desperation", "in order to be able", "eventually". Replace "over his job safety" with "that he would not lose his job". (job safety is UK specific prose)

I will pause here and continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thanks for taking this up, I've enacted all of the points above and left comments on two. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Prose review - Amateur career

• "coming to idolise fellow Merthyr born boxer Jimmy Wilde." Replace "coming to idolise" with "idolising"
• "Broadbent describes how, by age ten, Owen had developed "some rudimentary" Remove had
• "competing against other youth clubs from Wales and England." Delete other
• "noted how Owen struggled to make achieve the weight" Delete make
• "journey to try and make weight." Replace make with gain? Might be a UK way to say this...

  Make weight is a boxing term in relation to the pre-fight weigh-in where a fighter has to cut (or in this case gain) weight quickly before being weighed to meet the requirements of a certain weight class. I can try to rephrase if you still think necessary. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "where he began to hone his ring craft with one of his coaches, Idris Sutton, modelling his fighting style on Eddie Thomas." This sounds a little puffery, change to "where he trained with Idris Sutton and modelled his fighting style on Eddie Thomas."
• "Griffiths though would later win a rematch between the pair." Remove though
• "When Dick himself was unable to take training" Remove himself
• "Wales and Scotland saw him draw praise in the local press." Replace "saw him draw" with "drew"
• "After defeating his opponent, John Raeside, in the second round during their bout in Pontypool" Remove "defeating his opponent"
• "he was chosen to represent Wales against Sweden in February 1975" What is he representing Wales in? Another tournament?

  The source doesn't really say what it was so I've added "a contest" to try and clarify slightly. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Owen began fighting as a bantamweight soon after," Replace "began fighting" with "fought"

  I'm not sure of this one as it sounds a little like it was a one off rather than dropping to the weight that he would spend the rest of his career at. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Professional career

• "The decision to turn professional also prompted a change of name;" Remove also
• "The decision to fight an already established opponent proved an astute one as victory." Replace "proved an astute one" with "proved astute"
• "It was after his debut bout that Owen and his team" Replace with "After his debut bout, Owen and his team..."
• "The Welsh Area Boxing Council reconsidered its decision soon after and subsequently allowed a title" Delete "soon after" and "subsequently"
• "with the bout being regarded as an eliminator for the British title." Remove being

British bantamweight title

• "Owen's championship win immediately resulted in him" Remove immediately
• "and his belief that the referee" Replace with "and he believed the referee"
• "nearly floored Maguire." What does floored mean? This needs to be defined or wikilinked.

  Reworded to knocked down. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Such was Owen's dominance that Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight." Rephrase "Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight because of Owen's dominance."

  While I'm not averse to the change, this would leave the previous sentence and this one with "Maguire. Maguire's" which is a little repetitive. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In response, the champion rallied in the ninth round but, when Owen opened up a large cut above his eye in the following round, Maguire's fight was over. Less than 90 seconds into the eleventh round, the referee stopped the fight as blood poured from Maguire's eye." These sentences should be merged as "The champion rallied in the ninth round but the referee stopped the fight in the eleventh round when Owen opened a large cut above Maguire's eye."

I'll pause here. Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks, I've carried out nearly all of the points with a couple of minor comments to review. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Commonwealth bantamweight title

• "By now the possibility of Owen competing for either the Commonwealth" Remove "by now"
• "stopping his opponent" Replace stopping with defeating

European bantamweight title

• No concerns

Rematch with Rodríguez

• No concerns

Final bout

• "Feeney started spritely in the opening rounds but again Owen's relentless" Remove again

Death

• No concerns

Fighting style

• "he never dated a girl in his lifetime having made the decision to abstain from relationships." Change to "he abstained from romantic relationships."
• "Such was his leanness, Owen's manager, Dai Gardiner, was even accused of starving Owen for him to compete at bantamweight." Change to "Owen's manager, Dai, Gardiner, was accused of starving Owen to maintain his lean physique and allow him to compete at bantamweight."

Legacy

• "Johnny Owen Carer's Award are also presented annually" Remove also
• "which was performed by Pintor who travelled from his home" Put a comma after Pintor
• You have a quote in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Direct quotes need a citation immediately after, even the source is quoted later in the paragraph.
• "Johnes's research demonstrates how Owen's story was told and retold, with its meaning and relevance shifting in the postindustrial environment of Merthyr and South Wales." This is interesting information that needs some expansion. How has the mythology and relevance of Owen's story changed? I think you can give a one or two-sentence explanation on this.

That's the end of my prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I've finished up those last points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Kosack, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: I'd like too, but this is my nom :) I think you meant to ping @Z1720:. Kosack (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, I cut and pasted the wrong editor name.Apologies to you both. Z1720? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I will take a closer look later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours please post a note on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Second prose readthrough

Just a few comments:

• I added some non-breaking spaces to dates throughout the article. Please revert if they are not helpful.
• "The two fighters possessing near identical records;" Change possessing to possessed
• "While some Welsh fans had travelled to support Owen although they were said to be "outnumbered 100 to 1 at least"." Delete "while" or "although"
• "The documentary won two BAFTA awards, including one for best documentary drama." If the doc won two awards, why is the other one not named?

  The other award was for Best Direction which seems more like a technical award rather than directly related to Owen. Kosack (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think since we are talking about the documentary here, which was about Owen, we can include both awards. If it won five awards, I would understand limiting the number we name but it seems weird how one award is mentioned but not the other. Also, the BAFTA website mentions it won Best Doc in the Cymru (Welsh) section. Should this be mentioned so it is not confused with BAFTA Award for Best Documentary? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If I don't respond in 24 hours, please message my talk page. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Fixed the two points in the text and responded to the last. Kosack (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll comment eventually... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

It is now eventually. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I would suggest summarizing the titles he has won as the third sentence (similar to the first paragraph of Miguel Cotto for instance).

  The titles are already mentioned in the lead so creating a sort of introduction to the lead itself seems a bit odd. There aren't many examples to choose from, but the existing boxing FAs (Michael Gomez and Susi Kentikian) use a similar format as here. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Relatedly, if you do that, I would suggest breaking off the rest of the first paragraph and starting the second paragraph with "Owen began boxing at the age of eight..."
• Owen would beat Sutton ===>>> Owen beat Sutton

  Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Welsh Area bantamweight title ===>>> bantamweight title of the Welsh Area (only to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I'm not 100% sure if that makes sense?)

  Sea of blue does mention "when possible", and in this case, it's the official name of the title, so rearranging seems counter-productive to the article. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• including a defence of his British title against Wayne Evans <<<=== I might instead mention the number of defenses, unless you are highlighting this one because Evans is also Welsh in which case I would specify that.

  It was his only defence of the title, that's why I singled it out as the other fights were non-title bouts. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• WBC champion ===>>> World Boxing Council (WBC) champion

  Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• his version of the world bantamweight title ===>>> his world bantamweight title ("version" makes it sound like it's not real)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• torturously difficult contest <<<=== "torturously" seems a bit editorialized. I'd rather you instead mention or add why the contest was difficult. (maybe the only three knockdowns of his career?)

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if you need some of the numbers (in particular, "in his sixth professional fight", "Three further victories", "recorded five further victories"). The years might make more sense at times, as the second paragraph currently doesn't have any dates.

  Trimmed a couple. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• If his death concretely led to boxing fights being shortened, that's worth mentioning in the lead.

  Although the ESPN article does link it, the boxing hierarchy would probably never admit it was concretely down to that. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Early life

• the fourth of a family of eight children ===>>> the fourth of eight children OR the fourth child in a family with eight
• had Irish ancestry. <<<=== Are you specifying that his mother had Irish ancestry or his mother's father? (maybe separate into another sentence)
• in a rented council house, <<<=== you don't need the comma

  Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Amateur

• Welsh amateur championships <<<=== Is this a junior or youth championship?

  Added. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• a local nuts and bolts manufacturing factory owned by Suko ===>>> a local Suko nuts and bolts manufacturing factory (to make it sound like Suko isn't a person)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• His job would however cause him health issues ===>>> His job however caused him health issues

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Griffiths would later win a rematch ===>>> Griffiths later won a rematch

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• after reaching the final of the competition on 4 April ===>>> just "on 4 April" OR explain the competition a bit (usually boxing is only one bout at a time?).

  I'm not sure we need to explain a basic tournament, knockout competitions are pretty standard across any sport. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• who refused to accept ===>>> ", albeit he refused to accept it." OR split sentence in two (too many "who"s, and add a comma)

  Reworded. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Owen's father was becoming <<<=== this doesn't seem to specify a "when"

  Well it's more of a generalisation, there's not really a definitive date. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Owen began fighting as a bantamweight <<<=== What did he fight at before?

  Added. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• , while representing Wales against an army team <<<=== either replace the comma with a semicolon or start a new sentence

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• the fight went ahead with Owen winning on points ===>>> the fight went ahead and Owen won on points

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• amateur boxing career taking ===>>> amateur boxing career, taking (add comma)

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• He suffered 18 defeats in his amateur career and won the remaining 106. <<<=== It seems unusual to state the number of losses before the number of wins. I don't know if you need to mention the number of wins. It's certainly fine to, though.

  Switched, I've kept both figures as a draw is possible, though rare in boxing. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• a disappointing note ===>>> two disappointing notes

  Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Professional

• I'd suggest titling this part as a subsection called "Welsh bantamweight title"
• although this was dissuaded as being ===>>> although he was dissuaded from this option because it was
• Owen's initial hopes were low, Kelvin stated ===>>> Owen's initial aspirations were low, with Kelvin stating
• Owen was driven ===>>> Nonetheless, Owen was driven
• Owen's stock <<<=== "stock" seems informal. Maybe "standing"?
• Irishman Neil McLaughlin in his opponent's home nation <<<=== Just checking: Is McLaughlin from Ireland or Northern Ireland? And is he Irish or Northern Irish? I thought they were separate back then?
• The card suffered several interruptions; ===>>> The card suffered several interruptions:
• He finished his first year ===>>> Owen finished his first year (and then, start the next sentence with "He")
• Promoter Heddwyn Taylor raised the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title after his victory. ===>>> This led promoter Heddwyn Taylor to raise the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title.
• Despite Owen having already beaten Sutton ===>>> Although Owen had already beaten Sutton
• With their hopes knocked back ===>>> Unable to challenge for the title,
• found themselves short ===>>> found themselves in need
• Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout and ===>>> Even though Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout,
• before Owen rocked Sutton ===>>> until Owen rocked Sutton
• he "bionic bantam" <<<=== should this be capital? (it is in the lead.)
• Was the title vacant or was Sutton the champion? Should specify if vacant. If Sutton wasn't the champion, why was he the one Owen needed to challenge?

All done in this section. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

British

• The offer of a British title fight with Maguire initially never materialised and Owen's next fight was a fourth-round knockout of debutant fighter Terry Hanna at Ebbw Vale Leisure Centre in June 1977. ===>>>> When the offer of a British title fight with Maguire initially did not materialise, Owen instead fought debutant Terry Hanna at Ebbw Vale Leisure Centre in June 1977, defeating him with a fourth-round knockout. (parallelism issue)
• Mention his age when he won the title
• he had faced the stance ===>>> he had faced a fighter with that stance
• His opponent was fellow Welshman Wayne Evans with the two fighters possessing ===>>> His opponent was fellow Welshman Wayne Evans. The two fighters possessed
• anticipated and was both ===>>> anticipated as it was both
• his opponent's eardrum ===>>> his eardrum ("his" is Owen)
• flooring his opponent ===>>> knocking him down

Commonwealth

• stopping his opponent ===>>> stopping him
• eight-year age advantage <<<=== rephrase to say "younger" rather than advantage? Not sure if being so much younger is inherently an advantage.
• including being named ===>>> including Owen being named
• Writers' Club becoming ===>>> Writers' Club, becoming
• the first boxer to win the award since Howard Winstone ===>>> and was the first boxer to win the award since Winstone

European

• being rearranged ==>>> and it was rearranged
• home-town ===>>> hometown (like the rest of the article)
• challenger's camp ===>>> Owen's camp
• sat waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training that took up hours of time of Owen's sessions. ===>>> waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training, taking up hours of Owen's sessions.
• What is the issue with wintergreen oil?

  It causes severe irritation to the eyes if applied. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• went further and describes the decision ===>>> "went further and described the decision" OR "goes further and describes the decision"

Rematch

• Make this a subsubsection of the previous subsection. Otherwise, it's misleading to call the previous subsection "European title" when he didn't win the title in that section.
• prizefund ===>>> prize fund
• The venue was filled to capacity, with more than 1,800 spectators, and the fight started slowly. Rodríguez restricted the early pace of the opening rounds by holding Owen on the blindside of the referee. ===>>> The venue was filled to capacity, with more than 1,800 spectators. The fight started slowly as Rodríguez restricted the early pace of the opening rounds by holding Owen on the blindside of the referee. (split the setup from the fight)
• although Owen did cause damage to his opponent after trapping him on the ropes during the sixth. ===>>> . Owen did cause damage to his opponent after trapping him on the ropes during the sixth. (new sentence)

Final bout

• With Owen now European champion ===>>> With Owen the European champion
• a fight against the WBC title holder, Mexican Lupe Pintor was rumoured. <<<=== What do you mean by rumoured?
• Now ranked as the number four ===>>> Having risen to be the number four
• Discussions between the two parties had suggested a potential meeting in Wales ===>>> The two parties had discussed a potential meeting in Wales
• and the fight promoter promptly intervened and the press backed off <<<=== start a new sentence
• They came together <<<=== too informal
• while some Welsh fans had travelled to support Owen <<<=== start a new sentence
• His pressure told <<<=== "told" isn't the right word
• when he landed a strong shot ===>>> by landing a strong shot (also, do you know what kind of punch?)
• Pintor began to fight less defensively ===>>> Pintor began to fight more aggressively (but it kind of sounds like he was fighting aggressively before too with "tried to take control of the fight")
• remaining of the round ===>>> remaining in the round
• right-hand <<<=== no hyphen
• beer and other missiles <<<=== missiles is too informal

Death

• He remained in a coma, although his doctor believed his condition was improving, until 4 November when a second bout of pneumonia ultimately ended his life ===>>> Although his doctor believed his condition was improving, a second bout of pneumonia on 4 November ultimately ended his life.
• Owen left £45,189 to his family and had earned less than £7,000 ===>>> Owen left £45,189 to his family, having earned less than £7,000
• being fought over 12 instead of 15 rounds ===>>> being shortened to 12 rounds instead of 15

  I think fought over is more fitting. Shortened sounds more like an adjustment than an actual rule change. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fighting style

• at bantamweight.. <<<=== ..
• His great skill wasn't his strength - <<<=== wrong dash (twice)
• , Srikumar Sen of The Times <<<=== start a new sentence

Legacy

• which was performed by Pintor <<<=== "performed" doesn't sound right. maybe "presented" or "hosted"?

Overall

• Nothing major.
• The biggest comments are probably on the lead.
• I'd suggest adding year ranges to the sub-section headers.
• Run-on sentences are a common issue. I pointed them out above.
• The prose structure is pretty good in terms of flow from sentence-to-sentence and paragraph-to-paragraph.

I intend to support after these comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for taking up the review. I've implemented the majority of the points above with a couple of comments thrown in too. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a professional ten-ball pool tournament held two years ago. The championship hadn't been held since 2015, when it was won by Ko Pin-yi. Ko lost in the semi-finals of the event to Joshua Filler, who played Ko's brother Ko Ping-chung in the final. Filler, the reigning nine-ball world champion went into an early lead, but was ultimately defeated 10-7 by Ko. The event featured a $132,000 prize fund, very large for a pool event, and played as both a double-elimination and single-elimination tournament.

This is the second nomination, after the first drew little commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:WPA_world_Ten-ball_Championship_poster_2019.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• I have expanded this somewhat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• The prize fund table needs a caption, row scopes, and row headers per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

• "with the previous championship held in 2015." It either needs a comma before "with" or (better IMO) a semi colon and changing to 'the previous championship was held in 2015.'
  • Agreed changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "but was later moved to". "later" is unnecessary.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• In the lead, four sentences start with "The event". Is some variety possible?
  • Yeah, I've changed. There's still two "the event", but are in different paras now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "The event featured 64 participants based on world pool rankings, as well as qualifiers and played as a double-elimination tournament until the 16 players remained, becoming a single-elimination tournament." 1. 'was played'. 2. Suggest splitting.
  • I split this already and reworded due to the above point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "in both 2016 and 2018 both fell through". Delete one "both".
  • Deleted Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "partnered with CueSports International". Who are?
  • Explained. They are pretty much a group that owns lots of tours, but "event organisers" covers it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "will be played in Las Vegas until 2022 as part of a three-year deal for the event to be played in the United States". Given 'will be played in Las Vegas until 2022', 'to be played in the United States' is unnecessary.
  • Deleted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "The event featured 64 players, with entries being selected from ranking lists for players tours, such as the Euro Tour and the WPA, with 16 qualifiers, held in events from June and July 2019." This doesn't seem to explain how the 64 participants were selected.
  • I've added a section as to how this did work. Don't ask me who qualified by each tour, as this wasn't really publicised outside of a few players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "as a double-elimination bracket". You what? Like this?
  • A bracket is an American word for the knockout structure - you might call it a tree, or similar. I'm not sure how you'd change this. Any ideas of a better wordage? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"double-elimination" or "double elimination"?

To answer your question, maybe 'The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure or bracket ...'?

I've just put knockout. Our own article uses double-elimination, so so did I. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• "becoming a single-elimination tournament." → 'when it became a single-elimination tournament.'
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "were played as a race-to-eight racks"?
  • Changed to "first to". A race is the correct way to say this however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "the alternating break format." At which, I suspect, a reader goes down for the third time.
  • Reworded/clarified what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "After a combined eight break-and-runs" I know that there is a link, but the idea of an encyclopedia is that an article explains its subject without the need for constant referring to other articles, an understanding of which may require a referral to yet more articles ...
  • So, a break-and-run means the player who breaks wins the rack without letting the other player take a shot. I can reword to say that the eight racks were won by the breaking player, but a break-and-run is a specific thing, I'm not sure how you explain what it is succinctly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
    • See what you think on this new wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that does it. If you want to add ', known as a break-and-run' then you can use that term thereafter if you want.

We do only use it once more, but I have done so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Early rounds" section title. Surely the "early rounds" were the "Double elimination bracket" rounds?
  • I'm getting that this is the knockout rounds. Ive reordered to avoid the confusion Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "struggled to play against Ko's safety play", "play ... play". Maybe 'struggled against Ko's safety play'?
  • Changed to "compete" which is what I was getting at Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "after snookering himself behind the 10-ball." And for the non-initiated this would be?
  • So, a snooker (named as something that is used in the game of the same name) is when you can't directly hit the ball you are supposed to. Think of it like a solar eclipse. In this case, the cue ball, (the one you hit) is beyond the 10-ball, but you are trying to hit another ball. Basically it's not what you want to do. I'm not sure what other wording can be used to explain this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I have a bad habit of asking rhetorical questions and/or acting the simpleton when reviewing. I knew what you meant. I was concerned that many readers wouldn't. Hmm. 'after inadvertantly leaving the ball he needed to play obscured behind the 10-ball' or similar?

Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• "The semi-finals and final were held on June 26, the last day of the competition.! Optional: do we need to be told that the final was held on the last day of the competition?
  • I was getting at this was the last day of the whole event. If you remember in the format section, there was other events (such as the national BCA championship that was also going on). I've removed this though as it isn't relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "after losing the lag". ?
  • Removed - not important. The lag is just what pool uses rather than a coin toss to see who plays first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "produced two dry breaks." Dry break?
  • Explained. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "capitalizing on a scratch from Ko". Referring to Wiktionary, and looking only at definitions specifying that they apply to sport "scratch" can mean seven different things. Even restricting that to cue sports it can mean two different - and opposing - things.
  • I've linked, and changed the words. Wiktionary does actually do a good job of explaining what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "and later tied up the match". Is "up" correct in this context?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Ko played a kick shot" Could "kick shot" be explained in line?

Unaddressed.

• "Ko banked the 1-ball". "banked"?
  • Both of these are two sides to the same coin. They both involve hitting a cushion to make the shot. The original is where you hit the cue ball into the cushion to hit the object ball, the other is where you hit the object ball into the cushion which then goes into the pocket. I'm not sure how you can. Explain these succinctly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "ran the rack". ?
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Ko met up with his brother Pin-yi during the break". This seems a bit of a random comment.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "The win was the first major championship of Ko Ping-chung's career". Do you mean that it was his first such victory? Or the first such championship that he had taken part in?
  • Added "championship win".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• "which was won by Ko's brother while he had lost in the semi-final". It may be helpful to replace "he" with a name.
  • Reworded - I agree that was a bit confusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Were there any comments from Filler after the final?
  • I'll keep looking, but I don't remember seeing any. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Lee Vilenski, that all looks good. See what you think of my responses above, and then I'll think about having a final read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Looks like it is just the two terms regarding "banking" and "kick shot" which I'm struggling to rewrite. The only way to really explain in prose what a bank (or double) is would really need the citation to state which rail was being used. I could write "Ko played the 1-ball against the cushion, and into the side pocket", but something like a double is very common language for pool. I feel we would be dumbing down the article and not improving it to add this additional words, unless you have a better wording. I have reworded the kick shot variant, let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Second read through[edit]

Most of the below are by way of suggestions. See what you think.

• "the previous championship held in 2015." 'the previous championship was held in 2015'?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "with the Billiard Congress of America national ten-ball event". Should that be 'with the Billiard Congress of America's national ten-ball event'?
  • Sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "players competing were based on both the world pool rankings". "based" → 'selected' or similar.
  • Only issue is that wildcards are based on rankings, but not selected on them. That is kind of the actual difference between something being ranking-only, and ranking and wildcard. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "becoming changing to a single-elimination format" → 'then changing to a single-elimination format'.
  • nice catch. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "won the previous 2015 championship". Either "previous" or "2015" needs to go.
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "where it became a single-elimination tournament". "where" → 'when'.
  • Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Double-elimination matches were played as the first to eight racks, whilst the single-elimination matches were played as the first to ten racks." Optionally add something like '(A rack being a single game, named after the balls being "racked" at the start of each game.)
  • This isn't an article on how things are named, so I don't see how linking to rack is helpful. We have to be very careful how we word terms like "game", "match" etc, as they have different meanings, which is why the article specifically uses the technical term. The term "game" could be used for either the whole match, or just one frame. I don't think a reader is going to look at this term and be confused over what it means with the context given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "(or "break and run")". Suggest → '(known as a "break and run")'.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• "Ko Ping-chung reach the final after a 10–3 win". "reach" → 'reached'.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

A nice job there. Flow versus fullness of explanation is frequently a tricky balance. Where I am not completely happy I think that the context gives a reader enough to go on. Supporting.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild. It certainly is a balancing act finding terms that are suitable to be reworded, and ones that would actually make the article worse by replacing. Thanks for the in-depth review; I hope we get a little more eyes on this one. (I'll get some FAC reviews done as soon as I can). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I am currently working on an article I hope to bring to FAC where I need to explain late-Medieval siege equipment and techniques *eyeroll* .

I'll put it up for a source review.

That would be good. We have been missing your reviews. When you get the time, wrapping up the 1987 FA Cup Final review would be good. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'd assume a trebuchet can just be described as "like a cannon, but not" :P. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

• I'm very confused about when this was actually taking place. The lead says June 22 to 26, 2019. The infobox says July 22 to 26. Double elimination bracket says the event began July 22, Knockout rounds says the quarter-finals were on June 25. Am I missing something?
  • Nope, I'm just inept. It was July, I think I got confused somewhere. Updated Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Lead says the event was originally to be held in General Santos, text says Manila - which is correct?
  • I've made some changes. Whilst an event was suggested for Manila, it never came through. More important was that two prior events that had dates and stuff for 2016 and 2018 were cancelled in Manila. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Seeing inconsistencies around publishers/works - for example FN5 has a work title of "CueSports International (CSI)", but then FN10 has a publisher of "Cue Sports International". Please check throughout.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Still inconsistencies here - why is the same thing a work title in one case and a publisher in the other? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• FN16 is incomplete
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• What makes sixpockets.de a high-quality reliable source? Alison Chang? Pro9?
  • I have culled these. Alisong Chang I was always a bit weary of, but it is generally deemed quite the expert, but it is essentially a personal blog. I have also removed sixpockets, which whilst it has it's own team, aparently it also posts guest columns without ever (to my knowledge) stating if it is editorialised at all! Pro9 I'm sure is reliable, but I can't find much on it, so I've replaced anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• FN30 is missing author. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think I've understood and covered this now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'll give a detailed review at some point. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, one major comment I have is... In the participant summary section, can you write out who were the key participants like you usually do in your other FAs? (e.g. Who were the former champions/finalists, contenders, and top-ranked players from each tour? Any unique lower-ranked players worth noting? Also, can you summarize what the seven tours are? I assume the WPA is the main one. Are the other six also professional? Related to how the tours work, if you are for instance a top Asian player, does that mean you only play on the WPA or are you a member of both the WPA and the APBU?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I would do more, if I knew more. I don't usually do this - I think I did this on maybe two other events? It's a bit WP:OR/WP:SYNTHy to an extent, because the sources don't say it, they just say that they were participating, and the other ref shows they won/final in the event before. There had only been four prior events, and the only former finalist was the defending champion who I went into depth talking about. I see the need for something to describe the tours, but most of them are the local tours (European, Asian, American etc.) with the WPA being a ranking for other world stage tournaments (like the World nine-ball championship). There seems to be little information as to which players actually qualified from which tour, or how they came up with that number. The official event info list doesn't have anything [13]. I do have a list of the players who qualified from the local competitions, but that's about it. I have signed up for Inside Mag Pool & Billiard magazine, I'm just awaiting my archives access and see if it is mentioned there, but that would be the last hope really. None of the individual governing bodies mention this at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine about not including the stuff you don't have. In part with regard to qualification, I feel like the ranking system(s) itself could use a little more of an explanation (see my comments below). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

More detailed comments... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Been a little busy recently, will update on this in a day or so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I don't understand what CueSports International is or what it links to.
  • Clarified a little. CSI are the parent company to the BCA and other events. We don't do a good job in the redirected article, sadly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• After plans an event in both 2016 and 2018 ===>>> After plans for an event in both 2016 and 2018
  • fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• a 2019 event organised to be held at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, as part of a three-year deal for the event to be played in the United States was agreed. <<<=== This seems like too much passive voice. (agreed by who?, and "organised to be held" seems like it could be shortened)
  • Shortened Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• July 22 to 26, 2019. <<<=== You don't need to repeat "2019".
  • Sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Featuring 64 participants, <<<=== 64 or 62? (see comment below)
  • I did some digging, it is 64 players as can be seen here.
• players competing were based on both the world pool rankings as well as qualifying events. <<<=== Are they also based on continental tour rankings?
  • Good spot - changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• then changing to a ===>>> at which point it changed to a
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Chinese Taipei player Ko Ping-chung <<<=== should be Taiwanese or "representing Chinese Taipei" to be the most correct
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• who won the previous championship <<<=== I'd suggest "who was the defending champion" instead
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Format

• Probably worth adding that all previous editions were in the Philippines
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Also worth adding that the first edition was in 2008
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Was it ever intended to be held annually?
  • I haven't got anything that says that, but it's been many years since it was an annual event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• stage the event along with the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) <<<=== Aren't the WPA also who Predator Group partnered with (like CueSports International)?
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the tournament is not held regularly? (Is ten-ball less played than nine-ball or other variants in general?)
  • Pool has been in decline for years. Nine-ball is the big event, and even that has come under issues of not being run. If you aren't the Mosconi Cup, or World Cup of Pool, there might be issues with money. This event in particular has issues with money with players not getting paid for the 2015 event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• with plans to host the event for three years <<<=== Which event? This one or the Players Championship?
  • This one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• "The WPA World Ten-ball Championship will be played" <<<=== This could be rephrased so you are not WP:CRYSTAL-balling
  • I've deleted entirely as I've already said it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Relatedly, if you are referring to this event with the "for three years" comment above, then that is repetitive with the "will be played" sentence.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• such as the Euro Tour and the WPA <<<=== Is the WPA a tour?
  • They give out ranking points for the major events. I've changed to an actual tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• with 16 qualifiers, held in events from June and July 2019 <<<=== I don't think this wording ("16 qualifiers, held in events") makes sense. (unless the qualifiers are part of broader events and not isolated events on their own?)
  • Clarified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure until 16 players remained, when it became a single-elimination tournament. <<<=== Looking at the link to the draws, it looks like they refer to these as stages (i.e. a double-elimination stage and a single-elimination stage). The tournament cannot "become a tournament".
  • Yeah, as above, I originally had "bracket", but not sure of a better word here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Also in that sentence, it would be "double-elimination format" or "double-elimination knockout format", albeit the Wikipedia article on knockout format says that would imply single-elimination (not sure if that's correct).
• Clarify that the double-elimination format implies players need to win three matches to advance to the single-elimination stage. (Is that correct?)
  • Nope, double-elimination brackets are confusing. You have to win three or four matches. It's a weird American thing, and the reason I didn't go into details as to how these work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• The event was also played ===>>> Matches were played
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• with each player taking turns to break in each rack ===>>> in which the players take turns to break each rack ("in each rack" seems to suggest both players break in one rack. Also, I don't know, but is "to break" correct versus "at breaking" or "at the break"?)
  • Reworded. Yeah, it doesn't seem like great English, but it is indeed a player "to break". A break is like a serve in tennis Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• It was broadcast ===>>> The event was broadcast
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Participant summary

• The player list has 64 spots, but only 62 of them are actually filled?
  • Yeah, sadly they never did update that (no idea why). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• local qualifying events ===>>> regional qualifying events ("local" sounds like "near the tournament". I think they were global, right?)
• "in the following tours" implies a list of tours. I think a format like "World Pool Association (16)" where it's just the tour (and then the number of qualifiers in parentheses) would fit that better.
• Relatedly, these seem like organisations, not tours?
• With regards to my comments last week, no worries about including information you don't have.
• The current explanation seems to imply that each tour has its own ranking. Is that correct? Or do the spots go to the top-ranked players from each tour according to the overall WPA rankings?
• Is it worth mentioning who are the top-ranked players? Or are these players not necessarily the favourites? (I could imagine that being the case if being good at 9-ball doesn't mean you are good at 10-ball?)
• Relatedly, the tournament wasn't seeded or anything?
• If you don't have who qualified by tour, maybe state which countries had the most representatives?

Prize fund

• Okay.

Double elimination

• I'd suggest calling this sub-section "Double elimination stage" rather than bracket
• Filler lost his second match 1–8 to Johann Chua after losing the first seven racks of the match. <<<=== no need to repeat "of the match" at the end
• his opening round match to Ariel Casto ===>>> his opening round match against Ariel Casto
• Defending champion Ko Pin-yi won his opening round match to Ariel Casto [de], but lost to Alex Pagulayan 8–6 in the second round. <<<=== This is incomplete. He still qualified. The "but" seems to suggest he didn't.
• American players Shane Van Boening and Billy Thorpe <<<=== specify that these are good players? or at least popular players? At the moment, it doesn't seem clear why they are highlighted instead of others.
• shared a hotel room for the event, but were drawn <<<=== I don't think the "but" is necessary. It's not really a negative.
• Maybe add how Masato Yoshioka did, since he made the semifinals?
• Albin Ouschan to reach the knockout round ===>>> Albin Ouschan to reach the knockout rounds

Single elimination

• Should probably stick to using full names for the Ko brothers to avoid confusion.
• Styer failed to take advantage in rack 12, <<<=== take advantage of what?
• Filler failed to capitalize in racks 16 and 17 <<<=== failed to capitalize on what?
• Ko Ping-chung reached the final after a 10–3 win ===>>> Ko Ping-chung reached the final with a 10–3 win
• regional qualifier Masato Yoshioka <<<=== "regional qualifier" should be mentioned the first time Yoshioka is mentioned, not here
• pocketing the cue ball <<<=== add "(known as a scratch)" OR I think you could just say "scratching the cue ball"?
• to trail 5–3, ===>>> to cut the deficit to 5–3,
• The final was played as a race-to-ten-racks match <<<=== It doesn't make sense to specify that when all matches in this stage were race-to-ten.
• with Ko taking a comfort break after rack four ===>>> at which point Ko took a comfort break
• , before taking the lead ===>>> and took the lead
• With Filler firing a dry break <<<=== I would assume "firing" isn't formal enough.
• to win the rack to lead 9–7 ===>>> to win the rack and lead 9–7
• The win was the first major championship win of Ko Ping-chung's career, having previously reached semi-finals in various events. ===>>> The win was the first major championship win of Ko Ping-chung's career, with his best previous major results having been semi-finals in various events.
• In the caption: Niels Feijen reached the quarter-final of the event, before losing to 2018 WPA World Nine-ball Championship winner Joshua Filler. ===>>> Niels Feijen reached the quarter-final of the event, losing to 2018 WPA World Nine-ball Championship winner Joshua Filler.

Draw

• The following results only show the final 16 players. ===>>> The following results only show the single-elimination stage comprising the final 16 players.
• All matches were ===>>> All matches in this stage were
• Players in bold represent winners: ===>>> Players in bold represent winners.

Overall

• I noticed in general that you don't usually include the ranking points distribution, or any description of the ranking system. Is there a reason why you leave it out? I didn't even realize this was a ranking event until I found it in the WPA rankings here.
• It doesn't makes sense to link the balls that aren't the 10-ball. Those links go to the disciplines, not the balls.
• I think the more important comments above have to do with the sections outside of the tournament summary. The comments on the tournament summary are more minor.

After these comments are addressed, I'll look through it again. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti Mountains[edit]

Nominator(s): Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an large, relatively unexplored, volcanic mountain range in middle of the Sahara desert. It possesses a harsh climate, yet supports a variety of desert flora and fauna. It is populated by the Toubou people, who have a unique culture and an independent spirit. This, along with its geographic position straddling the border between Chad and Libya, has engendered a volatile history. The Tibesti range is noted for its active volcanic landscape, its rock and parietal art, and its extreme geographic and cultural isolation. Brycehughes (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass, see talk for details (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

I tend to agree with Buidhe about the length of the Flora and fauna section. I appreciate that it's there (it's usually the first section I look at in articles like these), but at the same time it's quite long, somewhat listy, and at the same time quite incomplete – no mention, for example, of lichens and very little of bryophytes. How do you feel about spinning off an article Flora and fauna of the Tibesti Mountains? Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that section wasn't good. In fact, some of the sourcing in the fauna subsection was off. Back when I wrote it (like 2013), I'm guessing I wrongly used the WWF source as a proxy for the other sources listed in the WWF document. Anyway, I trimmed up both sections and fixed the sourcing, so hopefully they read better now. I also added information on bryophytes and lichens (although lichens are quite sparse in the Tibesti). Thanks a lot for suggesting that. Let me know if it needs more work.

Re splitting to a new article – I don't know. I think in theory a lot of the sections could have their own articles, but I'm not sure any of them desperately warrant it yet. The Tibesti Mountains have not been heavily studied, so there's not a lot of information out there. Moreover, I have absolutely zero expertise in biology, and I don't think I've ever written a biology-type article, so my confidence is not exactly high in terms of writing a decent one. That said, I'm not at all opposed to the idea in theory. Brycehughes (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The section is now better. However, there’s still a lot of Latin in the flora section. I wonder if it might worth considering cutting some of this back by trying to use common names where possible and linking to the Latin name. This won’t be possible in all cases, and it might be difficult to make a judgment call on what common name to use when there’s more than one option available. But reading text like "sea rush and toad rush" is generally easier and more interesting than "Juncus maritimus and Juncus bufonius". Similarly, how about saying “the most common grass” rather than “the most common Poaceae”.

• Done, where possible. Brycehughes (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Some more comments on this section:

• ”such as Enneri Yebige, which is virtually unexplored.”; “Although the lake appears rich in phytoplankton, it has not been thoroughly studied.” These statements are cited to sources that are over 20-25 years old; any updates since then?

• 25 years is like yesterday in Tibesti exploration time. The region has been rife with conflict for nearly 60 years now, keeping most scientists away and limiting exploration to satellites. See the "Modern history" and "Scientific exploration and research" sections for a summary of that. I check somewhat regularly to see if there has been any new research or exploration, because it's like finding a diamond, but sadly no, there has not been to my knowledge. Brycehughes (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• ”Acacia nilotica grow near these water basins.”; “while Tamarix nilotica grow at similar elevations” It sounds pretty odd to me to use "grow" instead of "grows"

• Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• ”20 to 60 cm (7.9 to 23.6 in) “ too much accuracy in the output compared to what was put in, especially since the first set of numbers looks like a rough approximation anyway

• Done, but had to handwrite it because you can't set significant figures independently on a ranged convert template converting it to integers worked. Brycehughes (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• ”and do not exceed one meter.” should have a convert for that too

• Done. Brycehughes (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• fix "At the highest elevation elevations"

• Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• please add a picture or two of the most common plants, to help break up the text, and so I know what to look for next time I visit!

• @Buidhe had removed the images (which I'm fine with) in this edit, along with the edit summary "Only use plants that have been photographed in or around the mountains", which, given that this is the Tibesti Mountains, is exactly zero. I wonder if it's okay to use an image or two with captions making it clear that this is an example of the plant but not photographed in the Tibesti? If not, we might be stuck on this one. Brycehughes (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to that if the caption is clear. The issue is massive galleries of flora and fauna photographed in a different location. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Done. I added File:Acacia laeta ms 2460.jpg, File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG and File:Canis aureus revivim2.JPG (@Buidhe not sure if you care to review). I don't think File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG needs a detailed caption because the image is restricted to the flower. Brycehughes (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Esculenta (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless, the positive effects of the gold discovery should not be underestimated." This phrase sounds quite odd in Wikipedia voice ... Esculenta (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Does it? How would you rephrase? Brycehughes (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review @Esculenta! Brycehughes (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I only read the flora and fauna section, and my suggestions have been addressed, but I can't really commit to a full support. Esculenta (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chipmunkdavis[edit]

My resolved issues, including writing issues, and sourcing spot check questions, are on the talkpage. Article appears well written (1a), comprehensive on a topic that is understandably difficult to obtain sources on (1bc), neutral and stable (1de). The lead seems a reasonable summary (2a), article structure perhaps a tad on the long side but not egregiously so (2b), all book journal and news sources use consistent shortform (2c). Media appropriate and checked above (3), and article is within length guidelines with no obvious excess or tangents (4). CMD (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

Looks like an excellent article. I have only a handful of small concerns.

• "there is no relationship between the age of the volcanoes and their dimensions, geographic distribution or alignment, similar to the Hawaiian–Emperor and Cook-Austral seamount chains"— shouldn't this say "in contrast to" instead of "similar to"?

• Fixed. Excellent catch. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do the sources specify why it's possible to identify the Toubou with the people mentioned in ancient sources like Herodotus and Julius Maternus? Ethnicity is a slippery phenomenon, and while I'm not familiar with Maternus, Herodotus's understanding of the world beyond Greece was… inconsistent, shall we say.

• Regarding Herodotus, the severely colonial (to put it mildly) Chapelle 1982 (first published 1957) devotes a paragraph to the matter (in French), which I have copied to the talk page here. First he quotes Herodotus, roughly translated as, "From Awjila, then ten more days away, there is a mound of salt, water and palm trees. ... The people of Garamantes live here, and they hunt Ethiopian troglodytes using four-horse chariots. ... They speak an unusual language that sounds like the cry of bats." Chapelle then goes on to argue that these "Ethiopian troglodytes" are indeed the Toubou, roughly translated and paraphrased as: "We can reason that these 'Ethiopian troglodytes' are the Toubou. Troglodytes are by definition cave dwellers, and thus they could only have lived in the mountains near the Fezzan, either the Tassili n'Ajjer or the Tibesti. The terrain of the Tassili n'Ajjer and its neighboring ergs are not suitable for chariots, while the regs that stretch between the Fezzan and the Tibesti would have allowed four-horsed chariots to pursue the troglodytes who came to plunder the palm groves. Besides, the language of the Toubou does sound like the cry of bats." (He does reference a source in his argument [Behm, E. (1862). Le Pays et le peuple des Tebu.] but I have no idea where one would find that.) Do you think I should summarize this in the article, perhaps in an endnote? Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a brief note would be good.

• Done. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding Maternus, Oliver 1975 does not give a why, but he does say (p. 290), "And there is no reason why the Garamantes should not have shown their goodwill by allowing a Roman such as Maternus to take part in one of their expeditions (including camelry) against the southern 'Ethiopians' (in all probability the people of Teda [a Toubou people] and Tibesti and their neighbourhood)." Does that suffice? I could note the "probability" qualifier if necessary. Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be fine with the qualifier.

• Done. I used "almost certainly" as equivalent to the source's "in all probability". Brycehughes (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Less significantly, saying that Herodotus "portrayed" (as opposed to "mentioned") the Toubou sounds odd, and given the ambiguity of ancient uses of the term "Ethiopian", it seems worth linking to Aethiopia, which explains those ambiguities.

• Done and done. Brycehughes (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I had momentary difficulty parsing the sentence about al-Maqrizi and Leo Africanus. "Recognized", again, sounds odder than "mentioned" or "referred to", and "that is to say" is wordier than "or" or "meaning".

• Fixed per your suggestion. Brycehughes (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The section on the Chadian Civil War uses the qualifiers "basically" and "largely", but these are the kinds of words that can often be cut (though it depends on what the sources say).

• To paraphrase, the article says, "The Tibesti area was basically ungovernable and thus the French left it largely alone". The key passage in the source (Nolutshungu 1995) is: "General Edouard Cortadellas had to admit the impossibility of subduing the Toubou in their own area. ... He concluded, 'I believe that we should draw a line below it and leave them to their stones. We can never subdue them.' Subsequent French policy never strayed far from that view." Accordingly, I've deleted "basically" since I suppose "impossibility" is pretty definitive there, but I lean towards keeping "largely" because "never strayed far" does allow some wriggle room for French interventions. Brycehughes (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

OK.

• "Where mosquitoes do not abound, they support several villages…" If people don't settle in the most mosquito-ridden areas, it's better to make that explicit, and ideally say why (because the mosquitoes spread disease or are just a nuisance). A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• The source (Hughes, Hughes and Bernacsek 1992, p. 20) is pretty vague on this: "Where these oases are accessible, and not infested by mosquitoes, their natural vegetation of Acacia, Ficus, Hyphaene and Tamarix, tends to have been replaced by Phoenix dactylifera. Communities have developed at several sites ...". I suppose I'd argue that we're pretty safe in letting the reader infer that people avoid mosquito-infested areas because mosquitoes are universally known to be, at the very least, bloody annoying, and I worry about any extrapolation going outside the bounds of the sourced info. What do you think? Brycehughes (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's all the sources say, that's all they say, so you can leave it as is. A. Parrot (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review, A. Parrot! Just a few questions above. Brycehughes (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. A. Parrot (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

John Richard Clark Hall[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

John Richard Clark Hall was a barrister who once wrote an article on the recent effects of sanitary legislation. Thankfully, however, that's not why we're here. For when he wasn't doing whatever it is that the principal clerk of the Local Government Board does, Hall, apparently as a project of passion, became one of the preeminent Old English scholars of his time. His translation of Beowulf spent more than five decades as the standard introduction to this epic poem, and his A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary remains in print more than a century after its initial publication.

While every student of classics at Oxford may once have been familiar with what was simply called "Clark Hall", its namesake remains far less known. This article's main accomplishment is in finding the sources that tie together Hall the barrister, with Hall the scholar, with even the Hall who, in a third act shortly before his death, took to a Christian theme, with tracts such as Birth Control and Self-Control—as enlightening, no doubt, as his treatise on sanitary legislation. This article was given a thorough review by Chiswick Chap last year; since then, I've polished the article further, and tracked down some of Hall's more obscure works. There is little more to be said about Hall that is not already said here, which is why I am now nominating it to be a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Images are freely licensed. Although I personally think that signatures have no encyclopedic value. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, Buidhe. Wish we could find a photo of the guy himself! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "Other work on Beowulf included a metrical translation in 1912" - text says 1914, which is correct?

• 1914, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Even after Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's in 1898, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary continued to serve prominently as an introductory resource" is cited to an 1898 source, which seems too early to draw that conclusion

• Added a 1932 source as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tingle's father, an accountant, was in Drammen (before the rest of the family arrived) during the great fire in 1866, and published an article about it, "A Town in Ashes", in All the Year Round." What is the relevance of this here?

• "A Town in Ashes" isn't attributed to Tingle in All the Year Round, so I was trying to find a place (that's not an obscure, century-old and out-of-print book held by only seven libraries) to attach his name to it. But you're right, it's a stretch here. I moved it to Drammen. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• "John Hall spent parts of his childhood (perhaps weekends)" - is the weekends bit in the source, or is this speculation?

• The first page of the source (visible here) says that "I first made [Herbert Tingle's] acquaintance ... when his family came to live in the road in which mine were then residing, on the outskirts of Peckham. ... The road has long since lost its mild air of suburban gentility, and the houses it contains have become 'weekly property'." This suggests, without stating definitively, that Hall's house was "weekend property," so to speak. It's a borderline case though, and I can take it out if you think it's too close to speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• It does seem too speculative. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough, Buidhe. Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• "An uncle, Joseph Hall, lived in Golcar Hill." Significance?

• It suggests something of Hall's roots, and presumably he spent some time there. It's not a huge point, but we have so little about his background that we may as well keep it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Hall's obituary termed him a "protestant reformer"" - this need not appear twice

• Removed the second. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• There are some citeref errors in Bibliography, and some inconsistencies/errors in formatting - for example, University of Toronto Press is a publisher, not a work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed the citeref errors. The University of Toronto Press website is actually being used as a source to show that A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is still in print as of 2021. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, just touching base to see if you have further comments, or would be interested in weighing in on the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Not at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

• This has been nominated for over three weeks and has yet to attract much interest. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Support fromComments by Chiswick Chap[edit]

I reviewed this article to GA in June 2020. Since then the citations have been tidied, and some detail has been added, mainly on his early life; having written Translating Beowulf, I added a mention and example of that topic. A few small corrections have been made. I have accordingly not much to add to the earlier review, and I think it a fine article deserving of FA status. However, the following little details may be worth a moment's attention.

• The article should, given Clark Hall's nationality and his work on Old English, be in British English (and the appropriate invisible tag be added at the top of the article). This will make little immediate difference as the article is mostly in that form of English already, but I notice that "as Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" would be "as the Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" in BE; and "spelled" would be "spelt".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "essay on "the duty of kindness to animals," " – should the essay title not be capitalised?

• It's the essay topic, not the essay title. Here's how the source refers to it: [Hall] obtained the second prize in May, 1871, for the best essay on "The duty of kindness to animals," given by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was competed for by students in about 120 schools in London. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "studied Roman law and constitutional law and legal history." – suggest "studied Roman law, constitutional law, and legal history." (unless this is using the Oxford comma, in which case omit the second one).

• The way I understand it is that "Roman law" is one subject, and "constitutional law and legal history" is a second subject. Indeed, the source puts Hall's studies under the umbrella of "Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal History". Meanwhile, other students were placed under the umbrella of "Constitutional Law and Legal History". Perhaps it would be clearer if phrased studied both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh I see. Yes, that'd be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "takers of an exam" – suggest "candidates".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's": not sure how to parse this. Suggest we drop the "'s" as unnecessary.

• Done. Pretty sure that was just a typo. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "This was itself reprinted" doesn't need "itself".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The Contemporary Review, called it" contains a stray comma.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "advocating for the "parochial comprehensiveness" of the church" – on reflection, I've no idea what this might mean (nor why "for" is needed). Perhaps a word of explanation is called for here, in which case the already rather long sentence should be split up.

• Yep, I'm sure I knew what that meant when I wrote it, but trying to parse it out a year later, I had no idea. Moved it to a footnote where I added to and clarified it, and linked comprehensiveness to Anglican doctrine#Interpretation of doctrine. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• "wondered much how it reached there." should I think be "wondered much how it had reached there."

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink Kingston Russell; you might add that it's adjacent to Long Bredy.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Do we need to know the name of the rector at Hall's wedding?

• He was the local rector for four decades, and I think a nice touch to add. But it's hardly a necessary point. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, "he left a £16,762 estate." should be "he had left a £16,762 estate."

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• The multiple editions of his Dictionary and of his Beowulf are formatted with the author's name masked for second and subsequent appearances. However those use a bullet as well as a long dash; I'd suggest to suppress the (indented) bullets so we have bullet points only where "Hall" is printed.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the careful review and good points, Chiswick Chap. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good work! all the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Looks interesting. Here's what strikes me:

• I might split the long second sentence of the lead that is now joined by a semicolon.

• Done.

• Why is the book by Hall bolded? Is there a MOS reason for it?

• A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary directs to the article, so is bolded per WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses: "Use boldface ... for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article ... which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (for example, subtopics of the article's topic ...)."

• "along with a senior certificate from the latter, earning him the title Associate in Arts at Oxford.[4][5][18][19]" This is, I assume, Oxford University?

• Linked both Oxford and Cambridge.

• "St. Olave's ... Mr. R.B. Allen ... Ph.D. ... Mr. Braginton" Just making sure that since this is in British English, that the dots after St, Mr, etc are intended and proper. I note later you have both Dr. Clark Hall and Dr Clark Hall. I understand those are quotations, but is that the sort of thing we are allowed to tidy up?

• Those are true to the sources, except for "Ph.D.", which I have now changed to "PhD". Meanwhile, only the Dr./Dr Clark Hall are parts of quotations; I'd be happy to remove the other periods if you think that's better for British English.

Possibly other commenters will weigh in. I'm not certain if usage has changed over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the reference strings are out of numerical order, such as ".[45][2]". Is this intended?

• Reordered.

That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Death of Mark Saunders[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Another in my occasional series of articles on British police shootings. This one is interesting because (unlike most such incidents), the person shot was not a career criminal or an armed robber pointing a gun at somebody's head, but an upper-middle-class lawyer with a drink problem and a legally owned shotgun. This incident didn't attract as much academic attention as some of the others, but The Guardian covered the investigation and the inquest in detail from start to finish. I think these are important stories to tell, and I'd like to think this article tells this one fairly. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf[edit]

• Why is there no birth or age information in the infobox?
  • There's none available in the sources. We have his age at death but that's about it.
    • {{Birth based on age at death}} and {{Death date and given age}} allow for situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of them, but I'm not sure what "born in 1972 or 1973" adds to the reader's understanding. Especially in an article about somebody's death. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• "He worked on several high-profile and complex cases, and wrote and lectured on his area of expertise." could be rewritten to reduce the number of "and"s.
  • Done.
• "He had long suffered with alcoholism, and on one occasion neighbours found him sitting outside his flat in a distressed state, and had been diagnosed with depression." I think this should be two sentences, although simply splitting would result in a fragment so maybe add something more about the depression if there is anything?
  • Done.
• "At the peak of the incident, 59 armed officers were at the scene." The number needs some context - e.g. how does it compare with other incidents? Has anyone commented that this was/was not a lot?
  • There was some suggestion in the media that it was a lot but not from experts. I included it more for context. It clearly developed into a significant operation, as opposed to just a handful of officers.
• "The Saunders family applied for judicial review of the IPCC investigation,..." When? (i.e. at what point in proceedings?)
  • Added.
• "The inquest did not resume fully until September 2010..." Why the year's delay after the CPS decision?
  • No idea. None of the sources say anything about it. It's not unusual for inquests to be adjourned for a long time.
• Given how extraordinary the second sentence of the Inquest section is, I think it would be best if the citations following it were about that only, rather than also supporting the first sentence, i.e. move the sources supporting the first sentence to the end of that sentence.
  • Done.
• "though the inquest heard that the decision to fire rests with each individual officer." This feels like it should come before discussion of who fired and why rather than as part of a sentence about why the third officer mentioned didn't.
  • Done.
• "The inspector and the silver commander..." this is the first mention of a silver commander. I know "gold commander" is linked earlier and the article that redirects to explains the command structure, but it may be worth a separate link - especially as it is strongly implied the silver commander wasn't on the scene (it seems unbelievable that anyone on scene could be unaware of the powerful lights) but it feels odd for this to be the case (although reading the relevant article it seems it varies).
  • Linked (had to create a couple of redirects). He was at a police command post nearby, which I believe is fairly normal for a silver commander.
• "De Menezes was shot dead in a case of mistaken identity in 2005..." don't need to repeat the date (given in the previous sentence) but a mention of the location might be due.
  • Done.
• Have there been any subsequent events where learnings from this incident played a role? If so, mention them in the Impact section (or a new subsequent events section if it would overwhelm what's currently there). Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There's nothing beyond what's already there. Thanks Chris! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Thryduulf. I was wondering if you were intending to either support or oppose this nomination? (There is, of course, no obligation to do either.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sufficiently familiar with the FA criteria or FA review process to feel comfortable making a recommendation one way or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Shotgun image is missing alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I struggle with alt text. Do you have a suggestion for what I could say that isn't conveyed by the caption?
    • As someone who doesn't spend a lot of time among guns, I don't think I would understand what "open position" means without being able to see it. Could we say something about the relative position of the parts, the angling, something like that? (I don't want to propose something concrete mostly because I'm not confident I actually know what the parts are all called). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be explicitly supported in the article - for example, that the area was cordoned off
  • While it would be trivial to source this, I try to aim for concision in the lead so removed.
• FN8: there are several other authors listed at the provided link
  • Added.
• Fn11 is missing author
  • Odd. BBC News doesn't normally name authors so I didn't look for it. Added.
• FN17 has an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks correct to me (I believe this is now FN18). If I'm looking at the wrong one, I apologise. Thanks Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Unless the author is a time traveller, I can't imagine the source was really published in 208 ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Ha! Fixed now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)