Википедия: кандидаты в избранные статьи

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

Здесь мы определяем, какие статьи должны быть избранными статьями (FA) . FA являются примером самой лучшей работы Википедии и удовлетворяют критериям FA . Приглашаются все редакторы просматривать номинации ; пожалуйста, смотрите обзор FAQ . Перед тем, как номинировать статью, номинанты могут пожелать получить обратную связь, включив ее в рецензирование . Редактора рассматривают свою первую номинацию, и любое последующее назначение до их первого продвижения ФА, которые настоятельно рекомендуется , чтобы привлекать к работе наставника , чтобы помочь в подготовке и обработке номинации. Кандидаты должны быть достаточно знакомы с предметом и источниками, чтобы иметь дело с возражениями в процессе отбора кандидатов на избранные статьи (FAC). Номинаторы, которые не вносят значительный вклад в статьюПеред тем, как номинировать статью, следует проконсультироваться с регулярными редакторами статьи. Ожидается, что кандидаты позитивно ответят на конструктивную критику и приложат усилия для быстрого рассмотрения возражений. Статья не должна быть одновременно на кандидатах в избранные статьи и на рецензирование или на хорошие статьи . Координаторы FAC - Ян Роуз , Элджит и Гог Мягкий - определяют сроки процесса для каждой номинации. Для того, чтобы номинация была повышена до статуса FA, необходимо достичь консенсуса , что она соответствует критериям. Консенсус достигается среди рецензентов и номинантов; координаторы определяют, есть ли консенсус. Номинация будет удалена из списка и помещена в архив, если, по мнению координаторов: обоснованные возражения не разрешены; консенсус по продвижению не достигнут; Рецензенты предоставили недостаточно информации, чтобы судить о соответствии критериям; или же номинация не подготовлена ​​после того, как хотя бы один рецензент предложил ее отозвать. Предполагается, что все номинации обладают хорошими качествами; вот почему основной упор в процессе состоит в том, чтобы генерировать и разрешать критические комментарии в отношении критериев, и почему такому решению придается значительно больший вес, чем заявлениям о поддержке. Пожалуйста, не используйте графику или шаблоны на страницах номинаций FAC. 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 {{ green }}, 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: Очистить кеш

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 ‹См. TfM› Случайная избранная статья Бывшие избранные статьи

Как номинировать статью Порядок номинации Ящик для инструментов Анализ Перед тем, как номинировать статью, убедитесь, что она соответствует всем критериям FA, а рецензии закрыты и архивированы. Панель инструментов избранных статей (справа) может помочь вам проверить некоторые критерии. Поместите {{subst:FAC}}номинированную статью вверху страницы обсуждения и сохраните страницу. В шаблоне FAC нажмите красную ссылку «инициировать выдвижение» или синюю ссылку «оставить комментарии». Вы увидите предварительно загруженную информацию; оставьте этот текст. Если вы не знаете, как пройти номинацию, отправьте сообщение на страницу обсуждения FAC для получения помощи. Под предварительно загруженным заголовком заполните страницу номинации, подпишите с помощью ~~~~ и сохраните страницу. Скопируйте этот текст: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}}(подставив номер) и отредактируйте эту страницу (то есть страницу, которую вы читаете в данный момент), вставив шаблон вверху списка кандидатов. Замените "имя ..." названием своей номинации. Это transclude назначения на эту страницу. В случае, если заголовок страницы номинации отличается от этого формата, используйте вместо него заголовок страницы. Комментируя, поддерживаю и опровергая Поддерживая и противодействуя 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 удобства редактирования рецензент, который вводит длинный комментарий, может создать нейтральный подраздел четвертого уровня , названный либо ==== Review by EditorX ====, либо ==== Comments by EditorX ==== ( не используйте третий -уровень или выше заголовки разделов). Пожалуйста, не создавайте подразделы для коротких заявлений о поддержке или противодействии - для них просто * '' 'Support' '' ', *' '' Oppose '' 'или *' '' Комментарий '' ', за которым следует ваше мнение , достаточно. Не используйте точку с запятой для выделения подзаголовков; это создает проблемы с доступностью . Если кандидат считает, что возражение было рассмотрено, он должен сказать об этом либо после подписи рецензента, либо путем вкрапления своих ответов в список, предоставленный рецензентом. Согласно рекомендациям на странице обсуждения , номинанты не должны ограничивать, изменять, убирать или добавлять изображения к комментариям других редакторов. Если номинант обнаруживает, что другой рецензент не возвращается на страницу номинации, чтобы пересмотреть улучшения, это должно быть отмечено на странице номинации с разницей на странице обсуждения рецензента, на которой отображается запрос на пересмотр.

Номинации [ править ]

Singer Building [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Эпикгений ( разговор ) 15:20, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о здании в Нижнем Манхэттене, Нью-Йорк, которое на короткое время было самым высоким зданием в мире, а затем и самым высоким, подлежащим мирному сносу. Впервые он был построен как два малоэтажных здания в конце 1890-х годов, которые были объединены и расширены в 1900-х годах. В остальном здание вело относительно спокойное существование до 1967 года, когда оно было снесено, чтобы освободить место для более крупного и менее выдающегося в архитектурном отношении здания. Интерьер был тщательно оформлен, как и фасад, и здание в период своего расцвета считалось бы довольно новаторским. К сожалению, в Зингер-билдинг не хватило места для современных офисных помещений, поэтому оно не сохранилось.

Это было продвинуто как Хорошая статья девять месяцев назад благодаря отличному обзору GA от Eddie891 . После столь ценного редактирования текста , сделанного Twofingered Typist , я думаю, что теперь это соответствует качеству FA. Эпикгений ( разговорное ) 15:20, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Доступность - в изображении инфобокса отсутствует альтернативный текст и параметр image_alt. Heartfox ( разговор ) 16:30, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Станция метро Dhoby Ghaut [ править ]

Номинатор (и): ZKang123 ( обсуждение ) 00:12, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о крупной пересадочной станции метро в Сингапуре. Я работал над статьей в 2020 году и сумел довести ее до стандарта GA в октябре того же года. После обзора GA я еще больше расширил и подправил статью новой информацией, с которой мне удалось столкнуться, особенно в разделе иллюстраций. Я представил его на экспертную оценку, и он также был отредактирован в соответствии со стандартами FA. - ZKang123 ( talk ) 00:12, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC).

Обзор изображений

• Оба изображения в разделе истории помещают информационное окно в нарушение MOS: IMAGELOC.
• Все изображения имеют свободную лицензию. Хорошие фото! (Я заметил, что вы сами их взяли). ( t · c ) buidhe 00:36, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Решили проблему, указанную выше, - ZKang123 ( разговор ) 07:21, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Допустим, я недавно провалил GAN на сингапурской станции MRT из-за проблем с авторскими правами, и в этой статье есть аналогичные проблемы, когда формулировка была снята с веб-сайтов или слегка перефразирована. Я проводил выборочные проверки здесь, и хотя ссылки на источники, где текст не может быть скопирован и вставлен, были в порядке, многие из них на веб-сайты, где текст находится в html или аналогичном формате, не дали результата. Ниже приведены эти примеры, и, учитывая мой довольно высокий уровень забастовок, я обеспокоен тем, что, вероятно, будут и другие.

• «Atrium @ Orchard - первая коммерческая разработка, полностью интегрированная со станцией MRT» - почти идентичная формулировка источника
• «Эта интеграция позволяет оптимизировать землепользование, одновременно повышая удобство и доступность общественного транспорта». - очень легко перефразировано из источника
• «транспортная развязка получила« почетное упоминание »на 7-й церемонии вручения награды Сингапурского института архитекторов (SIA) Design Awards» - неудобно близко к источнику, несмотря на то, что это легко перефразировать
• «Сочетание керамических работ Делии с землистой мозаикой Миленко» - то же самое.
• «отражают культурное богатство и художественное наследие Сингапура и региона» - то же самое
• «Определенные мотивы, символы и цвета повторяются, поэтому различные независимые компоненты произведения остаются тематически объединенными» - то же самое (это в основном те же слова, что и в источнике, используемые в другом порядке) Ник-Д ( выступление ) 06:46, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Спасибо ( кстати, я являюсь тем же редактором той сингапурской статистики MRT, которую вы просмотрели). Не могли бы вы подсказать, как перефразировать то, что вы упомянули? Я буду работать над этим, - ZKang123 ( разговор ) 07:21, 8 мая 2021 года (UTC).

Специальные возможности : в изображении информационного окна отсутствует замещающий текст. Heartfox ( разговор ) 16:39, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Level Mountain [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Парень из вулкана 19:54, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья представляет собой исчерпывающий и хорошо проработанный отчет о Горе Уровня, одном из крупнейших вулканов Канады и одном из самых малоизвестных вулканов на Земле. В конце 2015 года я переписал и значительно расширил эту статью, после чего в этом году последовало большое количество отредактированных текстов. Я обладаю значительными знаниями о вулканах Британской Колумбии, изучая их последние 14 лет или около того. Я также приносил другие статьи о вулканах Британской Колумбии в класс FA и с нетерпением жду возможности довести эту статью о Level Mountain до этого стандарта. Ура, парень из вулкана 19:54, 6 мая 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Файл: Cropped clear betula pumila.png, в подписи должно быть сказано, что это фото сделано не на Level Mountain.

Сделанный. Парень из вулкана 01:09, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Файл: Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg Как была создана эта карта? Это автоматическая генерация или есть какой-то творческий элемент? Я думаю, что это будет лучше, чем изображение, которое у вас есть сейчас, поскольку оно намного яснее ( t · c ) buidhe 00:33, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Я никогда не видел статьи FA с топографической картой в качестве ведущего изображения. Он также не показывает всю гору. Что касается карты, то она основана на данных SRTM, бесплатно предоставленных НАСА и обработанных в QGIS с типом текстуры World Imagery TOPO. Парень из вулкана 16:39, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Джо-Джо Эумер

По пунктам через WP: WIAFA :

• 1a: С оговоркой, что я не обязательно известен своими прозаическими способностями, мне это кажется нормальным.
• 1b: Насколько я могу судить, здесь рассмотрены все темы, которые, как я ожидал, будут затронуты. Может быть, подробности о скалолазании / альпинизме были бы круты, но по моему опыту трудно найти надежные источники по таким темам.

В Level Mountain нет ничего о скалолазании / альпинизме, что неудивительно, учитывая ее удаленность. Парень из вулкана 15:10, 7 мая 2021 года (UTC)

• 1c: Я вижу, что некоторые источники, упомянутые здесь , не используются в статье - судя по резюме, я думаю, что многие говорят слишком мало о Level Mountain или указывают только технические детали, но я полагаю, мы это проверили? У меня есть AGF по некоторым источникам, так как у меня нет к ним доступа. Встроенные цитаты, используемые в статье.

Да, я уже проверял эти источники. Большинство упоминают Level Mountain очень кратко и не очень полезны для использования в качестве источников. Некоторые из этого списка уже используются в статье. Парень из вулкана 15:30, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• 1d: Я не вижу никаких признаков проблем NPOV, имея в виду упомянутую выше оговорку о доступе к источникам.
• 1e: подходит.
• 1f: Метод «бросьте пару предложений в Google» не находит ничего плохого.
• 2а: Кажется, подходит; Темы, упомянутые в статье, тоже лидируют.
• 2b: Кажется, подходит.
• 2c: Я вижу некоторые ошибки цитирования, некоторые цитаты содержат даты, а другие нет.

Какие ошибки цитирования и цитирования вы имеете в виду? Парень из вулкана 15:34, 7 мая 2021 года (UTC)

Несколько ошибок показывают "Cite journal requires | journal =", например, Holland 1976 и Gabrielse 1982. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( разговор ) 16:34, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Как насчет сейчас? У меня не было этих ошибок, поэтому я не уверен, что они все еще существуют. Парень из вулкана 19:35, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 3: Я думаю, что текст ALT на большинстве изображений здесь слишком много о том, что это за изображение, и немного слишком мало о том, какую информацию оно передает. Есть ли у файла: Level Mountain topo cropped.jpg исходная карта? Изображения подходят для разделов, в которых они находятся.

Карта основана на данных SRTM, бесплатно предоставленных NASA и обработанных в QGIS с типом текстуры TOPO World Imagery. Парень из вулкана 16:39, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Я сделал некоторые улучшения в альтернативных текстах. Парень из вулкана 19:35, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 4: Кажется, подходит.

Парковка незавершенная! Голосуйте здесь на данный момент. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:19, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо, здесь временная поддержка . Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 17:32, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Программа создания компаньона General Motors [ править ]

Номинант (ы): -  Джон М. Вулфсон  ( обсуждение  •  вклад ) 17:38, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

« Ну и дела, наш старый LaSalle отлично работал , это были те дни».

Бывшие «пять брендов» General Motor (нынешние три плюс Olds и Pontiac) кажутся много по сегодняшним меркам, но еще в конце 1920-х годов GM пыталась сделать еще больше. В течение нескольких лет у него были «модели-компаньоны», чтобы заменить четыре из пяти классических. Двое из них, Викинг и Маркетт, о которых вы никогда не слышали, потому что они были быстро убиты во время Великой депрессии. Возможно, вы слышали о LaSalle, поскольку она просуществовала еще десять лет и дала Харли Эрлу , который изобрел Corvette в 1950-х годах, начало карьеры в GM. Вы определенно слышали о Понтиаке; эта программа make-компаньона является причиной того, что американцы (раньше) использовали ее вместо Окленда. У нас не так много автомобильных FA в Википедии, и это довольно малоизвестная ниша автомобильной истории, но я Здесь я постарался отдать ему должное.

Спасибо за внимание к этому FAC. Если он пройдет, это будет мой первый FA, не получивший четырех наград, и третий в общем зачете. Как всегда с моими FAC, незначительные чистки и настройки (линт, замена номеров ссылок и т. Д.) Рекомендуется делать самостоятельно, а не прямо здесь. -  Джон М. Вулфсон  ( обсуждение  •  вклад ) 17:38, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Изображения имеют свободную лицензию ( t · c ) buidhe 00:29, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• Некоторые детали в отведении не подтверждаются текстом. Например, ведущий утверждает, что «модели-компаньоны также использовались для увеличения продаж их соответствующих подразделений за счет продажи автомобилей, производство которых обходится дешевле»; в тексте говорится, что они увеличат продажи И будут стоить меньше, что немного другое утверждение.
  • Мне кажется, разница незначительна, но если вы настаиваете, я могу ее перефразировать.
• Должны отсутствовать названия работ, такие как Automobile Magazine|publisher= , и издатели, такие как Национальный музей американской истории, не должны указываться в параметрах названия работы.
  • Эти две проблемы были специально исправлены, дайте мне знать, если что-то еще в этом роде нуждается в решении.
• Как вы заказываете цитируемые работы?
  • По алфавиту краткого цитирования
• Есть ли причина использовать «Энциклопедию» в качестве краткого цитирования, а не авторов?
  • Изменен на Ludvigsen et al.
• Как вы решаете, когда указывать место публикации?
  • Я категорически отказываюсь включать его в газеты, где это место уже указано в заголовке и хорошо известно (в этой статье другие примеры - это Ottawa Citizen, но не Grand Island Independent, но в целом Chicago Tribune и New York Times являются другими примерами). дух USCITIES , и я опускаю его, когда не могу разумно определить местоположение (например, веб-сайты). Спасибо за вопрос!

Никкимария ( разговорное ) 02:59, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо за ответ! -  Джон М. Вулфсон  ( обсуждение  •  вклад ) 13:37, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Специальные возможности - добавьте заголовки строк (!) И области видимости строк (scope = "row") в таблицу согласно MOS: DTAB . Heartfox ( разговор ) 16:43, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Думаю, готово. -  Джон М. Вулфсон  ( обсуждение  •  вклад ) 16:56, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Округ Йорк, штат Мэн, трехсотлетний полдоллара [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Вевальт ( разговор ) 22:17, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья посвящена ... Одному из самых малоизвестных памятных знаков, выпущенных в 1936 году. Тем не менее, монета рассказывает историю, и, похоже, единственный скандал состоит в том, что Конгресс отказался от стандартов и решил отметить очень местное событие. Вевальт ( разговорное ) 22:17, 4 мая 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Предложить добавить альтернативный текст
• Файл: York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_obverse.jpg: каков статус авторских прав на фотографию? То же файл: York_county_tercentenary_half_dollar_commemorative_reverse.jpg
• Файл: LVPL-1CFD55_Silver_pine_tree_shilling_of_Massachusetts, _North_America_ (FindID_285997) .jpg должен содержать явный тег для монеты. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 02:27, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Первые два, замененные на те, которые ожидают рассмотрения, сообщат, когда будут получены разрешения. Добавлена ​​лицензия на шиллинг сосны. Что касается альтернативного текста, я считаю, что у меня это плохо получается, поэтому я предпочитаю оставить его другим, кому это небезразлично. Спасибо за обзор. - Wehwalt ( обсуждение ) 11:46, 5 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

OTRS добавил разрешения. - Вевальт ( разговор ) 11:58, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии Ceoil [ править ]

Я хорошо знаю Йорк и провел там несколько дней во время своего медового месяца в 2014 году. В городе есть довольно живописное и легендарное кладбище, которое мы посетили много раз за последние 8 лет. Может быть, здесь есть COI, не знаю;)

Придирки:

• Увлечение памятными монетами 1936 года - поскольку это не связано, возможно, "увлечение памятными монетами", а не "само"
• при продаже монет населению просили, чтобы был выпущен максимальный выпуск 30 000 монет, но по неопределенным причинам Монетный двор Филадельфии выпустил только 25 000 монет для публичной продажи - это вторая «публичная продажа» здесь избыточна. То же самое с «оставшаяся часть была продана населению в 1950-х годах»
• что сейчас штат Мэн был в том, что сейчас ... : измените одно "то, что есть сейчас" на "сегодняшнее"
• старейшее и самое южное графство в штате Мэн и одно из старейших политических единиц в Соединенных Штатах - самый старый x 2. Следуют ли «первые» политические единицы в Соединенных Штатах?
• Возникли проблемы с малым тиражом, которые выросли в цене - возникли? Благодаря серии ... которые оценили ...
• Затем новые изделия поступили на вторичный рынок - поступили в продажу.
• Очевидная легкая прибыль, которую можно получить от покупки и хранения памятных подарков, привлекла многих к хобби коллекционирования монет, где они стремились приобрести новые выпуски - спекулятивная покупка и коллекционирование - это разные вещи, поэтому перефразирование «привлекло многих», как «привлекло внимание». к". где они стремились купить новые выпуски - «особенно в« оценщике », чем« там, где они стремились приобрести »
• взрыв ?
• другие комментарии, не нарушающие условия сделки, в ближайшее время Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 13:11, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Прочитали и внесли незначительные изменения, а не перечисляли здесь .... пожалуйста, не стесняйтесь возвращаться по своему желанию. Исходники кажутся обычного качества для этой темы и редактора. Поддержка . 15:18, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Открытый чемпионат США 2020 (теннис) [ править ]

Числитель (ы): PCN02WPS ( Обсуждение | вклад ) 20:59, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Эта статья о теннисном турнире Большого шлема, который проходил в августе и сентябре 2020 года (во время пандемии COVID-19) в Нью-Йорке. Я работал над улучшением этой статьи как в то время, когда она появилась (чтобы она была одобрена в ITN), так и в течение большей части марта во время ее обзора GA (большое спасибо Sportsfan77777 за это). В настоящее время это одна из двух статей о теннисных турнирах штата Джорджия (вторая - Sony Ericsson Open 2009 года ), а единственная статья о теннисном турнире Англии - это Уимблдонский чемпионат 1877 года , так что я решил, что попытаться получить еще одну не повредит. Это моя первая номинация в FA, и до этой номинации меня наставлял Каслибер (см. Здесь). Буду признателен за любую обратную связь, которую я могу получить. Спасибо! PCN02WPS ( Обсуждение | вклад ) 20:59, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Похоже, что изображения имеют свободную лицензию. Однако для масштабирования изображений следует использовать только | upright =, а не фиксированные пиксели, из-за которых отображение будет неоптимальным в зависимости от устройства и настроек. См. МОС: ВЕРТИКАЛЬНЫЙ . ( t · c ) buidhe 21:15, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я не знал об этом, спасибо за исправление! PCN02WPS ( Обсуждение | вклад ) 21:44, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Доступность

• просмотрите MOS: DTAB для форматирования таблиц. У них отсутствуют области строк и столбцов, заголовки строк, а в некоторых отсутствуют заголовки.
• изображениям нужен замещающий текст . Heartfox ( разговор ) 16:50, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Хьюи Фергюсон [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Косак ( разговор ) 19:44, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о шотландском футболисте Хью Фергюсоне. Результативный бомбардир с раннего возраста, он свободно забивал на протяжении всей своей карьеры и был одним из самых известных нападающих довоенной эпохи, но, вероятно, так и не добился того отличия, которого заслуживал. Вероятно, самым заметным достижением в его карьере был победный гол в финале Кубка Англии 1927 года, который обеспечил «Кардифф Сити» кубок. Однако его карьера закончилась трагически, когда он вернулся в Шотландию в 1929 году, а вскоре после этого совершил самоубийство, что было связано с его опасениями по поводу снижения своих способностей. Как всегда, жду комментариев. Косацк ( разговор ) 19:44, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Изображения имеют свободную лицензию ( t · c ) buidhe 20:41, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Доступность : для таблицы требуются заголовок, области строк и столбцов, а также заголовки строк в соответствии с MOS: DTAB . Heartfox ( разговор ) 16:58, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Вторая битва при Ньютонии [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Получив разрешение на второй номинал, наступает еще один незначительный бой кавалерии ACW. В бегах после поражений при Вестпорте и Майн-Крик, конфедераты Прайса остановились в Ньютонии, прежде чем войти в пустыню 1864 года на северо-западе Арканзаса. Преследующая кавалерия Союза догнала, атаковала и получила немного больше, чем предполагалось, прежде чем подошло подкрепление и конфедераты отступили. Обе стороны заявили о своей победе, но история приписывает победу Союзу. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 14:19, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Пропуск на просмотр изображений согласно ACR ( t · c ) buidhe 18:55, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Пропуск на проверку источника согласно ACR ( t · c ) buidhe 02:03, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка от Gog the Mild [ править ]

Отказ от обзора.

• Все записи информационного окна должны начинаться с заглавной буквы.
  • Сделано для "около Ньютонии", что, я думаю, где проблема
• «вместо этого он начал продвигать свои силы на запад, в сторону Канзас-Сити», кажется немного неуклюжим. «вместо этого он двинул свои силы на запад, в сторону Канзас-Сити»?
  • Сделанный
• «Прайс приказал отвести свою главную армию и приказал Шелби». Как избежать "заказано ... заказано"?
  • Перефразировано
• «Меньшая линия Бланта». Возможно, «меньше» → «короче»?
  • Сделанный
• «припасы и солдаты были потеряны для захвата». «потерян для захвата» → «захвачен».
  • Сделанный
• «Заявления о казни заключенных» → «Заявления о казни заключенных».
  • Сделанный
• «прибыл на поле». Немного жаргонизм и не очень информативный - откуда они приехали?
  • Перефразировано и добавлено направление, с которого люди Форда достигли поля битвы.
• «Блант лично сражался с 16-м кавалерийским полком Канзаса на этом этапе боевых действий». Я предлагаю переместить это в последнее предложение этого абзаца.
  • Да, имеет смысл заявить, что Блант прибыл, прежде чем будет упомянуто, что он сражается - не уверен, почему я этого не заметил. Взолнованный.
• «вся армия Союза была на нем». «при» → «атакующий».
  • Сделанный
• «Несмотря на это, команда Шелби была единственной действующей силой, оставшейся в армии Конфедерации». Что «Независимо» пытается сообщить?
  • Понятия не имею, почему я добавил это слово. Удаленный.
• «выровнены слева направо в порядке» → «слева направо».
  • Сделанный
• «Шелби выровнял своих людей». Это может быть ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ, но меня сбивает с толку использование «выровненного». Здесь и в дальнейшем. (Что это вообще значит?)
  • В USEng это будет означать, что Шелби построил своих людей в линию. Я перефразировал все экземпляры
• «Всего у Шелби было около 2 000 или 3 500 человек». Кажется, это скрывает дискуссию. Есть ли шанс уточнить детали относительно того, кто сказал, когда, в идеале почему, и, возможно, альтернативные разбивки этих чисел?
  • Сделал немного понятнее. Никаких разбивок этих чисел на самом деле не приводится. На мой взгляд, это похоже на то, что два историка наплевывают на цифры, основанные на расплывчатом / ненадежном источнике, поскольку ни один из них явно не указывает, откуда они взяли свои цифры, и, учитывая, что случилось с армией Прайса за последние 5 дней, я не думаю, что кто-то действительно знал или заботился сколько мужчин было вокруг.
• «Линии Союза упали до фермы Ричи» → «Линии Союза упали до самой фермы Ричи».
  • Сделанный
• «Даже после того, как этот лайн образовался». "облицованный"?
  • Фиксированный. Я плохой редактор.
• «временно удивили конфедератов». Не думаю, что это можно удивить - хотя изображение мне нравится. «застал конфедератов врасплох и на время привел их в замешательство»?
  • Перефразировано
• "марш-бросок". Это существительное, а не глагол.
  • Перефразировал. Я не думал, что это грамматика, но я вроде как надеялся, что это было по какой-то причине
• «Эти новоприбывшие орудия производят 22 выстрела». «огонь» → «выстрелил».
  • Фиксированный. Наверное, следовало отредактировать эту копию.
• «артиллерийское преимущество становится все более разрозненным». Преимущество не может становиться более разрозненным. Например, «дифференциал» может или преимущество может стать более «заметным».
  • Перефразировано
• «Кроме того, современный историк Марк А. Лаузе». Исключить «Дополнительно». Возможна повторная вставка после "участвовал в действии".
  • Сделанный
• «как один из офицеров Мармадьюка подал отчет о сражении». Я предполагаю, что это относится к предыдущей части предложения, но вы не говорите нам, как это сделать.
  • @ Gog the Mild : - Я понятия не имею, как с этим справиться. Лаузе заявляет: «По крайней мере, часть двух других дивизий Прайса [Мармадьюк и Фэган] также вступили в бой ... [свидетельство участия Фагана] ... По крайней мере, один командир дивизии генерала Джона С. Мармадьюка также представил отчет о там его борьба ". Итак, Лаузе, похоже, подразумевает, что этот отчет (по сути, все) является оправданием для предположения, что люди Мармадьюка участвовали. Лаузе объединяет все сноски для этого абзаца вместе, поэтому непонятно, о чем именно он говорит. Поскольку другие источники не упоминают причастность людей Мармадьюка, это утверждение приписывается Лаузе, но я не уверен, как провести связь в статье без ИЛИ, когда Лаузе нечетко об этом говорит.Свинья Ферма _{Обсуждение} 04:44, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Лично я бы вычеркнул «поскольку один из офицеров Мармадьюка подал отчет о сражении». Какая разница, почему вторичные источники верят в то, что они делают? Вы не пытаетесь оправдать все остальные утверждения в статье.

Я удалил это.

• «они заняли сам город». Удалите «себя».
  • Удаленный
• «вероятно были похожи или даже меньше, чем у Союза». Почему «даже»?
  • Удаленный
• «и офицер Союза Ричард Дж. Хинтон сообщил, что погибло 114 человек». С какой стороны?
  • Союз. Добавлен
• «Американский фонд Battlefield Trust оценил 250 и 400». Это должно быть «оценка» → «оценка»? Или они с тех пор передумали?
  • Да, это должны быть оценки. Измененный.
• «из-за неспособности армии Прайса их транспортировать». Удалите «the».
  • Сделанный

Хороший. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 21:03, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Все хорошо. Ответ на ваш единственный запрос. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 15:14, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Нормандское шевоше Ланкастера 1356 г. [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Gog the Mild ( разговор ) 14:09, 3 мая 2021 года (UTC)

Моя первая Столетняя война КВС за больше года - как летит время. Краткая кампания, типичная для этой фазы войны, о которой есть необычно подробные записи. Это только что из GAN, и я считаю, что он соответствует стандартам FAC. Как всегда, приветствуется любая конструктивная критика. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 14:09, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений и обзор источников

Лицензирование изображений выглядит хорошо. Источники выглядят нормально, но мне все еще нужно выполнить полную проверку источника (хотя ссылка Rogers 1994 в порядке) ( t · c ) buidhe 18:54, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

HF [ править ]

Я скоро на это посмотрю. Может претендовать на 5 очков в WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 20:18, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Одним из заключенных был печально известный вероломный Карл Наваррский, один из крупнейших землевладельцев в Нормандии». Является ли этот Карл Наваррский тем же Карлом II Наваррским, с которым англичане пытались сотрудничать раньше?

Да.

• Какие новые союзы скреплены шевоши ? Упоминается ли, что в прелюдии к англичанам обращаются нормандские дворяне?

Упоминается в первом предложении Aftermath. Я изменил язык для ясности.

• Для справки Карри нужны ли и (2002 г.), и (опубликовано 13 ноября 2002 г.)?

Почесывает голову. Это издание 2002 года. Не знаю, откуда появился 2012 год. Фиксированный. Спасибо.

• С Jaques вы предоставляете и штат, и город, в то время как с Madden вы предоставляете только состояние. Для единообразия, возможно ли добавить город в Миннесоте для Мэддена?

Неа. Место публикации не указывается.

• Не видно, что дата начала явно указана как 22 июня в теле, за исключением косвенного утверждения, что 22 дня закончились 13 июля. Возможно ли ввести эту точную дату начала в тело?

Сделанный.

Хорошая работа, ожидаю поддержки по большинству критериев. Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 5 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо Hog Farm . Все сделано. Gog the Mild ( разговорное ) 15:04, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка WP: FACR # 1a, 1b, надежность и форматирование источника, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c и 4 , другие не проверялись. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 15:10, 5 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Ураган Оливия (2018) [ править ]

Номинант (и): Noah ^Talk 21:05, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья об урагане Оливия, продолжительном урагане категории 4, который поразил Гавайи в виде тропического шторма в сентябре 2018 года, вскоре после того, как несколько недель назад прошел ураган Лейн. Noah ^Talk 21:05, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• С лицензией на изображения все в порядке ( t · c ) buidhe 21:09, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от Hurricanehink

• Вы должны указать выход на берег во втором предложении

• Сделанный. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Оливия образовалась к юго-западу от Мексики 1 сентября. Депрессия» - вы никогда не говорили, что она образовалась как депрессия. Я предлагаю либо не упоминать здесь депрессию, либо найти способ включить это

• Фиксированный. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Звено сдвига ветра

• Сделанный. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Вы дважды связываете ураган категории 4 в начале, но с двумя разными статьями. Кажется странным

• Убрал вторую ссылку. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «12 сентября Оливия ненадолго вышла на берег на северо-западе Мауи и Ланаи, став первым тропическим циклоном, поразившим острова в истории человечества». - Вы упомянули в начале, что это был первый зафиксированный выход на берег, а не просто «удар». Кроме того, вы трижды упоминаете выход на берег на этих островах.

• Я удалил это упоминание и сохранил отверстие, а также отверстие с информацией о ветре. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Проливные дожди прошли как на Мауи, так и на Оаху, достигнув максимальной высоты 12,93 дюйма (328 мм) в Западном Вайлуайки, Мауи. На Мауи» - каким образом вы можете избежать повторения «Мауи» дважды в трех словах?

• Фиксированный. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «вызвали отключение электроэнергии в тысячах и вызвали сильное наводнение». - Можете ли вы найти способ написать это, чтобы не сказать «вызвано» дважды?

• Фиксированный. Noah ^Talk 23:02, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «в первую очередь - Нижняя Хоноапиилани-Роуд, где вдоль ее обочины были размыты скалы; ремонт этой дороги все еще продолжается». - все-таки по состоянию на май 2021 года? Источник сообщает январь 2021 года.

• Я не могу найти ничего более свежего, чем это. Noah ^Talk 23:12, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Президент США Дональд Трамп» - меня немного рвет из-за легкого посттравматического стрессового расстройства, но вы ничего не можете с этим поделать.
• «Позже в тот же день количество полос - значительно удлиненных, изогнутых полос дождевых облаков - значительно увеличилось, в то время как внутреннее ядро ​​Оливии укрепилось» - можете ли вы дважды не сказать «значительно»?

• Фиксированный. Noah ^Talk 23:12, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Почему восстановление Оливии было неожиданным?

• Объяснил, что модели предсказывают ослабление из-за сухого воздуха и более низких SST. Noah ^Talk 23:25, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Вы никогда не связывали графство Калавао. И наоборот, вы повторно связываете все острова в последнем разделе. Следите за повторяющимися ссылками

• Удалено несколько повторяющихся ссылок и связано с этим округом. Noah ^Talk 23:25, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Вы дважды пересекаете шоссе Камехамеха . Первый раз на Мауи, хотя шоссе идет на Оаху.

• Убрано упоминание об этой дороге на Мауи. Noah ^Talk 23:25, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Что такое совет о коричневой воде? Также вы говорите: «Раньше весь остров Мауи находился под запретом коричневой воды». - когда это было «раньше»? Это из-за Лейна?

• Перефразировано и разъяснено на основе того, что было в этом источнике. Noah ^Talk 22:38, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Пожилая женщина была спасена Малией Вонг и ее мужем во время шторма» - обычно мы не упоминаем конкретных людей, участвовавших в событиях, если они не являются значительными.

• Поменял на соседей. Noah ^Talk 22:38, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Красный Крест помог с восстановлением» - вы связываете Красный Крест , но, вероятно, это должен быть Красный Крест Америки.

• Сделанный. Noah ^Talk 22:38, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Вонг пожертвовал поддоны с подгузниками, водой, едой и одеждой людям, которые серьезно пострадали». - это похоже на ненужную деталь от какого-то случайного человека. Это какой-то филантроп-миллионер? Был ли этот человек единственным, кто сделал пожертвование, и поэтому важен Вонг?

• Удаленный. Noah ^Talk 22:38, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

В целом, это хорошая статья. Большинство моих комментариев - придирки. ♫ Hurricanehink ( разговорное ) 17:33, 6 мая 2021 (UTC)

@ Hurricanehink : я должен был адресовать все. Noah ^Talk 23:25, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Комментарий В статье отсутствует краткое описание, я добавил его для вас, но будьте осторожны с этим в будущем. ~ ~ 🌀 𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰 🌀 12:26, ​​7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Доступность : изображение информационного окна выиграет от замещающего текста. Heartfox ( разговор ) 17:10, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Тайфун Эмма (1959) [ править ]

Номинатор (ы):   Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 04:51, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о тайфуне в 1959 году, который обрушился на Окинаву и причинил некоторый ущерб территории. Это был не самый разрушительный шторм в сезоне и не самый разрушительный шторм, обрушившийся на острова в тот сезон. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 04:51, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Оба изображения имеют свободную лицензию ( t · c ) buidhe 05:44, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка от урагана Ной [ править ]

Скоро буду оставлять комментарии. Noah ^Talk 21:07, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• и продолжительный ветер 55 км / ч (35 миль / ч), скорость ветра в 1 минуту? Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Добавлена ​​обычная сноска, обозначающая 1-минутный ветер. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 9–10 узлов (17–19 км / ч) Преобразование в мили в час в скобках после единицы км / ч? Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 990 гектопаскалей (29 дюймов рт. Ст.). преобразование недостаточно конкретное, убедитесь, что показаны два десятичных знака. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

  Выбор четырех значащих цифр из трех приводит к ложной точности . Лучше было бы сохранить постоянное количество значащих цифр (то есть один десятичный разряд). FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 20:30, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• @ Femkemilene : Готово. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 04:59, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 970 гПа (29 дюймов ртутного столба) Преобразование в дюймы ртутного столба недостаточно специфично. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• эквивалент Категории 1, добавьте существительное после Категории 1. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Конверсия на 11 узлов (20 км / ч) миль / ч . Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• (60 миль) Не могли бы вы упомянуть, что это 70 статутных миль? Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 195 км / ч (105 узлов), оценка приземного ветра 240 км / ч (130 узлов). Конверсии миль / ч. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• эквивалент существительного Категории 3, необходимого после Категории 3. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 960 гПа (28 дюймов рт. Ст.) Такая же проблема с давлением. Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Преобразование 35 узлов (65 км / ч) миль / ч . Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 995 гектопаскалей (29,4 дюйма ртутного столба) Не могли бы вы добавить к нему второй десятичный знак? Noah ^Talk 21:48, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

@ Hurricane Noah : Исправления должны быть полными, спасибо за обзор. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:11, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии поддержки от Aoba47 [ править ]

Я не слишком привык просматривать (или даже читать) такие статьи, поэтому заранее извиняюсь, если какие-либо из моих комментариев касаются очень очевидных моментов.

• В первом предложении ведущей этот тайфун был назван «сильным». Это категория для данного типа шторма? Я знаком только с сезоном ураганов в Атлантике и категориями ураганов, поэтому я не знаю, как измеряются тайфуны.

• Технически нет, но подразумевается, что шторм, эквивалентный третьей категории по шкале Саффира-Симпсона, является сильным, учитывая диапазон ветров. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• В заголовке упоминается так называемое «закрытое обращение». Можно ли добавить сюда ссылку для таких читателей, как я, которые не знакомы с такой погодной терминологией?

• Связанный тропический циклогенез . Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Почему Эмма выделена курсивом при первом упоминании в начале и в теле статьи?

• Это было тогда, когда JTWC впервые дала название шторму. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• По этой части отведения несколько кораблей были повреждены или затоплены штормом , у нас есть более точное число?

• В разделе «Воздействие» есть три разных числа, представленные тремя разными источниками. Я не думаю, что есть точное количество поврежденных или потопленных кораблей. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• В первом предложении раздела «Метеорологическая история» я бы указал год. Эта информация сделана довольно очевидной в заголовке и информационном окне, но я все же думаю, что было бы полезно указать в первом предложении для читателей, которые сразу переходят к статье.

• Конечно. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Здесь должна быть ссылка на Окинаву (так как она находилась к юго-востоку от Окинавы ), поскольку это первое упоминание в статье (и я не верю, что на нее вообще есть ссылки в статье, а только в лиде и информационном окне.

• Связанные острова Окинава казались лучшей связью. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• У меня вопрос по этой части, из-за которой бейсбольный матч на стадионе Пасео-де-Сусана был отложен из- за влажных условий на поле . Почему он особенно примечателен включением? Отсрочка бейсбольного матча кажется мне довольно тривиальной, особенно когда прямо не указывается, важна ли это игра.

• Да, я вставил это до того, как нашел точное количество осадков в этом районе, не думаю, что сейчас это предложение необходимо. Удаленный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Это уточняющий вопрос о двух пропавших без вести членах экипажа Рюхо Мару . Были ли они заочно объявлены умершими ?

• Я не смог найти никаких новостей о том, что случилось с этими двумя после того, как они пропали без вести. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Я бы рассматривал следующую ссылку ( территорию ) как пасхальное яйцо, поскольку не думаю, что ссылка понятна даже с учетом контекста.

• Я переместил ссылку на несколько слов назад, мне вместо этого связать ее с чем-то другим? Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• У меня есть два замечания по поводу этого предложения: Habu , наряду с другими видами мусора, промытых в лагерь. Мне было незнакомо слово хабу, и я думаю, что эта часть, наряду с другими типами обломков, дает неверное представление о том, что это такое. Может быть, это только у меня, но я не ассоциирую тип змей с мусором. Кроме того, почему в лагере особенно выделяется одна змея?

• Убрали змею, но я думаю, что наводнение и обломки все же стоит упомянуть. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Эта часть, восстановленная на островах поздно вечером 13 ноября , кажется грамматически неверной, особенно поздняя часть.

• Убрано «после». Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Я не совсем понимаю смысл раздела «См. Также». Почему эти три конкретных циклона достаточно актуальны, чтобы их перечислить здесь?

• Задолго до того, как появился навигационный блок внизу, я планировал связать другие похожие штормы этого сезона. Не думаю, что сейчас это необходимо. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

Это должны быть все мои комментарии. Мой обзор полностью сосредоточен на прозе, так как все остальное я оставлю редакторам, которые более опытны в этой области. После того, как все было решено. Я буду более чем счастлив поддержать эту статью для продвижения. Надеюсь, у вас будут отличные выходные! Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 03:39, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

@ Aoba47 : На каждую проблему был дан ответ. Спасибо за обзор, и я надеюсь, что у вас тоже отличных выходных! Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 05:33, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Мне все хорошо. Я поддержать статью для продвижения. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 15:27, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

Противостоять от Willbb234 [ править ]

• в дополнение к тем, которые вызваны повреждением, является единичным, поэтому «те» следует заменить на «то».

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• хотя посевы на территории были повреждены, это кажется неопределенным. не могли бы вы предоставить что-нибудь для количественной оценки ущерба, например, затраты или поврежденную площадь?

• Источники не называют точных цифр, и говорится только о том, что посевы были повреждены на территории. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• сообщается, что для американских военных объектов " заменяется" на "включено", "на" или "на".

• Поменял на "у". Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• и авиабаза Кадена перечислила общий ущерб в размере 219 586,50 долларов (1959 долларов США). Я предлагаю изменить это на такую, как авиабаза Кадена, где общий ущерб составил 219 586,50 долларов (1959 долларов США) .

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Незначительные удары ... что вы имеете в виду? Мы говорим о разрушениях или просто о том, что тайфун прошел здесь? «Воздействие» кажется довольно расплывчатым.

• Описал еще немного. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Я не уверен, почему вы поместили цифру повреждений в информационное окно. Эта статистика основана только на повреждениях на авиабазе, и я бы назвал здесь цифру только в том случае, если была хорошая оценка общего ущерба. Общий ущерб от того, что я узнал, вероятно, был намного больше, поэтому утверждение, что он просто превышает 219 587 долларов, может ввести в заблуждение.

• Удалил тотал. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• 18:00 UTC 6 ноября к западу от Гуама. Я не уверен, зачем вам указывать его местоположение, как вы заявили в предыдущем предложении, когда он двигался на запад-северо-запад мимо Гуама. Вы также должны изменить «из» на «включено» для всех дат и времени в этой статье, см. Такие статьи, как « Тайфун Хайян», и конкретная политика в MOS: TIMEZONE для правильного форматирования.

• Удалено местоположение и исправлена ​​проблема с MOS. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• увеличенная сила к увеличенной в силе .

• Сделанный. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Извините, но мне придется сократить этот обзор, так как я считаю, что он далек от того, чтобы соответствовать пункту 1a критериев избранных статей (точнее говоря, проза не соответствует «профессиональному стандарту»). Я не собираюсь перечислять все проблемы в этой статье, так как я думаю, что было бы лучше получить копию от WP: GOCE или иным образом переписать статью. А пока я буду возражать . Пожалуйста, дай мне знать, если возникнут какие-либо вопросы. С уважением, Willbb234 ^Talk (пожалуйста, {{ ping }} меня в ответах) 11:56, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

@ Willbb234 : Исправлены все упомянутые проблемы. Дайте мне знать, если вы хотите закончить обзор, вы уже просмотрели его значительную часть. Нова Кристаллис (Обсуждение) 16:48, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от Heartfox [ править ]

• «замкнутая поверхностная циркуляция» → полезны ссылки / объяснения
• На Гуаме отсутствует звено в «истории метеорологии». Heartfox ( разговор ) 17:28, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Убийство Талат-паши [ править ]

Номинатор (и): ( t · c ) buidhe 19:20, 30 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Расстреляв главного виновника Геноцида армян, Согомон Тейлирян сказал: «Я убил человека, но я не убийца». Его защита была настолько успешной, что, как отметила одна газета, «на самом деле это была окровавленная тень Талат-паши, сидевшего на скамье подсудимого; и истинным обвинением были ужасные армянские ужасы, а не казнь одного из немногие жертвы остались живы ". Жюри согласилось с Тейлиряном. Но может ли внесудебное убийство когда-либо «поддержать нравственный порядок человечества»? Так думал Рафаэль Лемкин ; Позже он сказал, что именно это убийство и последовавшее за ним зрелищное судебное разбирательство пробудили его интерес к военным преступлениям, что в конечном итоге привело к его изобретению концепции геноцида.( t · c )buidhe 19:20, 30 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Файл: Talat_Pasha_cropped.jpg: для целей тега ЕС, в какой день он стал общедоступным?
  • Похоже, что это анонимно, или, по крайней мере, Библиотека Конгресса не знает, кто автор. Он был опубликован Neue Photographische Gesellschaft, поэтому я использовал тег PD, не раскрывающий автора.
    • Хорошо, но этот тег требует, чтобы он был опубликован более 70 лет назад. Знаем ли мы, что это так? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 18:54, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)
      • Neue Photographische Gesellschaft закрылась в 1948 году [1], так что, если она была опубликована ими, то, должно быть, более 70 лет назад. ( t · c ) buidhe 18:57, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Файл: Armenian_deportations_in_Erzurum_by_Victor_Pietschmann_03.jpg: какое обоснование из австрийского тега считается применимым и каков статус этой работы в США?
  • Я считаю, что это простая фотография, поскольку она «не предполагает художественных интерпретаций». Если это так, то оно либо не было опубликовано, либо опубликовано в книге Пичманна 1940 года, так что к 1996 году срок действия авторских прав истек.
• Файл: Talat_Pasha_cable_of_29_August_1915.png: дает ли источник дополнительную информацию о происхождении этой работы?
  • Нет, хотя я почти уверен, что он был найден в архиве.
• Файл: William_Tell_LCCN2003689314_ (обрезано) .jpg: когда и где это было впервые опубликовано, и какова дата смерти автора?
  • Источник точно не говорит, просто это бесплатное использование. В данном случае автором был С. Зикель, который, по-видимому, к 1870 году основал собственное издательство [2].
• Файл: Ein_Zeugnis_für_Talaat_Pasha.png: какова дата смерти автора? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 17:43, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)
  • 1950. Добавлено к описанию изображения. ( t · c ) buidhe 18:25, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

HF [ править ]

Посмотрю на это, как только прочту рецензию, которая уже находится в моем списке рецензентов. Может претендовать на 5 очков в WikiCup. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 02:30, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Извините, это заняло так много времени, я кое-что придумал.

• Было бы полезно добавить пару предложений о предыстории между османами и армянами, возможно, взяв за основу очень укороченное резюме Геноцида армян # Предыстория ?
  • Я мог бы, но я стараюсь кратко изложить предысторию и не уверен в какой-либо конкретной информации, которая могла бы улучшить понимание читателем темы этой статьи.
• «прямо отдавал приказы генералам во время турецкой войны за независимость от Берлина» - Будет ли турецкая война за независимость существительным собственным, которое следует писать с заглавной буквы?
  • Это не всегда ограничено в источниках, поэтому я считаю, что MOS: CAPS применимо.
• Арутян Мгрдитичян идентифицируется как лидирующий армянин, но не явно в теле.
  • удаленный. Я не верю, что источники ясны по этому поводу, потому что это явно армянское имя.
• «Ихриг и другие историки утверждали, что стратегия прозектора была глубоко ошибочной». Это опечатка со стороны прокурора или термин «прозектор» в немецком законодательстве?
  • Опечатка
• Прокурор всегда зовется просто «Голлник», это фамилия без предисловия или мононим?
  • Его имя не разглашается ни в протоколе судебного заседания, ни в каких-либо источниках.

Здесь я должен сделать паузу, чтобы подготовиться к показаниям Телиряна . _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 15:44, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «В прошлом памятные церемонии в честь Талата проводились у Монумента Свободы, но эта практика была прекращена с 2013 года» - есть ли что-нибудь более свежее, чтобы получить обновленную информацию по этому поводу?
  • Ничего не нашел.
• «Турецкий писатель Орхан Сейфи [tr] осудил оправдание Тейлиряна, но утверждал, что Германия восполнила это, перевезя его тело в Турцию в 1943 году» - «его» в этом построении будет читаться как относящееся к телу Тейлиряна.
  • Изменен
• Я не знаком с используемыми армянскими и турецкими источниками, поэтому мне неудобно оценивать их по спорной теме.

Это мое первое прочтение. _{Разговор на} свиной ферме 17:25, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Спасибо за отзыв! ( t · c ) buidhe 21:51, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Рейвас92

• Почему здесь используется «Талат-паша», а в биографической статье - « Талаат-паша »? Не могу сказать, почему они противоречат друг другу. И в нескольких цитатах есть «Талат», но это имя можно было перевести / транслитерировать, как и остальную часть предложения. Вероятно, все они должны иметь одинаковое написание, возможно, с альтернативными сносками.
  • Написание «талаат» исторически более распространено, но написание с одним «а» стало более распространенным в последнее время [3] . Я думаю, что все они достаточно похожи, так что достаточно очевидно, что все они относятся к одному и тому же человеку. Что касается кавычек, Talat, Talât и Talaat - все допустимые способы написания имени на английском языке, и я считаю, что изменение написания противоречило бы принципу минимального изменения в MOS. Я считаю, что все цитаты с именем Талата взяты из англоязычных источников.
    • Хм, мне начать RM для Талаат Паши ? Тем не менее думаю, что тесно связанные статьи должны быть последовательными. ^{Обсуждение} Reywas92 00:34, 6 мая 2021 (UTC)
• С современной американской точки зрения кажется странным, что присяжные выносили решение только о «умышленном убийстве», и не было никакого обвинения или способа осудить за убийство второй степени или непредумышленное убийство. Есть какие-нибудь комментарии по этому поводу?
  • В действовавшем в то время законе было положение о непреднамеренном убийстве (§ 212 в отличие от § 211), но возможность предъявления обвинения Тейлиряну в соответствии с этим положением в ходе судебного разбирательства не упоминалась. Источники это тоже не обсуждают.

Спасибо, что написали это, это была увлекательная история для чтения. ^{Обсуждение} Reywas92 04:43, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Reywas92 Пожалуйста , и спасибо за комментарии. ( t · c ) buidhe 06:52, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Шаттл-Кентавр [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Hawkeye7 (обсудить) 20:59, 29 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о предлагаемой верхней ступени для Space Shuttle , используя Кентавр верхней ступени ракеты. Вся программа Space Shuttle с самого начала вызвала споры, и на этот проект был потрачен миллиард долларов, а результаты были скудными. В статье рассматриваются несколько вопросов и даются наглядные уроки. Было сказано, что Шаттл-Кентавр стал жертвой возросшего сознания НАСА после катастрофы космического корабля "Челленджер", но, как показывает статья, это было не совсем так. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 20:59, 29 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Пропуск на просмотр изображений согласно ACR ( t · c ) buidhe 21:12, 29 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Текстовый обзор Я обещал прочесть эту статью, и я сделаю это, но дела все еще очень загружены. У меня есть несколько вопросов, о которых я хочу поговорить, когда все сделаю. Извините за задержку. Поместите это здесь в качестве заполнителя, чтобы моды не закрывали FAC из-за отсутствия интереса - это достойная статья. - Неопей ( разговор ) 14:57, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии поддержки от Nick-D В качестве раскрытия я просматриваю ответ на запрос от Hawkeye на моей странице обсуждения. Я не думаю, что когда-либо давал им легкую езду по номинациям, и в этот раз тоже не буду;)

На прохождение этой статьи потребовалось шесть месяцев, поэтому я спросил, опасаясь, что она будет заархивирована из-за отсутствия рецензентов, как моя последняя статья в FAC. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Первое предложение предложения следует переписать, чтобы оно было менее техническим. Например, была ли это автономная ракетная система или что-то, для чего требовался космический шаттл? (и если да, то как?) Я космический ботаник, и я не очень понимаю это предложение, и в результате тема статьи не совсем понятна на основе зацепки. Я не совсем понимал концепцию здесь, пока не увидел изображение в разделе «дизайн» (в результате, это может быть лучшим выбором для информационного окна).

  Ждать. Подожди. Ты космический ботаник? Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

  Вы не удивлены? Пересечение военных ботаников и космических ботаников составляет около 100%. Меня особенно интересуют космические программы времен холодной войны. Смена свинца выглядит неплохо. Nick-D ( разговор ) 10:28, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• «Кентавр был разработан в конце 1950-х - начале 1960-х ...» - скажите, кто разработал его, по крайней мере в широком смысле (например, был ли он разработан / для НАСА и / или ВВС США?)

  Об этом говорится в следующем абзаце. Переехал в эту. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Первые два предложения в параграфе, начинающиеся со слов «Были использованы верхние ступени Centaur ...», немного сложны и длинны.

  Сократите это. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• То же самое предложение, начинающееся с «Администратор НАСА Роберт А. Фрош» (возможно, разделенное на два предложения)

  Расколоть. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• "кто утверждал, что загрязнение наблюдалось во время раннего космического шаттла ..." - не ясно, что это означает

  В новой редакции. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Спейс шаттл Challenger и Space Shuttle Atlantis были модифицированы для установки СНПЧ» - были ли эти модификации значительными и были ли они удалены после отмены программы?

  Добавлено: «Эти изменения включали дополнительную сантехнику для загрузки и выпуска криогенного топлива Centaur, а также средства управления на кормовой кабине пилота для загрузки и наблюдения за разгонным блоком Centaur». «Челленджер» был уничтожен до того, как можно было запустить кентавр; нет записи об изменениях, удаляемых на Discovery . Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

  Хорошо, достаточно честно. Похоже, что к концу программы у каждого космического шаттла было много уникальных причуд. Nick-D ( разговор ) 10:28, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• «Шаттл-Кентавр был сертифицирован как готовый к полету помощником администратора НАСА Джесси Муром» - знаем ли мы, когда?

  Добавлено «в ноябре 1985 года». Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Это был чрезвычайно опасный маневр при любых обстоятельствах, но он никогда не случился бы в жизни программы Space Shuttle» - немного неясно (нужна ли вторая половина этого предложения?)

  Да. Дело в том, что это был опасный случай, но маловероятный. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• « в котором он сделал случай Мура Спейс Шаттл» - это должно быть « в котором он сделал случай , чтобы Мур»? Nick-D ( разговор ) 06:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

  Да. Исправлено. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 10:03, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

  Все эти изменения выглядят хорошо, и я рад поддержать эту номинацию. Nick-D ( разговор ) 10:28, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Финал плей-офф Первого дивизиона Футбольной лиги 1997 года [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Бродячий человек ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:10, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о самом ценном футбольном матче ассоциации в мире. Он готовится к второй поездке в FAC, в первый раз он получил девять поддержки, но возникли некоторые субъективные проблемы с понятностью некоторых из них. Подобное возражение, похоже, в последнее время сошло на нет, и здравый смысл в какой-то мере возобладал в отношении хорошего баланса между тем, чтобы все объяснять, и использованием ссылок для помощи в таких вопросах. Как всегда, я более чем счастлив ответить на любую конструктивную критику, которая улучшит статью The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:10, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Безоговорочная поддержка Давно качество FA. - Житель ( разговор ) Старомодный - это новое! 11:47, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка Я поддерживал это в предыдущей номинации, и это никак не изменилось, так что моя поддержка остается в силе. Косак ( разговор ) 09:08, 28 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Изображения имеют соответствующую лицензию. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 17:44, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Подтверждаю свою поддержку в последнем FAC, хотя и не футболист. Некоторые придирки, которые вряд ли решают проблему.

• Термины ветвь и агрегат связаны синим цветом, но не могли бы вы быть более наглядными в первую очередь. например, меня это сбивало с толку, пока Энди Уокер не сделал это 2–2. С уровнем баллов 3–3 по сумме очков при полной занятости .

• Немного переделал. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• У лидера очень большая статистика и тяжелый процесс; можем ли мы минимизировать это насколько возможно и дать больше самому ходу игры

• Для игры 1: 0 здесь может быть не так много приливов и отливов. Если у вас есть какие-то конкретные предложения, я буду рад их рассмотреть. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• фирменный заголовок - фирма?

• Ну да, типа «Я категорически против» и т. Д. Но если это сбивает с толку, я удалил это. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Соперником «Шеффилд Юнайтед» в полуфинале был «Ипсвич Таун». - играл против Ипсвич Таун в ...

• Изменено. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• вышел вперед на 40-й минуте через Яна Оге - « Ян Аге хозяев поля забил в« ... »пошел вперед» - это немного резковато, и «пробитие» могло быть «когда забил Ян Оге»

• Перефразировал. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Изображение в информационном окне маленькое и маленькое.

• Изображение имеет размер информационного окна по умолчанию, который предпочтительнее, чем любой другой размер. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Ceoil ( разговор ) 23:16, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Что насчет файла: старый стадион Уэмбли (обрезано) .jpg Ceoil ( обсуждение ) 23:58, 1 мая 2021 года (UTC)

• Конечно, переключился. Мне не очень нравится цвет / тон этого изображения, но, возможно, он более четкий. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 00:08, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Последняя вещь. Если рефери CRY V SHU Play Off Final 1997, 01:12:52 будут объединены в один; например, мы не заверяем онлайн-журналы в строке 5, строке 15, строке 20. Ceoil ( talk ) 00:18, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Это эквивалентно номерам страниц в большой справке. Этот текущий формат гораздо более полезен для проверки написанного. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:43, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Победа «Пэлас» стала первым разом, когда лондонский клуб выиграл плей-офф [64], и букмекеры сразу же объявили их фаворитами на вылет в следующем сезоне. Они выиграли, но стали фаворитами для повторного перехода?

• Да, недавно получившие повышение команды чаще всего являются фаворитами для понижения, поскольку они обычно входят в число самых слабых команд в том дивизионе, в который они только что были переведены. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:43, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Хорошо, но это противоречит интуиции и может быть прояснено в тексте. Ceoil ( разговор ) 08:14, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Было бы интересно подробно рассказать о желтой карточке Фьёртофта за «ссору» с Таттлом.

• Чаще всего это происходит за кадром, так что добавление новых было бы лишь предположением. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 07:43, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• За что его отослали - препирательство кажется очень расплывчатым, я оставляю думать о чем угодно, от удара ногой по голове до защемления ягодиц ... выбил ногой из-под ног / получил фол по-другому? Я уверен, что комментаторы не особо изящно сказали об этом. Ceoil ( разговор ) 08:10, 2 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Его не удалили, он получил желтую карточку. Это произошло за кадром, и матч продолжился. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:26, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• ... пас в штрафную прошел через лица, подхваченные Дайером, который под вызовом Карла Тайлера прошел через лицо ворот Шеффилд Юнайтед и вышел для вбрасывания. Можете ли вы перефразировать «под вызовом» и «встретил лицо» Ceoil ( разговор ) 08:07, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Перефразировано. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:48, 2 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Ceoil приветствует поддержку и дополнительные комментарии. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 23:39, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

к сведению, все мои пункты адресованы. Ceoil ( разговор ) 09:37, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии

• «Чтобы получить повышение из Первого дивизиона Футбольной лиги второго уровня в Премьер-лигу Англии» - здесь легкое голубое море делает вид, что соревнование называется «Премьер-лига Англии». Даже если эта проблема будет решена, название будет неправильным - хотя его спонсируемое название было Премьер-лига, его фактическое название в то время было Премьер-лига ФА, и я считаю, что это то, что следует использовать.
• «в то время как клубы, занявшие с третьего по шестое место в турнирной таблице, участвовали в полуфинале плей-офф» - отсутствует «в»
• «Победители полуфинала сыграли друг против друга за итоговое место в Премьер-лиге» - опять неправильное имя
• «финишировал в нижней части премьер-лиги 1997–1998 годов» - и снова
• «Оба пропустили два автоматических места для перехода в Премьер-лигу» - и снова
• «Ответный матч полуфинала был сыгран четырьмя днями позже на стадионе« Молине »» - я никогда не слышал, чтобы он назывался «Молинью».
• «Ответный матч состоялся на Портман-роуд в Ипсвиче четыре дня спустя» - вы не сказали, когда был сыгран первый матч, поэтому «четыре дня спустя» не имеет смысла.
• "после вылета из премьер-лиги в сезоне 1993–94" - угадайте :-)
• «Говард Кендалл, менеджер« Шеффилд Юнайтед », в двенадцатый раз появлялся на стадионе« Уэмбли »- это всего лишь его выступления в качестве менеджера? Я почти уверен, что он там тоже играл ...

  Источник сообщает, что это был его двенадцатый раз, когда он вышел на Уэмбли. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:45, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Очевидно, Шеффилд Юнайтед - хорошая команда, вы должны быть так близко к Премьер-лиге» - я позволю вам отказаться от этого, поскольку это прямая цитата :-)

  Отсюда потенциальная путаница в предыдущих редакциях, но эй-хо. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:45, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Одиннадцать минут спустя Кевин Маскат выиграл мяч, который затем упал на Дайера» - я думаю, запятая нужна после мяча.

  Я так не думаю. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:45, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «его крест был слишком близко к Трейси, которая его собрала» - я думаю, после Трейси нужна запятая.

  Я так не думаю. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:45, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «На 31-й минуте Энди Линиган был схвачен Тейлором по лицу» - возможно, стоит уточнить - был ли он пойман ботинком? Его локоть? Что-то другое?
• «Шеффилд Юнайтед начал вторую половину» => «Шеффилд Юнайтед начал вторую половину», я думаю, было бы предпочтительнее
• В первом параграфе второй половины есть шесть последовательных предложений, которые начинаются с некоторого второстепенного варианта «На N минут» - есть ли способ немного изменить это?
• «с правой стороны штрафной площади Шеффилда, на которую щелкнул Гордон» - штрафная площадь не была обстреляна
• «утверждал, что его гол был« самым особенным голом, который [он] когда-либо забивал »- если он имел в виду гол, который забил сам, то наверняка глагол не был« имеет »?
• Вот что у меня получилось - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 08:06, 3 мая 2021 года (UTC)

ChrisTheDude обратился не к тому месту, где я прокомментировал. Ваше здоровье. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 08:45, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Дальнейшие комментарии

• Теперь Лид говорит: «Чтобы получить повышение из Первого дивизиона Футбольной лиги второго уровня в Английскую Премьер-лигу», при этом последовательные синие ссылки делают его похожим на «Английская Премьер-лига», но это не так. Кроме того, если необходимо указать, что лиги являются английскими, зачем противопоставлять это второму, а не первому? Я бы лично предложил «третью и последнюю команду для продвижения из Первого дивизиона Футбольной лиги, второго уровня системы английской футбольной лиги, в Премьер-лигу».
  • Вот и все :-) - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 18:56, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)
    • Я исправил это, Крис , посмотри, что ты об этом думаешь. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:00, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
      • Хороший, теперь рад поддержать - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 19:02, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
        • Ура, Крис, кстати, кандидат на Хорошую тему теперь готов и работает, поскольку основная статья была опубликована сегодня вечером в GA! The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 19:06, 3 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

@ WP: Координаторы FAC : поскольку в этой номинации четыре поддержки, могу я выдвинуть еще одну, пожалуйста? The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 09:28, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Привет, TRM, похоже, все идет хорошо, но я хотел бы увидеть, как прошел обзор источника, прежде чем разрешить вторую номинацию. Мы также хотели бы, чтобы номинация была открыта в течение приличного периода, чтобы дать возможность всем рецензентам заметить ее и, возможно, прокомментировать ее. Три недели - это практическое правило, но в этом есть некоторая гибкость. (Например, см. [4] и [5] .) Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 10:10, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источников и просмотр изображений проводились в предыдущей номинации и ничего особо не изменилось. Очевидно, нет необходимости возвращаться к этому или ждать какой-то произвольный период времени, когда он теперь получает больше поддержки, чем обычно требуется для продвижения по службе. Ваше здоровье. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 10:49, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

О, еще один обзор источников по дополнительным рефам прошел. Ваше здоровье. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 12:30, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

@ WP: Координаторы FAC : прошло шесть поддерживающих и обновленный обзор источников. Не могли бы вы сообщить мне, если не сейчас, то когда я смогу выдвинуть еще один КВС? The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 06:24, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка - у меня не было проблем с этой статьей в первый раз. Счастлив дать свое благословение во второй раз. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 11:00, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Обзор источника, сделанный Амакуру - пройден . Обратите внимание, что я выполнил обзор источников 6 января 2021 года, и я прошел его на этом этапе, поэтому просто просматриваю четыре ссылки, которые изменились с тех пор:
  • Ссылка 3: Технически это, похоже, не подтверждает факт - поскольку примечание конкретно касается имени Премьер-лига, судье следует где-то использовать этот термин. Может быть, добавить также [6] для современного источника, который явно использует в своей прозе слова «Премьер-лига» и «Премьер-лига Ф.А. Карлинг»?
  • Ссылки 68–70: Все выезжают. Ура,  Амакуру ( разговор ) 12:22, 4 мая 2021 (UTC)
    • Амакуру спасибо, я добавил, что предложил исх. Спасибо за повторную проверку. Дай мне знать, если есть еще что-нибудь. The Rambling Man ( Будьте начеку! Контролируйте вирус! Спасайте жизни !!!! ) 12:28, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
      • Прохождение проверки источников - я проверил все другие изменения, внесенные с января, и все несколько новых фрагментов прозы проверены их источниками. Это хорошо. -  Амакуру ( разговор ) 12:39, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)
• Поддержка - в дополнение к моему обзору источника здесь я рад еще раз подтвердить свою общую поддержку, которую я оказал в прошлый раз. Ни изменения с тех пор, ни возражения, которые были высказаны после моего! Голосования, принципиально не меняют моего мнения о том, что это прекрасно написанное и подробное изложение темы. -  Амакуру ( разговор ) 12:39, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Арсенал Женщины 11–1 Бристоль Сити Женщины [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Эдвинлондон ( выступление ) 12:00, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Я возвращаю сюда эту статью о женском футбольном матче после того, как несколько рецензентов так любезно провели экспертную оценку. Я считаю , что в соответствии с футбольными статьями , которые недавно получили продвигаемые ФА ( 1987 Финал Кубка Англии , 2019 финала Кубка Англии ), по крайней мере , с точкой зрения уровня понимания к неспециалисту. Edwininlondon ( разговор ) 12:00, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Кажется, что изображения имеют свободную лицензию и имеют соответствующие подписи. ( t · c ) buidhe 18:03, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо за проверку. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 16:17, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Поддержка - я тщательно рассмотрел статью, когда она была на WP: PR, и я рад поддержать - ChrisTheDude ( разговор ) 18:46, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо за комментарии и поддержку. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 16:17, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка - поддерживал в предыдущей номинации. Я уже оставлял комментарии, которые были там адресованы. Sportsfan77777 ( разговор ) 21:27, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Еще несколько хитростей:

Вскоре последовали два угловых удара хозяев поля, но они не увенчались успехом === >>> Вскоре последовали два угловых удара хозяев поля, но ни один из них не привел к голу. (Сами удары не были неудачными.)

«Арсенал» сделал тридцать четыре броска <<< === Я думаю, просто «Арсенал сделал тридцать четыре броска» или «Арсенал сделал тридцать четыре броска»?

Южнокорейский <<< === не должно быть тире

позволяя «Манчестер Сити» выйти в лидеры === >>> позволяя «Манчестер Сити» занять лидирующую позицию. («ведущий» больше похож на ведущую роль в игре)

Они добились еще одной победы === >>> Они добились второй победы

Вот и все. Sportsfan77777 ( разговор ) 21:27, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо, Sportsfan77777, за то, что нашли время еще раз прочитать статью. Очень признателен. Я внес предложенные вами улучшения. Спасибо. Edwininlondon ( разговор ) 16:13, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка . Хмларсон ( разговор ) 01:08, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо Hmlarson за вашу поддержку. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 16:17, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии службы поддержки от Z1720 [ править ]

Я прокомментировал экспертную оценку. Ниже приведены некоторые дополнительные комментарии, основанные на обзоре прозы. Обратите внимание: я не эксперт.

• «Менеджер Джо Монтемурро использовал свои новые контракты и привлек Джордана Ноббса». Я не знаю, что пытается сказать мне первая часть предложения.

Я удалил бит «использовал его новые подписания и», поскольку он действительно не требует упоминания о том, что эти новые подписания действительно использовались.

• "До восьмого раунда" Восьмой раунд чего?

Я изменил его так, чтобы в первом предложении этого абзаца говорилось, что 1 раунд сезона прошел в сентябре. Это должно прояснить смысл восьмого раунда.

• «Превосходя поражение« Ливерпуля »со счетом 9: 0 над« Возможно изменение на », превосходящее победу Ливерпуля со счетом 9: 0 над« Я думаю, что «поражение» немного сбивает с толку.

Сделанный

• «После 23 февраля матчи сезона 2019–20 не проводились из-за пандемии COVID-19». "больше нет" звучит здесь странно. А как насчет «Матчи на сезон 2019-20 прекращены после 23 февраля из-за пандемии COVID-19». Кроме того, вы используете те же две цитаты для следующего предложения, поэтому я думаю, вы можете удалить цитаты в конце этого.

Сделанный

• «Поскольку« Арсенал »не финишировал в двух лучших», смените на «Поскольку« Арсенал »не стал»

Сделанный

Это все мои комментарии. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 01:49, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо Z1720 за то, что нашли время еще раз взглянуть на статью. Очень признателен. Надеюсь, я рассмотрел все ваши вопросы. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 16:59, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Мои опасения учтены. Я поддержка на основе прозы. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 23:56, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• Прямые цитаты следует приводить в начале, даже если они повторяются позже.

Сделанный

• «Результат вывел« Арсенал »на первое место по разнице мячей» - не указывайте это конкретное утверждение в тексте.

Он суммирует первые 3 предложения раздела «Последствия».

Положение за столом основано исключительно на разнице мячей? Никкимария ( разговор ) 02:03, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Ах, извините, теперь я понимаю, что вы имеете в виду. Нет, сначала рассчитывается по очкам, а затем по разнице мячей. Я убрал подробности о разнице мячей с отрывка и просто остановился на главном: результат поставил «Арсенал» на первое место в лиге.

• FN22: почему здесь BBC Sport выделено курсивом, а не в других справочниках?

Хороший улов. Теперь все согласовано.

• Будьте последовательны, когда указываете дату получения

Нет даты извлечения, когда есть дата архивации. Я пропустил несколько и только что убрал это, чтобы быть последовательным.

Это все еще непоследовательно - например, в FN16 есть и то, и другое. Никкимария ( разговор ) 02:03, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Извините, я думаю, что теперь у меня есть все. Я также добавил кучу архивных ссылок.

• FN24 отсутствует автор

Сделанный

• FN45: название работы должно быть выделено курсивом. То же самое, FN48, проверьте другие

Сделанный. Все газеты выделены курсивом.

Это относится ко всем названиям работ, а не только к газетам - например, Kicker . Никкимария ( разговор ) 02:03, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Сделанный. Спасибо!

• FN49: живая ссылка на самом деле работает, но архивная ссылка - это 404. Никкимария ( разговор ) 02:46, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Фиксированный. Хороший улов. Большое спасибо за проверку, Никкимария. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 17:28, 4 мая 2021 (UTC)

Думаю, теперь я их все исправил. Спасибо. Edwininlondon ( разговорное ) 16:30, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Уилла Кэтэр [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Урве ( обсуждение ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о Уилле Кэтэр, писательнице, которая в течение нескольких лет в двадцатом веке жила со своим домашним партнером Эдит Льюис. Ее больше всего помнят за ее романы о равнинах, сделавшие Небраску видимой для всего мира, хотя она также писала исторические романы во Франции и на юго-западе Америки. Она получила Пулитцеровскую премию в области литературы за свой роман о Первой мировой войне « Один из наших» . Urve ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения - пройти

• Файл: Willa Cather ca. 1912 год, ношение ожерелья от Сары Орн Jewett.jpg Если оно было создано примерно в 1912 году, когда оно было опубликовано? Ссылка на источник мертва
• Файл: Willa Cather в Париже, 1920.jpg Тот же выпуск, но нет ссылки на источник.
• Файл: Эдит Льюис .jpg Фотографии на паспорт не являются общественным достоянием [7] и не считаются опубликованными при выпуске, поскольку не распространяются публично.
• Файл: Изабель МакКланг, неизвестный мужчина, и Уилла Кэтэр на борту SS Westernland, 1902.jpg Когда это было впервые опубликовано? Как мы узнаем, что это PD?
• Для американского авторского права дата публикации более важна, чем дата создания, чтобы знать, когда что-то выходит из-под авторского права. ( t · c ) buidhe 23:11, 24 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Удаленный. Я неправильно понял разницу между публикацией и созданием. (Публикация мыслей была термином искусства, которое также относилось к творчеству.) Я напишу в архив Cather и попрошу разъяснений. Urve ( разговор ) 23:26, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Пройдено на основе того, что написано в статье. Пожалуйста, пингуйте, если вы добавляете какие-либо изображения и / или уточняете статус авторских прав на них. ( t · c ) buidhe 18:02, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• В Infobox сказано, что она родилась в Горе, в тексте говорится, что рядом с Гором - что правильно?
• FN1 неправильно отформатирован
• FN6: The Mower's Tree - это название работы, но конкретная цитируемая статья имеет собственное название и дату, отсутствующую в цитировании.
• Будьте последовательны, когда указываете дату получения
• FN17 отсутствует дата
• Willa Cather Archive - это веб-сайт, а не часть заголовков, и будьте последовательны в том, включаете ли вы издателя в эти
• Будьте последовательны в том, используете ли вы заголовок или регистр предложений для названий работ
• Будьте последовательны при включении местоположения публикации
• FN23: данное произведение является издателем. Проверьте наличие других проблем этого типа.
• FN21 отсутствует издатель. То же FN102, проверьте другие
• Fn35: вы цитируете собственно письмо или введение? Цитата неясна
• Fn36: Home Monthly следует выделить курсивом. То же самое, начальник Красного Облака в FN29, проверьте наличие других
• FN37 имеет название во множественном числе, и я не вижу там упоминания автора?
• Не смешивайте шаблонные и ненадежные цитаты

Остановка сейчас и против - требуется много очистки форматирования, пожалуйста, проверьте все. Рад вернуться к нам, когда это будет сделано. Никкимария ( разговор ) 18:13, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

Большое спасибо, я ценю это. Цитирование - это то, в чем я слабее всего; обычно используют готовый гаджет, но, как мы видим, это оставляет желать лучшего. Это займет некоторое время, поэтому я начну работать, когда смогу. (Я хотел в конечном итоге перейти на сокращенную систему сносок из-за простоты, и я думаю, что сейчас хорошее время для этого.) Урве ( выступление ) 06:58, 2 мая 2021 года (UTC)

Комментарии от Aoba47 [ править ]

Я оставляю это как заполнитель. Я оставлю отзыв, как только будут рассмотрены комментарии Никкимарии. Раньше я не работал над подобными статьями, но у меня остались очень теплые воспоминания об Уилле Кэзер, когда я изучал « Смерть приходит для архиепископа» на одном из курсов английского языка для выпускников и написал статью об одном из ее персонажей (Магдалена ). Я надеюсь, что смогу помочь с этой статьей, так как мне интересно ее читать и узнавать больше о Кэтэр. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 18:49, 3 мая 2021 (UTC)

Линкор типа Deutschland [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Parsecboy ( разговор ) 15:43, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

В этой статье рассматривается последний класс немецких линкоров до дредноутов, построенных в начале 1900-х годов. Интересно, что большинство из них было завершено после того, как революционный HMS  Dreadnought устарел, но три из них пережили Dreadnought более чем на пару десятилетий. Первоначально я написал эту статью чуть более десяти лет назад, и тогда она прошла проверку MILHIST A-class. С тех пор я полностью переписал его, добавив новые источники, и в прошлом месяце он прошел экспертную оценку, которая помогла все уладить. Спасибо всем, кто нашел время прочитать статью. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 15:43, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Предложить добавить альтернативный текст
  • Добавили замещающий текст
• Файл: Niemiecki_pancernik_szkolny_ "Schlesien" _podczas_ostrzału_Helu_ (2-64) .jpg: какова дата смерти автора? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 21:50, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • В источнике указан автор как «Зелл»; Я не могу понять, фамилия это или компания. Интересно, знает ли @ Piotrus : кто или что это может быть. Если нет, мне придется заменить его ( этим образом Bundesarchiv , что не должно быть проблемой). Как всегда, спасибо, Никки. Parsecboy ( разговор ) 20:51, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Ничего не могу поделать с Zell, очень общим, но в следующей строке упоминается немецкая газета времен Второй мировой войны, издаваемая в Польше ( [8] ). Это означает, что Template: PD-Polandможет быть применимо - конечно, Польша была оккупирована в то время, но Польша, очевидно, не приняла этот факт (это интересный вопрос, когда речь идет об авторском праве). Кроме того, на основании некоторых обсуждений в Commons, которые я помню, поскольку файл был официально загружен сюда в соответствии с PD Польским национальным архивом, аналогичные обсуждения, когда дело доходит до Bundesarchive, обычно заканчивались заявлением, что «даже если некоторые факты не ясны / сомнительны, Bundesarchive сделал официальное заявление, что это ДП, так что это их ответственность, а не наша проблема ». Так что я думаю, что картина прекрасна, так как у нас есть как польская ДП, так и поддержка официального польского учреждения. - _{Петр Конечны, он же Проконсул Пиотрус | ответ здесь} 02:56, 27 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка комментариев в личном кабинете [ править ]

Я вернулся ... Скоро приступим к этому. Peacemaker67 ( нажмите, чтобы поговорить со мной ) 10:41, 4 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• одна вещь впереди, обезглавить Вторжение в финальном параграфе
  • Сделанный
• предлагают «отметить значительное увеличение огневой мощи»
  • Работает для меня
• вы можете поместить "oa" в информационное окно, чтобы указать, какая длина отображается
  • Сделанный
• «У Deutschland была большая передняя боевая рубка»?
  • Фиксированный
• «оснащен трехвальными паровыми двигателями тройного расширения, каждая из которых приводила в движение гребной винт» сбивает с толку. Был бы «каждый оборудован трехвальным паровым двигателем тройного расширения; каждый вал приводил в движение одновинтовой пропеллер». Работа?
  • Думаю, проблему можно решить, просто сняв бит "вал"?
• есть некоторые повторения относительно котлов
  • Заменил один из них
• вместо минимума вы можете указать диапазон скоростей в информационном поле
  • Работает для меня
• «нес п 147.5 кг»
  • Хороший улов
• Вы можете добавить броню барбета в информационное окно
  • Сделанный
• «четыре из ее 8,8-см орудий были заменены на четыре 8,8-сантиметровых зенитных орудия»
  • Фиксированный
• "как ее сестры"
  • Хороший улов
• «на четыре зенитных орудия 8,8» п.м. лишнее пространство
  • Фиксированный

Еще не все. Peacemaker67 ( щелкните, чтобы поговорить со мной ) 09:15, 5 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• Броненосный корабль "новый броненосец Deutschland"? Разве она не была тяжелым крейсером?
  • Да, хотя немцы изначально классифицировали их как "panzerschiffe" - но я полагаю, что для единообразия нам следует использовать классификацию, которую мы используем в их статье.
• fn 23 должно быть стр.
  • Фиксированный
• автор-ссылка Фридман
  • Сделанный
• У Koop & Schmolke нет уникальных деталей?
  • Я предполагаю, что это так, но он недоступен, поэтому я не смог с ним проконсультироваться.

Это все, что я смог найти, придирки. Хорошая работа. Peacemaker67 ( щелкните, чтобы поговорить со мной ) 08:14, 6 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо, личка, и добро пожаловать обратно! Parsecboy ( разговор ) 19:45, 6 мая 2021 (UTC)

Все хорошо и спасибо. Peacemaker67 ( щелкните, чтобы поговорить со мной ) 02:28, 7 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Раб Майнорс [ править ]

Номинант (ы): Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 22:33, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

(Двухнедельный период между номинациями был отменен координатором.) Эта статья о латинисте Роджере Майнорсе, написавшем стандартные издания латинских поэтов Вергилия и Катулла. Хотя он больше всего известен своими книгами, он проделал интересную работу с рукописями и каталогизировал несколько библиотечных собраний. Более того, он уникален тем, что был старшим заведующим кафедрой латыни в Оксфорде и Кембридже.

Недавнее назначение данной статьи было архивируются после того , как выяснилось , что освещение его публикаций необходимо расширить. Noswall59 и Llywrch щедро помогли мне исправить эти упущения во время экспертной оценки . Это были главные препятствия на последнем FAC, и я считаю, что статья сейчас в хорошей форме. Буду благодарен за любые предложения по улучшению.

В дополнение к вышеперечисленным, я уведомляю всех, кто прокомментировал последнюю номинацию: Герда Арендт , генерал Куон , Therapyisgood , SandyGeorgia , Caeciliusinhorto , Ergo Sum , Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 22:33, 22 апреля 2021 года (UTC)

Поддержка, которую я с радостью оказал в прошлом месяце, и я до сих пор считаю, что она соответствует стандартам FA, - генерал Куон (Обсуждение) 17:25, 23 апреля 2021 года (UTC).

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• «Последним достижением его карьеры стал исчерпывающий комментарий к Георгии Вергилия» - в тексте говорится, что это было сделано после выхода на пенсию, что правильно?

• Комментарий был написан в отставке и опубликован после его смерти. Так что я бы сказал, что тело правильное. Я скорректировал ведущую часть, чтобы лучше отразить это. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Майнор был посвящен в рыцари в 1963 году за заслуги перед классической наукой» - в тексте говорится, что он был посвящен в рыцари, но не почему - источник для этого?

• Я проверил источники. Все они без объяснения причин просто говорят: «он был посвящен в рыцари». Соответственно, я удалил бит непригодного для подключения к источнику питания. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Источник влияния на Тарранта?

• Источник: Gotoff (1991), стр. 311. Я забыл добавить Тарранта к телу, но добавил его сейчас. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Список публикаций включает номера ISBN для статей, опубликованных до внедрения этой системы - это для более поздних выпусков?

• Именно под этими ISBN книги сегодня продает Oxford University Press. В его издании Катулла (1958), которое я купил в прошлом году, год по-прежнему указан как 1958, и, похоже, не было никаких последующих изданий. Я предполагаю, что они добавили ISBN в свои старые публикации, как только они были представлены. Но я ни в коем случае не специалист в этом вопросе. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Хм. Я не слышал об этом - неужели это репринты? Никкимария ( разговор ) 00:59, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Они должны быть; копия текста Катулла, которым я владею, явно напечатана совсем недавно. Нужно ли это отразить в библиографии? Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 09:30, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Да, пожалуйста. Никкимария ( разговор ) 18:15, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• @ Nikkimaria : Есть ли параметр в шаблоне "цитировать книгу"? Или как лучше это сделать? Приношу свои извинения за то, что не сообщил вам об этом раньше. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 18:26, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Вы можете использовать |edition=. В идеале было бы хорошо определить дату повторной печати, но если это не доступно, работает только заявление о повторной печати. Никкимария ( разговор ) 18:33, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 18:50, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• FN1: страница? То же FN18, FN45. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 22:06, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Эти источники представляют собой газетные статьи, к которым я обращался через онлайн-базу данных Factiva. Номера страниц не были указаны, но я предполагаю, что эти статьи были напечатаны на одной странице. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:48, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Предоставляет ли Factiva постоянные ссылки? Никкимария ( разговор ) 00:59, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Я верю, что нет. Я пробовал связывать страницы Factiva в старой версии статьи, которую я написал, но меня попросили удалить их, когда рецензент GA выяснил, что они бесполезны. Видимый. 1, 15, 17, 20 в связанной версии. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 09:30, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Это не постоянные ссылки - если они существуют, они должны быть где-то в интерфейсе Factiva на страницах статей. Никкимария ( разговор ) 18:15, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

@ Nikkimaria : Большое спасибо за это. См. Мой комментарий к номерам ISBN выше. Возможно, вы лучше меня представляете, распространено ли задним числом добавлять номера ISBN к старым книгам. С уважением , Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 22:50, 24 апреля 2021 года (UTC)

Поддержка от Ceoil [ править ]

Несмотря на приведенные выше пункты Никки, которые кажутся решенными, сегодня он провел очень приятные полчаса, читая это. Статья написана безукоризненно, источники первоклассные, и сравнение ее нынешнего состояния с тем, когда был закрыт последний ном; Уверен, что размер стипендии обновлен. Ceoil ( разговор ) 01:04, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка от Ergo Sum [ править ]

• "оба ведущих университета Англии" - поскольку ссылка ведет на Оксбридж, я думаю, что она должна включать "оба"

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «загородная резиденция в замке Треаго» - была его резиденцией сам замок или находился там как часть замка / комплекса. Если первое, то я бы убрал "at" и сместил Treago Castle с комой.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Майнорс пользуется репутацией выдающихся британских классиков» - эта фраза кажется мне странной. Может быть, это незнакомый мне британец? Он не может состоять из нескольких человек, поэтому я думаю, что это должен быть «один из британцев» или какой-то другой перефразирование.

• Кажется, это закралось случайно. Я не мог удержаться от исправления сразу же. Об остальном займусь позже. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 16:38, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Вы можете использовать {{ Брак }} в информационном окне.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я бы ссылку шляхта на соответствующую статью.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «как ученый» - это типичный способ обращения к итонцам или это относится к определенной учености? Если нет, то мне интересно, что он добавляет к предложению.

• Да, называть его «ученым» означает, что он выиграл стипендию для учебы в Итоне. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Он стал сотрудником Пембрук-Колледжа» - это короткое предложение звучит немного раздражающе. "Также" может немного успокоить читателя

• Сделанный. Мое стремление искоренить «также», возможно, здесь зашло слишком далеко. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Как правило, желательно, чтобы встроенные цитаты располагались в конце предложения или, по крайней мере, после знаков препинания. Если нет другой причины, Fn 17 можно переместить в конец предложения.

• п. 17 только подтверждает тот факт, что она была медицинским исследователем. Остальные предложения вместе со следующим происходят от n. 18. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Итонский директор Алингтон» - я думаю, вам нужна кома после директора.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «первый как совместный» - я предполагаю, что «совместный» относится к последующему «редактору». Поскольку эти два элемента разделены запятыми в зависимых предложениях, было бы полезно повторить «редактор» после «сустава».

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Церковный историк» - какая церковь? Это христианские церкви в целом или англиканская церковь?

• Джеральд Боннер , которого описывает это предложение, был историком ранней церкви. Вот почему я предпочел общую «Церковь» чему-то более конкретному. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «осень 2020 года» - Согласно MOS: SEASONS , использование сезонов для обозначения части года не рекомендуется. Если есть месяц, его можно заменить, или просто 2020 год тоже может сработать.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поскольку это законченное предложение, «начало шестой книги стихотворения» в подписи требует окончательной пунктуации.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• То же «На пенсии»

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Мое понимание британских наград минимально, но, если я правильно понимаю, можно стать рыцарем-холостяком или членом рыцарского ордена, и в этом случае они имеют пост-номиналы. Думаю, следует уточнить, какой из них имел место в случае Майнорса.

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 19:20, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Очень хорошая статья. Поздравляю. Я полностью намерен поддержать до разрешения вышеупомянутых комментариев. Ergo Sum 17:50, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

@ Ergo Sum : Спасибо за действительно подробные комментарии! Я сделал все возможное, чтобы их решить. Не стесняйтесь спрашивать, требуются ли вам более подробные сведения о любом из моих ответов выше. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 19:26, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Очень рад поддержать . Ergo Sum 20:43, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка , участвовал в экспертной оценке; Теперь, когда разбирались в теме редакторы, я рад поддержать. Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 21:08, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Поддержка статуса избранных статей. Therapyisgood ( разговорное ) 02:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Поддержка более ранней версии, только более сильная - Герда Арендт ( обсуждение ) 12:29, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка от Noswall59 [ править ]

Как я уже говорил в предыдущем обзоре, это очень хорошо написанный и доступный обзор жизни Майнорса. Теперь он также подробно описывает его вклад в стипендию. Я прочитал некролог Уинтерботтома за 1993 год; Я заметил, что в статье почти не упоминается издание Майнорса «Institutiones» Кассиодора, поэтому я добавил его в библиографию и пару предложений в статьи, посвященные критике текста. В остальном я удовлетворен тем, что это по сути всеобъемлющее, и дальнейшее обсуждение его текстуальной критики, если можно сказать больше, относится к статьям о текстах, а не здесь.

Поэтому мой последний комментарий - это всего лишь предложение для номинанта. Еще раз просмотрев статью, я поинтересовался, что они думают о структурной перестройке, протестированной в моей песочнице: Пользователь: Noswall59 / sandbox5 ? Я предлагаю это, потому что теперь мне кажется странным иметь библиографические / палеографические абзацы и параграфы Вергилия в разделе наследия, когда они кажутся более удобными в разделе стипендий. И упоминания о выставках Festschrift и Balliol, вероятно, относятся к разделу почестей. Это несколько стилистично и, похоже, никого не беспокоило, но на самом деле я думаю, что в этом есть больше смысла ... Как вы думаете, Modussiccandi? В настоящее время нет ничего, что заставляло бы меня возражать против этого, но я воздержусь от поддержки до вашего ответа по структурному вопросу. Ура, - Noswall59 ( разговор ) 08:55, 29 апреля 2021 года (UTC).

@ Noswall59 : Большое спасибо за ваши дополнения к Кассиодору; они выходят далеко за рамки служебного долга. Я также взял на себя ваш повторный заказ. Поскольку раздел «Взносы» сейчас довольно длинный, я подумал о добавлении подзаголовков. Все, кроме последнего и первого абзацев, относятся к его критическим редакциям, поэтому два подраздела составят только один абзац. Я добавил их пока, не стесняйтесь повозиться с ними. Как бы то ни было, я хотел бы поблагодарить вас за постоянный интерес к статье. Я очень ценю твои старания. С уважением , Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 09:45, 29 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Modussiccandi . Я доволен статьей и с радостью перешел в службу поддержки. Высокоэффективная работа и модель для статей о подобных ученых (надеюсь, первая из многих!) Я добавил еще один заголовок в этот раздел, но я открыт для того, чтобы заголовков не было, или чтобы вы / кто-то еще изменил его. . Я также добавил красную ссылку на WS Maguinness. Он определенно кажется достаточно известным для статьи в будущем. Большое спасибо за ваш вклад, терпение и приспособляемость! - Noswall59 ( разговор ) 11:48, 29 апреля 2021 г. (UTC).

Обзор изображения [ править ]

Всего пять изображений:

1. Файл: Портретная фотография Роджерса Майнорса.jpg Отмечена для удаления как недостающее свидетельство разрешения. Поскольку тема мертва, рекомендую просто добавить шаблон: Обоснование использования несвободного использования 2 шаблона к бесплатному изображению и покончить с этим.
2. Файл: Treago-Castle-375001 13a17522-by-Tony-Bailey.jpg Лицензия CC-by-SA 2.0
3. Файл: Cristoforo Majorana - Leaf from Eclogues, Georgics and Aeneid - Walters W400118V - Open Reverse.jpg Имеет билет OTRS.
4. Файл: Beda Petersburgiensis f3v.jpg Опубликовано в 746. Авторское право истекло.
5. Файл: Внешний вид Херефордского собора с северо-запада, Херефордшир, Великобритания - Diliff.jpg Лицензия CC-by-3.0.

Одна проблема. Hawkeye7 (обсудить) 21:54, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

• @ Hawkeye7 : Спасибо за обзор изображения. Я поговорил с правообладателями (Баллиол Колледж, Оксфорд), и они согласились загрузить изображение. Видимо, они не предоставили достаточной проверки. Я поговорю с ними еще раз в надежде, что они смогут это исправить. А пока добавил шаблон к бесплатному изображению. Сообщите мне, если требуются дополнительные действия. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 22:51, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

  Поддержка Все хорошо. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 00:12, 6 мая 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка от Amitchell125 [ править ]

Отличный текст, я согласен со всеми положительными комментариями, которые были даны до сих пор. Amitchell125 ( разговорное ) 12:37, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Выборочная проверка Z1720 [ править ]

Проверено и подтверждено: Bonner 133, Fuchs 89, Gaselee 189, Gotoff 310, 310-11, 311, Johnston, Levine 416, Maguinness 198, Sewter 105, Souter 195, Williams 89, Winterbottom 389, Hamblen 22, 6, 1. I не мог получить доступ к Харрисону, Нисбету и Траппес-Ломаксу. Ниже приведены некоторые примечания к другим цитатам:

• Что касается Gatch 543, я не мог проверить, что «это было первое критическое издание этого текста после издания Чарльза Пламмера (1896 г.)».

• Изменена формулировка, чтобы убрать претензию, что его издание «первое с тех пор». Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Что касается Gotoff 309, я не мог проверить, что перевод был сделан для Univerity of Toronto Press.

• В нем говорится: «Еще одним его занятием в последние годы был перевод писем Эразма для Торонто». Я думаю, что опускать слово «пресса» в таких заявлениях, как это, принято на академическом языке. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Бетани Хэмблен не упоминается в статье, поэтому ее не должно быть в библиографии.

• В сносках № 7 и 27 цитируется Гамблен. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Вы правы, я ошибся именем. Я не мог проверить: «В 1922 году Майнорс выиграл выставку Domus», «В 1945 году, вскоре после переезда в Кембридж, он женился на Лавинии Алингтон, медицинском исследователе» (год), «Большую часть его работы в качестве редактора Латинские тексты имели место в течение этого второго периода в Оксфорде. Работая над серией Оксфордских классических текстов, он подготовил критические издания полного собрания сочинений Катулла (1958) и Вергилия (1969), а также Эпистул Плиния Младшего (1963) ».

• Что касается Magguiness 200, я не смог это проверить, «и добавил указатель личных имен». или «Его оксфордские издания поэтов Катулла и Вергилия, в частности, оказались важным вкладом в эту область»;

• Re. index: в источнике говорится: «Предоставление Index Norninum, которого не хватает в Hirtzel, заслуживает высокой оценки», при этом index nominum на латыни означает «указатель личных имен». Re. Катулл и Вергилий: Я заменил это утверждение цитатой Готоффа с аналогичным эффектом. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо. Проверено. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Что касается Оливера 51, я не мог проверить, что «второе критическое издание Майнорса было стихотворением Катулла». Я смог проверить другие утверждения.

• Ты прав; его нет в источнике. Это заявление было основано на датах публикации его книг. Как вы думаете, это пересекает границу операционной? Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Думаю, да, предлагаю вместо этого указать год публикации или найти источник, который говорит, что это была его вторая публикация. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Что касается Пикока 325, я не мог проверить: «В Баллиоле Майнорс преподавал с 1926 по 1944 год, когда он был наставником многих будущих ученых, включая эксперта по Витгенштейну Дэвида Пирса».

• Извините за это. Источник говорит только о грушах. Я получил финики от Нисбета, а остальные от Уинтерботтома. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо. Проверено. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

• «Они поддерживали тесную дружбу [11], которая познакомила Майноров с другими немецкими филологами, включая Рудольфа Пфайффера и Отто Скутча. [12]» Почему эти две отдельные сноски? Можно ли их объединить?

• Слияние завершено, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Майнорс создал новый текст церковной истории Беды для издания, которое он опубликовал вместе с историком Бертрамом Колгрейвом. Это было первое критическое издание этого текста после издания Чарльза Пламмера (1896 г.). рукопись 8-го века, неизвестная Пламмеру, позволила Майнорсу построить новую версию традиции М. [40] «Почему здесь используются две сноски для одной и той же ссылки?

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

• В абзаце, который начинается со слов: «Второе критическое издание Майнора касалось стихов Катулла». Почему на [32] три цитаты подряд? Можем ли мы удалить первые две цитаты?

• Готово, Modussiccandi ( обсуждение ) 10:07, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Большое спасибо за это, Z1720 . Пожалуйста, посмотрите мои комментарии к вашим наблюдениям выше. Modussiccandi ( разговор ) 10:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии выше. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 16:09, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от KJP1 [ править ]

Некоторое время назад я видел эту отличную статью и хотел прокомментировать, но впоследствии пропустил ее. Вы уже получили множество заслуженных Поддержек, и я с удовольствием добавлю к ним. Всего несколько вопросов / комментариев, которые меня тогда поразили.

Информационное окно

• «Сэр Раб Майнорс» - эта смесь рыцарства и инициалов кажется мне странной. Глядя на статью Knight Bachelor и другие примеры Kt. инфобоксы, я думаю, что обычная форма - это сэр Роджер Обри ....

Ранний период жизни

• «Майнорс родился в Лэнгли Баррелле, графство Уилтшир, в дворянской семье на юго-западе Англии» - здесь есть несколько моментов: во-первых, отсутствует «in» между рожденным и Лэнгли Барреллом. Что более важно, я не понимаю «на юго-западе Англии». Это относится к Лэнгли Барреллу или его семье? Если, как мне кажется, последнее, то я не думаю, что это правильно. Майноры были дворянами Херефордшира, и Херефордшир не находится на юго-западе. Если предположить, что речь идет о семье, тогда что-то вроде: «Майнор родился в Лэнгли Беррелле, Уилтшир, в дворянской семье из средней полосы Англии / Херефордшира»?
• «Семья Майнорс владела имением замка Треаго с 16 века ...» - следуя вышесказанному, я немного поправлю это. Во-первых, я думаю, что было бы полезно уточнить, что Треаго находится где-то в другом месте, а не в Уилтшире, что может сделать изменение предыдущего предложения. Во-вторых, я думаю, что «семья», вероятно, излишни. Наконец, я думаю, что 16-е должно быть 15-м. Брукс / Певснер в пересмотренном Херефордшире Певснер (2012) указывает 1470 год как дату постройки Триаго сэром Ричардом Майнсом. Точно так же в списке « Историческая Англия» [9] говорится, что «находился в руках семьи Майнорс с начала 15 века». Хотя я вижу, что они используют «семья Майнорс», вы можете проигнорировать мой предыдущий комментарий по этому поводу. Что-то вроде: «Майноры владели поместьем замка Треаго вСент-Веонардс, в 10 милях к югу от Херефорда, с 15 века »?
• «Он учился в Летней школе Филдс в Оксфорде , а с 1916 года учился в Итонском колледже » - не могли бы вы заменить второе «посещенное» чем-то другим для разнообразия, например: «Он посещал Летнюю школу Филдс в Оксфорде, а в 1916 году поступил в Итонский колледж как ученый?
• «Его ранний интерес к латинской литературе и ее передаче » - может быть, нет другого подходящего термина, кроме «передачи», заставило меня задуматься, и я думаю, что это может обеспокоить других читателей-непрофессионалов. Это означает «способы распространения и сохранения классических текстов до изобретения книгопечатания». Похоже, что у нас нет статьи, в которой можно было бы использовать синюю ссылку. Если нет другого подходящего слова, я бы порекомендовал объяснение либо в тексте, либо в виде сноски.

Баллиол

• «Стипендии Хертфорда (1924 г.), Крейвена (1924 г.) и Дерби (1926 г.)» - это выходит за рамки моей глубины и, безусловно, согласуется с источником, но является ли Крейвен стипендией, а не стипендией?
• «Сосредоточено на поэте Вергилий» - опять же, несомненно, что классическая наука продвинулась вперед, и теперь, возможно, предпочтительнее его написание. Я лишь заметить , что наша статья имеет Вергилия с «Вергилия» в качестве редиректа.
• « Что он был использован в Биржевом Контрольном управлении казначейством Ее Величество , ответственном за управление иностранной валюты обмена » - опять же , чтобы избежать дубликата, возможно , «введение валютных операций »?

Извинения - пора обрывать сейчас. Скоро вернусь. KJP1 ( разговорное ) 14:55, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Пембрук-Колледж

• «Дочь его бывшего учителя и директора Итона, Алингтона» - хотя, возможно, это был способ обращения Майнора, я думаю, что я бы также дал ему его имя, Сирил.

Отставка

• «В дополнение к более неторопливым занятиям, таким как садоводство и коллекционирование марок , его выход на пенсию принес пользу ...» - Здесь мы не согласны с анализом текста. Помимо того, что садоводство не является «неторопливым» занятием, источник описывает его как «каторгу», я не думаю, что это означает «коллекционирование марок» в смысле «филателии». Думаю, он и его жена в шутку называли его дендрарий, его «коллекцию марок». Я не думаю, что текст допускает какое-либо другое значение.
• «В 1980 году приход учредил фонд имени Майнорса, который будет использоваться для сбора редких книг». Две вещи. Во-первых, какой приход? Его приход святых Веонардс или собор? И не уверен в значении «для использования». Чтобы купить коллекцию / сохранить, восстановить / каталогизировать?

Критические редакции

• «Из-за его нежелания исправлять помимо передаваемых показаний» - как и в случае с «передачей», я думаю, что «исправлять» запутает непрофессионального читателя. Здесь у нас есть исправление перенаправления (текстовое) , которое переносит вас в раздел «Процесс» текстовой критики . Думаю, эта синяя ссылка, возможно, с пояснением? Поможет обычному читателю. Вы связываете это двумя параграфами вниз, но я дал это при первом появлении.
• «Он отверг традиционную архаизирующую орфографию » - опять же , поможет ли читателю ссылка , или объяснение, или и то, и другое?

Комментарий к Георгии

• «Комментарий не имеет серьезного отношения к современной науке о тексте, такой как противоречие между оптимистическим и пессимистическим прочтением » - опять же, непрофессиональный читатель, включая меня, будет бороться здесь [10] . Возможно ли простое объяснение, возможно, в сноске?

Это я сделал. Это превосходная статья. Это ваш первый КВС? Если это так, мои сердечные поздравления. Проза, исследования и энтузиазм сияют. Будем рады поддержать вас, когда у вас будет возможность рассмотреть вышеизложенное. Всего наилучшего. KJP1 ( разговорное ) 16:21, 8 мая 2021 (UTC)

Один из мальчиков (сериал, 1989) [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Heartfox ( обсуждение ) 01:54, 21 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Американский телесериал 1989 года в прайм-тайм без статей до марта 2021 года ?! Так обстоит дело с « Один из мальчиков» (сериал 1989 г.) , который я создал и расширил, чтобы, надеюсь, стать популярной статьей. В настоящее время ОЛ и прошел полезное рецензирование по Aoba47 . Я приветствую любые комментарии и с нетерпением жду их рассмотрения. Спасибо, Heartfox ( разговор ) 01:54, 21 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Имеется ссылка на ошибку: «Снайдер 1989. Ошибка Харва: эта ссылка не указывает ни на какую цитату». ( t · c ) buidhe 02:37, 21 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Фиксированный. Спасибо, что уловили это, Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:12, 21 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от SNUGGUMS [ править ]

Теперь я предлагаю свою поддержку , и проверка изображения также проходит . Очень хорошая работа! SNUGGUMS ( обсуждение / редактирование ) 03:34, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо! Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:44, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Привет @ SNUGGUMS : Я добавил в статью дополнительное изображение и хотел бы сообщить вам, как вы ранее проводили обзор изображений. Heartfox ( разговор ) 01:37, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

В этом случае FUR для File: One of the Boys 1989 cast.png - A-OK. SNUGGUMS ( обсуждение / редактирование ) 02:54, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от MaranoFan [ править ]

Я ждал, что вы что-нибудь номинируете. Учитывая высокое качество ваших обзоров источников, я сомневаюсь, что потребуется много работы, но я рассмотрю это позже. - N Ø 05:17, 21 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Венесуэльская иммигрантка, ездящая на мотоцикле в Соединенные Штаты, преследующая американскую мечту, оставив работу официанткой и став бухгалтером в Lukowski Construction Company» - в этой формулировке больше внимания уделяется ее езде на мотоциклах, чем ей профессии. Это примечательная особенность этого персонажа? - N Ø 13:22, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Удаленный; это не примечательно. Heartfox ( разговор ) 21:05, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Привет @ MaranoFan : поздравляю с AATB! Мне просто было интересно, есть ли у вас какие-либо дополнительные комментарии к этой статье. Спасибо, Heartfox ( разговор ) 21:19, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Извините за задержку. Я не очень знаком с подобными статьями, поэтому я случайно прочитал FAs Kampung Boy (сериал) и House (сериал) в качестве примеров. Я могу использовать их как ссылку для обзора.

• Я не думаю, что просто сказав, что это «американский ситком», в первом предложении будет достаточно информации. Можно ли использовать описательное слово между ними, например, «американский романтический комедийный сериал» или что-то еще?
  • Жанры требуют источников, и, насколько мне известно, не было ни одного, что уточняло бы это дополнительно.
• Есть ли причина, по которой у персонажа и актрисы схожие имена?
  • Источников, подтверждающих сходство их имен, не было.
• «кого нанимают работать в офис небольшой строительной компании» - Разве это не должно быть активным голосом? «кто начинает работать в офисе небольшой строительной компании»
  • Измененный.
• «быстро женится на овдовевшей хозяйке» - не уверен, что «быстро» многое делает для понимания читателем.
  • Удаленный.
• «Многочисленные продюсерские компании наблюдали за съемками» - Если их всего пять, разве их нельзя назвать?
  • Пять продюсерских компаний - огромное количество для любого телешоу, особенно для того, которое длилось шесть серий. Вы уверены, что не будет лишним перечислить их все в одном абзаце? Я все же поменял «многочисленные» на «пять».
• Ведущий упоминает, о чем говорится в отзывах, но не говорит, были ли они положительными или отрицательными.
  • Не было ретроспективных / всеобъемлющих источников, которые так или иначе описывали бы обзоры.
• Меня немного смущает структура ведущего раздела. Предложение «Это был один из немногих американских сериалов в прайм-тайм, в котором в 1980-х годах снималась латиноамериканка». это лучшая и самая привлекательная часть. Можно ли переместить это во второе предложение?
  • Сделанный.
• «Ее лучшая подруга Бернис ДеСальво (Эми Акино) работает официанткой» - Она работает официанткой только на свадьбе Майка и Марии или все время? Это предложение появляется внезапно.
  • Я попытался реорганизовать абзац, но я действительно не знаю, где еще его поместить, поэтому я переформатировал его в список, который более точно соответствует MOS: TVCAST idk . Это снова в форме абзаца, а предложение написано иначе.
• Есть еще одно предложение, в котором все происходит «быстро», но разве это не подразумевается автоматически, поскольку в сериале всего шесть эпизодов?
  • Удаленный.
• Разве структура статьи не должна быть Фон - Производство - Предпосылка вместо того, что есть сейчас? Я могу ошибаться, так как я не знаком с написанием статей такого типа!
  • Сначала это должен быть сюжет, но у вас не должно быть раздела сюжета, если есть сводки эпизодов, поэтому вы должны сначала переместить таблицу эпизодов, но вы не можете из-за информационного поля, поэтому состав и персонажи следующий ... MOS беспорядок TBH, но другие ТВ FA не следуют точно структуре MOS: TV (например, Эбби , на которой я изначально основывал эту статью); все статьи разные. Если вы думаете, что все идет хорошо, это должно быть важным.
• «Алонсо вела певческую карьеру отдельно от шоу и не поет в эпизодах» - замените это на «Алонсо вела певческую карьеру отдельно от шоу и не поет в нем».
  • Измененный.
• «Шойер заявила, что она« вызывает смех, которого даже нет в сценарии ». Что это значит?
  • Перефразировано.

Я не сомневаюсь, что вы сделали все возможное, используя имеющуюся информацию, но статья все же довольно небольшая. Критический комментарий ограничен, и некоторые структурные проблемы пока не позволяют сделать его убедительным и захватывающим чтением. Я, к сожалению, склоняюсь к противодействию - N Ø 03:26, 29 апреля 2021 г. (UTC).

@ MaranoFan : Спасибо за ваши комментарии и обзор чего-то незнакомого. Я ответил выше и приложил все усилия, чтобы их решить. Heartfox ( разговор ) 03:27, 1 мая 2021 (UTC)

Как бы то ни было, после внесенных изменений статья действительно выглядит лучше.

• Второе и третье предложения можно было бы немного объединить. «Это была одна из немногих американских программ в прайм-тайм, в которых в то десятилетие играла роль латиноамериканской женщины - Марии Кончиты Алонсо. Она играет Марию Кончиту Наварро, венесуэльскую иммигрантку в США, которая начинает работать в офисе небольшой строительной компании и выходит замуж за своего овдовевшего владельца Майка Луковски (Роберт Клохесси) ". Это решает две задачи: немного улучшает поток и убирает повторение слов «Мария Кончита» из одного предложения.
  • Измененный; спасибо за предложение.
• Я уверен, что небольшой синтез был бы хорош для ведущего в отношении критического комментария. Из прочтения этого абзаца кажется очевидным, что комментарии, направленные на концепцию и сценарий, были отрицательными, тогда как критики более благосклонно относились к игре Алонсо.
  • SNUGGUMS предложили свою поддержку, потому что такой синтез был удален, поэтому нет.
• Учитывая небольшой размер статьи, я бы посоветовал перенести детали с цитатами из инфобокса в раздел «Фон». Я думаю, что ссылки в информационном окне обычно не приветствуются, а в прозе можно добавить еще несколько предложений.
  • Взолнованный.
• «Алонсо изначально не хотел сниматься на телевидении» - Будет ли «на телевидении» звучать лучше, чем «на телевидении»?
  • Измененный.
• Описание шестой серии невелико. Может быть, использовать сам эпизод как ссылку, чтобы немного расширить?
  • Эпизод доступен только в архиве кино и телевидения Калифорнийского университета в Лос-Анджелесе.
• Почему вы говорите, что нет источников, описывающих жанр? Я случайно открыл эту, и она четко описывает ее как « комедию на замену в середине сезона ».
  • Я не понимаю, что вы предлагаете. «Замена середины сезона» - это не жанр, и он уже описан как «ситком» (ситуативная комедия).
• В той же статье Наварро описывается как «полный жизни, сорванец, но женственный» персонаж. Я думаю, что это дает нам ценное представление о персонаже и должно быть включено, опять же, учитывая относительно небольшой размер этой статьи?
  • Добавлен.
• В той же статье Philadelphia Inquirer говорится, что Алонсо «много раз посещал ток-шоу с Дэвидом Леттерманом и Джонни Карсоном». Меня очень сбивает с толку, почему это используется в качестве источника для того, что «об одном из мальчиков мало кто слышал».
  • Он используется, чтобы процитировать «Она должна появиться в« Поздней ночью с Дэвидом Леттерманом в четверг », что перефразировано как« Помимо появления Алонсо в « Поздней ночью с Дэвидом Леттерманом » ». Я отключил сноску. Остальные визиты в прошлом, а не в 1989 году для продвижения шоу. Я решил убрать упоминание о ее появлении « Поздней ночью» .
• Другая проницательная цитата из той же статьи полностью опущена: «У моего персонажа есть класс, у нее было образование. Она не из тех, кого часто видят с фруктами на голове, кучи-кучи».
  • Я расширил этот раздел подробностями.
• «Эти шесть серий были пробными;« Один из мальчиков »выйдет в эфир во втором сезоне, который начнется в сентябре 1989 года, если он будет хорошо принят». - Обрамление немного сбивает с толку. Насколько я понимаю, второй сезон у них не прошел. Это должно быть более ясно.
  • Понятно в следующем абзаце? Предложение устанавливает, каков результат эпизодов. Если бы он был хорошо принят, он мог бы транслировать второй сезон, но в следующем абзаце объясняется, что он не был хорошо принят. Я переместил это наверх.
• Мои опасения по поводу упущения важных деталей, указанных в источниках, никоим образом не являются исчерпывающими, поскольку я только что открыл одну статью.

Хотя я изначально думал, что полученное освещение было ограниченным, похоже, что статью действительно можно было бы расширить, используя даже только уже включенные в нее источники. Эпизоды можно было напрямую использовать в качестве ссылок для расширения сюжета. Можно добавить фотографию актеров или эту фотографию Наварро , чтобы было наглядно продемонстрировать вовлеченных людей. На данный момент статья едва ли подчеркивает известность серии, она не является стандартом прозы, который могут заинтересовать незнакомых с этой темой людей, которые приходят к ней из-за публикации на главной странице. Я собираюсь воздержаться от официального голосования, но некоторые опасения по поводу критериев 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a и 3 все еще остаются. С уважением - N Ø 10:22, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

@ MaranoFan : Спасибо за то, что уделили время рецензированию статьи и оставлению дополнительных комментариев; Я ответил выше. Куда вы предлагаете добавить изображение Алонсо? Это вызовет проблемы с размещением рядом с информационным окном и оставит огромное пустое пространство в разделе критического приема, потому что необходимо использовать {{clear}}. Не было никаких изображений полного состава, с которыми я сталкивался. Отмечу, что статья уже прошла имиджевую рецензию. Спасибо, Heartfox ( разговор ) 22:27, 1 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Я добавил изображение актерского состава через вступительную последовательность. Heartfox ( разговор ) 01:36, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Привет, MaranoFan , прошла почти неделя, и мне было интересно, не хотите ли вы следить за своими комментариями / моими ответами / правками. Еще раз спасибо, Heartfox ( разговор ) 02:40, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Приносим извинения за задержку, я был занят стажировкой, которую сейчас ищу. Добавление одной только фотографии актеров (кажется) значительно улучшило статью, хотя у меня нет времени читать ее снова. На случай, если у меня будет время, запрошу заключительные координаты, чтобы пинговать меня перед архивацией обсуждения. - N Ø 15:42, 8 мая 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от Aoba47 [ править ]

Спасибо, что обратились ко всему. Я поддержать статью для продвижения. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 05:01, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии от 👨x🐱 [ править ]

Что ж, пора посмотреть еще одну короткую статью для FA. Форматирование цитат идеальное, так что сказать нечего.

Еще раз напомню рецензентам, что короткая статья не делает ее неполной. Есть много таких крупных сетевых шоу, которые освещаются только в данный момент, и о них так забывают, что нет даже списка Buzzfeed, который бы запомнил их как «классику на все времена» (и этот мерзкий блог рассматривает альбомы Jimmy Eat World и дошкольные шоу классические, для крика вслух!). Поверьте, поиск академической литературы ничего мне не дал, какие бы уловки с ключевыми словами я ни пробовал. Я также не виню секцию критического приема в том, что она такая короткая. Все виды этих шоу 1980-х и 1990-х (и даже 2000-х и 2010-х) не получают такого большого количества значительных мнений о самих сериалах, а когда и получают, то всегда по первым двум эпизодам. Черт,удачи в поисках газетных обзоров более поздних сезонов даже некоторых из самых известных сериалов (я могу сказать это как человек, который работал надВсе любят статьи Раймонда ). Дело в том, что это настолько полно, насколько это возможно в статье, поэтому в этом отношении он соответствует 1b. У меня есть несколько комментариев:

Спасибо за вашу точку зрения. Да, и с этим сериалом еще хуже, потому что телевизионным сценаристам не показали превью до выхода в эфир первого эпизода. Так как именно тогда было бы написано большинство обзоров, в эту статью можно включить гораздо меньше обзоров, чем даже еще одну серию из шести эпизодов.

• Нет раздела, описывающего предпосылку сериала? Я знаю, что в разделе актерского состава и персонажей есть описания, и я знаю, что он проходил только в шести эпизодах, но все же ... Учитывая, как мало можно описать других главных актеров в этом сериале, кроме главной актрисы, я бы просто не -список, полный прозаический раздел посылок с именами актеров в скобках.
  • Я изменил его с прозы на список пару дней назад, но думаю, я просто перепишу весь раздел в абзац снова, учитывая ограниченный доступный комментарий относительно других персонажей.
• Действительно ли текст в примечании А должен быть примечанием? Почему не в прозе?
  • Отличная идея.
• «Алонсо описал Наварро как образованную женщину с классом. [2]« Я считаю, что это короткое предложение не только сбивает поток в абзаце, но и недооценивает то, что представляет источник . В интервью она упомянула тот факт, что у нее есть образование и класс, чтобы показать, насколько персонаж отличается от других латиноамериканцев в популярных СМИ, что важно, поскольку это установлено в разделе фона (и примечании).
  • Я учту это при переписывании.
• Поскольку представление латиноамериканцев, кажется, является основной темой, как латиноамериканцы обычно представлялись в средствах массовой информации в конце 1980-х годов до этой серии? Мария Алонсо заявляет в интервью The Philadelphia Inquirer, что их обычно изображали «бедными» или «горничными».
  • Я добавлю об этом предложение.
• "Дэвид Уолстад из Philadelphia Inquirer описал Наварро как" полную жизни, сорванца, но женственную "женщину". Нет. Источник брал интервью у актрисы и процитировал ее слова.
  • Я исправил это.
• «Записи эпизодов - в которых использовался стереозвук [20]» В любом случае это важно? В конце 1980-х в каждой серии был стереозвук. Этот источник, конечно, не добавляет ему заметности, поскольку это список, а не фактическое освещение.
  • Это несущественно; MaranoFan предложил упомянуть материал, цитируемый в информационном окне, в прозе (разработчик и композитор не были перед их обзором), но я думаю, что этот конкретный вариант лучше всего оставить как сноску информационного окна.
• Я нахожу прозу в разделах «Производство», «Критический прием» и «История трансляции» прерывистой, как набор коротких предложений, описывающих вещи.

👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 01:18, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

Я рассмотрю способы реорганизации структуры предложения в этих разделах, но изменения неизбежно будут ограничены, поскольку не будет добавляться никакого нового контента.

@ HumanxAnthro : Спасибо за ваши комментарии. Я оставил несколько предварительных ответов выше и завтра буду редактировать статью более подробно. Heartfox ( разговор ) 02:09, 5 мая 2021 (UTC)

@ HumanxAnthro : Мне кажется, я обратился к вашим комментариям, добавив недавние правки к статье. Дайте мне знать, что вы думаете, и еще раз спасибо за ваше время, Heartfox ( разговор ) 02:40, 7 мая 2021 года (UTC)

Обзор источника - пройти [ править ]

Комментарии ниже. Aza24 ( разговорное ) 23:22, 7 мая 2021 (UTC)

Форматирование

• Предположим, что «Лос-Анджелес» в ссылке Variety должен включать штат, как и другие ссылки с местоположениями; так же с Майами, Детройтом и Голливудом
• Я действительно не понимаю последовательности в использовании местоположений, есть ли здесь шаблон / какая-то стандартизация, которую мне не хватает?
  • Места указываются, когда его нет в названии работы; состояния даются, когда статья Wiki для местоположения не перечисляет его. Должны ли они все отдавать государству? Я не совсем знаком.
    • Considering the locations aren't linked to their articles anyways (which is probably for the best), I would think including the state every time makes the most sense. I now understand your approach to including locations or not, but the one that was throwing me off is USA Today—which doesn't seem to satisfy your criteria on that matter. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I've added states. USA Today has a location when it has a dateline. ProQuest gives McLean, Virginia, as the location of the paper as a whole. Should I include that as well?
        • Our article on USA today does as well, so I would think, of consistency's sake, such an addition is appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Aza24: I've added them. Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Top notch from what I can tell—and impressive given the subject matter

Verifiability

• I don't really understand "The Meeting" 1989 refs—where in the episode are we getting this information, the credits? Surely there are better sources, if so. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The production information is from the opening and ending credits. However, because it is also used as a footnote for a plot summary I thought it would not make sense to list the credits as the info source so it's just the episode in general. Because most (but not all) was also listed in Leszczak, his book is cited as well.
    • Makes sense, but I'm wondering if that can be made clear in the ref; i.e. putting "(credits)" or something somewhere—if you see what I mean? Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks; this is my first time using sfn in an article so I didn't know about the loc= paramater. I've added them in the refs.

@Aza24: thanks so much for the source review. I'm open to addressing everything I just have some responses/questions above. Heartfox (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Greed (game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived Fox game show Greed, which was considered to be the network's answer to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. It was hosted by Chuck Woolery of Wheel of Fortune, Love Connection, and Scrabble fame, lasting for roughly eight months from November 1999 to July 2000. The article just passed a GA nomination last month. I've brought a handful of game show articles to FA status before, but it's been a few years since I've been at FAC, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Aoba47[edit]

• After taking a day to reflect on this, I have decided to support the article for promotion. I trust that the nominator did their best to find secondary sources to support the production credits so I think the use of primary sources (i.e. episodes) should be okay. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Quick question: Where was Furman & Furman 2000 accessed? Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I own a personal copy of the book. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• "are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999. Each contestant enters their answers using a keypad in front of them." → failed verification

• Removed, noting that it was on a keypad is probably excessive anyway. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The claim "Six contestants are asked a question with a numerical answer between 10–999" is not apparent in the book pages given. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Beginning with the show's April 28, 2000 episode (the first episode of Super Greed) and continuing for the rest of the show's run, the qualifying round was eliminated," → but how can you cite one episode and not know it was Super Greed before/after then?

• Reworked this section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "although some of the episodes that aired in June 2000 still featured the qualifying question" → only one episode is cited

• Reworked this section, only the college episode is fully available on YouTube so it's tough to verify the rest. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "From April 28 to May 19, 2000, the show was known as Super Greed." → only the April 28 episode is cited.

• Brought in a new newspaper source. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• You can move the footnote to the end of the sentence.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• fn 43 is by Zap2it, so I would put that in the agency= parameter. It also has a dateline of Los Angeles, so I would add place=Los Angeles.

• Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "reruns of Greed have been broadcast on Game Show Network (GSN) at times since January 2002" → but the source is from 2002, how can it be "since"?

• Tweaked, ref indeed only verifies GSN acquiring the show in the first place. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• fn 2 date differs from website.

• I have no idea what the deal is with this one. The date in the url is reflected in the citation, and the context of the article makes it clear it was written in 2000 rather than 2005, so I went with the former. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• what makes Mental Floss worthy of citing in a FA?

• As I can recall, I've never had any pushback on it myself, though I've replaced it with a source from The Atlantic. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Warren was the program's biggest winner ... and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time; combined with an earlier six-figure winning streak on Sale of the Century in 1986" → not in source.

• Reworked this section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Warren was the program's biggest winner with $1,410,000 and briefly held the title of biggest U.S. game show winner of all time" → Is it explicitly mentioned in the episode that he was its biggest winner, and that he was the biggest U.S. game show winner of all time?

• Woolery only mentioned on air that Warren had broken the record for biggest game show winner of all time, which obviously means he would have been Greed's biggest winner too. Since no one after Warren won the $2,000,000 prize, Warren ended up being the program's biggest winner through its conclusion. This LA Times source appears to mention Warren as No. 4 all time while Ken Jennings was on Jeopardy!, would this be sufficient for citing him as Greed's biggest winner too? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is kind of the same problem with "Daniel Avila was the only contestant to reach this level, risking his $200,000 individual winnings to play for the top prize (which had been increased to $2,200,000 as it was during Greed's progressive jackpot shows) on the episode that aired on November 18, 1999" → it can't say "only contestant" but cite one episode.

• The DeMichael book notes that only one contestant reached this level, though it does not explicitly mention Avila by name, so I reworked the phrasing around it. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it can be cited for Greed's biggest winner.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "won $1,765,000" → source does not give the figure to thousands.

• Added a second source. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Warren's record was shortly thereafter as David Legler won $1,765,000 on NBC's Twenty One" → sources do not mention Legler beating Warren's record. Someone else could have beaten it in the interim.

• Same LA Times source I proposed above mentions Olmstead and Toutant at Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, followed by Legler at 3 and Warren right behind at 4. Both Olmstead and Toutant's wins happened after Legler, which would imply Legler broke Warren's record. I think we could use this source for both of these above two points, but wanted to explain my reasoning here and get the green light from you before doing so. Would this work? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• suggest moving fn 32 to end of sentence

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• fn 33; is there better source than something that looks to be self-published

• This is tricky because Thompson was pretty much under the radar on Greed, never referred to on air...this is the only source I could find. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it would need to be removed unless a better source can be cited.

• Is this not a case of primary sources being better than no source at all? It's clearly Thompson's voice, not to mention he was with Fox for several other programs at the time, some of them game shows. If this is the difference between a support and an oppose I won't let it stand in the way. But I feel removing it entirely would be like omitting Johnny Gilbert from Jeopardy! or Rod Roddy from The Price Is Right. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think it meets WP:ABOUTSELF unfortunately, because it involves a third party (an employer). Is he not listed in the credits of the show?

• It's crazy but unless I've overlooked it in the credits of episodes readily available, I don't believe he was. Fortunately, I believe I have a TV encyclopedia source that credits Thompson, which I accessed through a Google Books search and have brought into the bibliography. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Los Angeles Times, New York Times refs look to be url-status=limited

• Tried changing this but it came back as an invalid parameter on my end? I assume it's because non-subscribers only get a limited number of free articles, but when I went to change the status to limited, it gave me an invalid message in the references section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• My apologies; I meant url-access, not url-status. This also applies to The Atlantic. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The ProQuest links are url-access=subscription.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• fn 41 is from a WP:FORBESCON, and is more opinion than fact I think, so I would only use it for his opinion in the reception section. Are there other sources that point to Gail Berman?

• Haven't seen one yet but I'll check, I'd imagine there might be something that discusses the general shift in Fox's strategy even if it doesn't mention Greed explicitly. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Think this is done now with a new newspaper source. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would remove the Forbes contributor citation from statements about third parties. The article in The York Dispatch is by the Los Angeles Daily News so that would be the agency= and it has a dateline of Pasadena, so I would add place=Pasadena, California. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• " as Greed was created before Berman's time at the network" → no source given

• Removed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Greed premiered with a 4.0 rating in adults 18–49" → not in fn 76

• Reworked. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I highly suggest providing complete viewership/ratings for the premiere (and finale if possible). For example, this Newspapers.com clipping shows it got 9.86 million viewers, which is more useful than "nearly 10,000,000".

• Done for the premiere, will check the finale (though it should also be noted that there was nothing particularly special about the last episode due to the show's abrupt cancellation). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Finale ratings are now sourced. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

* Did it air outside of the United States?

• Not to my knowledge, the format was licensed internationally but I do not believe the American version was broadcast itself. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe I saw a piece on ProQuest that it aired on Global in Canada. Maybe try searching again. Also for the ProQuest links you only need to do https://proquest.com/docview/<the document number>/ and you can remove all the excess wikipedialibrary.idm stuff, as well as [FINAL Edition] from the title as it's just the newspaper edition not the actual title of the article. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Added and done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel there are sources in The Wikipedia Library that have not been consulted. For example, this USA Today article has valuable background/production info but is not used in the article. There are also many unused reviews which would enhance the critical reception section. I will have to oppose because I don't think it is well-researched enough and there are issues with text-source integrity. I would not consider this article "complete" at the moment. Heartfox (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thank you for your review. I'm sorry to hear you don't think this is well-researched enough, especially since I've done just as much (if not more) research for this show than any of my other game show FAs. That's not to say there isn't more out there, of course, so I'll do my best to see what else is out there and hopefully change your opposition into support. I do, however, hope most of the text-source integrity issues have been fixed now and that I can clean up the last few shortly. Feel free to give this a second look to see if my changes have indeed addressed your concerns. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please take your time and I will come back in a few days and respond to the comments and probably leave more. I anticipate my oppose will be temporary. I am checking Furman & Furman at archive.org, and unless it's a different edition, some statements in the article still don't match the book (so maybe I would just cite the premiere instead for those basic facts if they aren't in a secondary source). Heartfox (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thank you for your patience. I believe I have addressed the final few bullet points, and I would appreciate a second look to ensure I didn't miss anything. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find some more reviews. Thanks again, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have struck comments addressed and replied to other ones. I am also noticing there is not specific source for the program last airing on July 4? The cancellation date is not necessarily the last broadcast date. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 14th? I have another book source that lists July 14 as the end date, I'll go ahead and add it in as I continue to address the rest of these points. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I think all the points have been addressed (or at least noted) now. Ready for another look to see what still needs to be done. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Further updates made, many thanks again for your patience. Hopefully we're getting close. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

All of the original comments have been addressed, and I've struck my oppose. I'm not sure about the reliability of the DeMichael book to be honest; what is Marshall Publishing and Promotions? I'll reread the article and leave more comments soon. It looks much better so far! Heartfox (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Marshall is admittedly a smaller, independent publishing company, although a) I've used the book for a GA or two before and b) I've never had any problems, nor I have I discovered any factual errors (intentional or otherwise) in the book. Glad to see all the issues from the first read have been resolved for now. I look forward to further comments and suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• some sources have publishers while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.

• Could you possibly be a bit more specific here with which sources need them? I thought I remembered hearing a while ago that "The New York Times Company" wasn't needed in the publisher field for NYT refs due to the redundancy. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• New York Daily News, NY Post (also needs a link), Dayton Daily News, maybe the international ones idk

* some works cited more than once have links while others don't; it's supposed to be consistent.

• Think I got this taken care of, let me know if I missed anything. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• are there alternatives to the New York Post sources? It would be better to use something else in an FA given WP:NYPOST.

• Replaced the one but not sure I can get that quote anywhere else, I'll see if I can find anything though. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

* looks like fn 61 work has an article, Dagbladet Information, fn 65 Walla!, fn 67 Asharq Al-Awsat, fn 73 Aftonbladet.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• is there a sentence in fn 67 that points to a Lebanese version? I had trouble finding it with Google Translate.

• I could have sworn I saw Lebanon somewhere...it was listed as the greater Arab World originally with this ref, I've gone back to that for now.

• Asharq Al-Awsat should be italicized and there's also a dateline and author in the article but to be honest on Google Translate it didn't mention anything about a version of Greed, unless I'm reading it wrong. I would just remove it at this point as it's not very clear what country it pertains to or if it existed, unless an editor who reads Arabic can translate it properly.

• " If the captain quits after any of these four questions, the money is split evenly among all five team members. Giving/accepting a wrong answer ends the game and forfeits all winnings. The team member in the lowest position (farthest from the correct answer when a qualifying question was played) gives the answer to question 1, and each question after that is answered by the member in the next higher position." → there's no citation at the end

• The Furman & Furman book refers to the lowest positioned contestant as "contestant number four," and so on from there. I've cited the book and moved the ref to the end since there would have been three of the exact same ref in the paragraph, let me know if you want this tweaked further. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• If something is not explicitly stated in the book then please just cite an episode or something; I don't have time to check every sentence. The whole paragraph is not verifiable on page 36.

* "otherwise, the challenge winner keeps their original position within the team." → no citation

• Removed as it's irrelevant to the gameplay anyway. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

* fn 16 is cited twice in one paragraph but it's the only source in the paragraph

• Tweaked, again, let me know if you want this differently. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• I still think the critical reception section is shorter than it could be.

• I feel like we've got a good handful here already, I'll see if I can track down a couple more later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• There's really only six reviews from critics (not counting Philbin or Berman which aren't really reviews), which isn't that much. I would say 10 is a better number. Heartfox (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Further comments above; these are the last ones. Heartfox (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Thanks for the follow-up. Done some, will come back to the others later this weekend. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

While this one's on the shorter side, I believe everything is covered thoroughly - this isn't the most large-scale topic. Formed in mid-1864, the unit was generally unkind to railroad property on multiple occasions, saw some minor fighting, and played a significant role in the Battle of Little Blue River. At some point in 1865, the unit dissolved, although the details are really hazy. What is known is that most of the unit's men didn't care enough to get their official surrender paperwork. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass: File:Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg is possibly PD but the licensing needs more documentation, we need to document Mileham's death date to apply the stated PD tag, and the creation of the painting is not equivalent to publication. (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Can the Price's Raid section be split into subsections for improved readability? (t · c) buidhe 03:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: - Couldn't find dod for Mileham, so I replaced it with a different artwork of Price's raid by a person confirmed to have died in 1914. I've also added three subheads to the Price's Raid section. Hog Farm _Talk 13:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• FN14: website isn't needed here
  • Removed.
• The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm _Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• the historian James McGhee believes that the unit did rejoin the Confederate army do you really need the first "the" here?
  • Not sure, so I've removed it both in the lead and in some similar phrasing in the body
• In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession, while Jackson and the pro-secession legislators voted to secede in November, joining the Confederate States of America and functioning as a government-in-exile. If the anti-secession state legislators voted against rejecting secession, how did the state actually join the Confederate States of America? confusing.
  • Missouri had two competing governments; I've tried to clarify this
• the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign can you link Atlanta campaign?
  • Linked
• gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan according to our article on 1864 United States presidential election, Lincoln won by more than an "edge". Therapyisgood (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "gave Lincoln an advantage in the election over McClellan" work better?

Are the changes made satisfactory for you, @Therapyisgood:? Hog Farm _Talk 23:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to hear someone outside of MILHIST comment on WP:LENGTH as it applies to this article before I support (ie is the article or sections too long?). Therapyisgood (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

• Don't think that the Boonville action is worth mentioning in the lede
  • Removed
• Most of the first para of the Background section needs to be compressed. All the reader really needs to know is that there were two competing gov'ts in the state and that the Union had de facto control.
  • I've got this paragraph compressed down to five sentences.
    • Great, but there are still unimportant or irrelevant facts therein. How does the guerilla warfare and Price's previous command of the Missouri State Guard relate to the regiment's history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Both of those are now gone. Anything else that needs trimmed? Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • That'll do, pig, that'll do. (See Babe if you can't place the phrase.)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ten companies of the regiment are known to have existed. One was designated with the letter G, and another with the letter H, while the designations of the other companies are unknown Suggest combining these along the lines of: "Ten companies are known to have existed, but the only confirmed designations are G and H companies" or somesuch
  • Done
• capture of Jones's Hay Station Proximity alert for the name; suggest changing it to "the station" or similar
  • Done
• link rear guard
  • Done
• Price ordered Shelby to form part of the pursuit of the retreating Union soldiers.[18] Nichols's regiment participated in the pursuit, which was unsuccessful. Combine these with along the lines of "Prince ordered Shelby and his brigade to participate in the unsuccessful pursuit of the Union soldiers" or something similar
  • Done
• hyphen for 300 men, rear guard action
  • I think I got these in the right place
• Can you explain a little more how the regiment allowed the Union troops to escape at the 2nd Battle of Lexington?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified - Also rephrased to make it clearer it was the whole brigade being out of position.
    • @Sturmvogel 66: - I've replied to all comments so far. Hog Farm _Talk 02:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support, non-MILHIST review and prose check, see FAC talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: - Since this one seems to be coming along pretty smoothly and has passed image and source reviews, may I have a dispensation for a second nomination? Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I would normally want to see a third support and for it to be three weeks since it was nominated. But I am happy to follow Ian's lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you may unleash another. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert review.

• Since the article is short on information, as stated by the nom above, I searched for additional sources on Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR, a (Canadian) university library, ProQuest and archive.org. I could not find additional sources so I believe this article represents the available information for this topic.
• "Jackman was elevated to brigade command, and Nichols took over leadership of the regiment." Remove the comma.
  • Done
• "with a Union surrender before the time Nichols's men arrived." Remove the time
  • Done
• In the References section, "Official Records 1902" points to The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, so the title is used to identify this source, not the editors. In "Kennedy 1998", the editor's name is used to point to The Civil War Battlefield Guide Either the editors should be used to identify the sources with an editor (recommended) or the title should be used. Please standardise (sorry if this is unclear)
  • Done

Those are all my comments. This article is well written and I struggled to find problems with it. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - All points have been addressed. Did I get everything done correctly? Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, support based on a prose review. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The 1975 (2019 song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change. If promoted, this will be the first green plus from the nominated Good Topic Notes on a Conditional Form (for which all credit goes to (CA)Giacobbe) to turn into a gold star. I'm confident that the article is comprehensive and look forward to suggestions for further tweaks and improvements. — Bilorv (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

• The song was released on 24 July 2019, - is it fair to say it was released as a single?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Check the footnote on this—"People" is now acknowledged as the lead single (implying that "The 1975" wasn't a single, because of the way it was/wasn't released), though some news reporters at the time of "The 1975"'s release were a bit lazy and threw the word "single" around. It's possible you could call this a promotional single but I looked for sources saying such and in their absence, I think that's original research. Let me know if the footnote placing isn't the best it can be to draw attention to this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• The band previously opened each of their albums with an eponymous song featuring the same lyrics; however, the fourth version deviates from this set of lyrics. - I don't know what this means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I could tell what it means. Unlike the band's other opener of albums that are self-titled, this one is not about oral sex. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It's the "featuring the same lyrics" bit that has poor wording... Same lyrics as what? I realise the answer is "same lyrics as each other", but on first reading this wasn't clear at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah I agree it had this ambiguity, but "shared set of lyrics" (and the other changes) hopefully fix this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• So, there are four albums, and all four start with a song called "The 1975", the first three have the same lyrics as each other, but this one was different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, exactly correct in the latter point here. I've tried to rephrase. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• In it - probably worth saying in the 2019 version, as "it" is a bit confusing to me given the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Our House Is on Fire" - caps needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Confusion abounds. In my copy of No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, the title is capitalised (minus "Is", but our style is to capitalise it), though you can find examples and non-examples of capitalised/uncapitalised speeches on Wikipedia e.g. Ain't I a Woman? vs Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I do think caps is right (it's a title of a work). There's also an italics/quotes question but I think the No One article is just wrong to be using both quotes and italics(!) and it seems like most articles are using quotes. So I'm defaulting to no change but let me know if you feel strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the question is not how it appears on the track, it's the capitalisation of the speech. I'm happy if that is how RS's describe the speech (and not the derivative work). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yep, I think that's the case. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Probably worth mentioning the relationship between Greta and Rebellion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The body mentions that the donation was at Thunberg's request, but though Thunberg and XR are conflated by news commentators, or perhaps part of the same phenomenon, I can't see any formal ties. She's spoken at an XR speech but hundreds of other organisations too—no more relation to XR than she has to the UK parliament. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• by the 1975 - by the band, or we're in super complicated territory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure. I realise this is a super difficult topic, due to this sort of thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• The band opened their encore with "The 1975" before the COVID-19 pandemic halted their touring. - probably worth mentioning "When touring in 2020, the band opened their encore with the song...." or it's confusing what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Does When touring in 2019 and 2020, prior to lockdowns for the COVID-19 pandemic, the band opened their encore with "The 1975". address the issue? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Much better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• We generally like images to have the face pointing towards the text, or on the right. Is there any reason to not right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No particular reason, changed to right-align. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• instead be an "era" of two albums, which were recorded together - this probably needs some explaination.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay how about just On 31 May 2018, the band announced that they were splitting the planned Music for Cars content into two albums.? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Much better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The 1975" is the opening track on the second of these two albums - this might be a litle confusing, because "The 1975" is also the title of the opening track of the first of these two albums. Perhaps change this around, and say "The second of these two albums opened with a track titled "The 1975". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Greta Thunberg. Thunberg - try to avoid repeating words like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Thunberg began skipping school - began to not attend... Skipping is a bit informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "missing school". — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• The "Our house is on fire", maybe this would be suitable as a WP:REDLINK? I'd be surprised if her speech wasn't notable in its own right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After some shuffling of other redirects (some editions of Scenes from the Heart are called Our House Is on Fire), linked Our House Is on Fire (speech) and created the page as a redirect to the appropriate section of Speeches of Greta Thunberg, marked with {{R with possibilities}} (I think notability is plausible). — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• The closing lyrics are: "So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel. - it's not really my favourite to say "these are the lyrics", without making commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The point of this bit is more to explain what the song is about but civil disobedience is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. I've replaced it with She says that the rules in place need to be changed and urges rebellion because it's a fair part of the speech in which she argues that rules in place are insufficient and acting within them is insufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Healy described the song as "quite beautiful superficially", but also "quite sad, quite pretty" and "quite ominous" - do we need to quote here? Couldn't we say "song as superficially beautiful but also sad and ominous." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

A song named "The 1975" with Great Thunberg?... Oh, it's not about sex. Thank god. Otherwise, I would've sworn the song was about a sex doll of her....... I'm not kidding, that exists.

Great work on 1975 articles. I find they get bloated at points, but they're great nonetheless, although that's for another discussion. This article looks really well put together, as the prose is understandable and most of the sources are reliable. However, I have a few major issues:

• The first paragraph of "Background and recording" has no place in this article. It doesn't connect to anything else, and the only relevant point is that it's the first track on a single album. Readers have the respective album articles if they want to learn more about the history of those.
  • I'm going to push back on this: it's normal to give surrounding context to minor works within a broader context e.g. on the Black Mirror articles I've been working on, they all have a paragraph about the series they're within (example: top of San Junipero#Production). Odd coincidence in that series 3/4 of Black Mirror were originally commissioned as series 3 and then split into 2, and Music for Cars was originally album 3 and then split to albums 3/4. Another example that springs to mind is the Boat Race individual articles, number of GAs must be in the three digits by now (example: The Boat Race 1909#Background). As for the connection here, a lot of the secondary coverage about this song talks about how it was used on Notes on a Conditional Form (transition into "People", used to set the tone for the album), and it connects to a lot of "Release and promotion" content. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I am well aware (and have written and edited) many articles have background sections to establish context. However, these sections usually cover the parts of a wider context that most affect or relate to the rest of the article. I see zero how an album being split into two affected how this song was made, released and promoted. Am I missing it? 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • How the song was made—as part of the Music for Cars "era" of the band's music, which means that its production cycle overlapped with other songs in that era and they used the recording studios that they were using at the time and perhaps (depending on who you ask) there's a common musical style. The article later mentions some ideas about this being part of how both albums marked a transition to more overtly political messaging. (And the background ambient music in this song is the same sort of stuff they use on A Brief Inquiry... and elsewhere on NOACF, so clearly written/produced as part of the same sessions, but that's original research on my part.) How it was released—the initial early date that Healy promised followed by continual rescheduling led to a lot of the NOACF album music being released prior to the album dropping. If it had been one album or released on time then this song would be part of another album, or never recorded, or would have been recorded several months earlier. How it was promoted—promoted on tours for Music for Cars (including tours for the first of the two albums). In essence, the production cycle was not of two consecutive albums (in which case I wouldn't mention the previous album). The production cycle was two albums at once. Maybe I can draw out some of these connections in the paragraph in some way? — Bilorv (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Point taken. I didn't catch that connection at first when writing. I just thought sentences said the songs of both albums were more political than previous albums, and that they had four tracks from Notes ready as of 2019. I didn't connect or catch those were a result of the album split. I can't tell if I didn't read closely enough or if the article could've made this clearer to the reader, but I would do what you're suggesting nonetheless to be safe. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Alright, see what you think about the newer iteration of this paragraph. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Now removed the paragraph entirely as initially suggested per feedback below. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Shouldn't the type= feature in the Infobox template be "Promotional single"? It obviously wasn't first released as part of the album release.
  • Talked about this above—would be original research to call it a promotional single, in my view. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reception section, although well-paraphrased, suffers from having that "A argued B" thing WP:RECEPTION frowns up.
  • Can you give an example or two? I have actually used Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections immeasurably often over the last few years and it's what I was going for here (assuming this is the page you meant—WP:RECEPTION actually didn't redirect there even though listed as a shortcut, but I've boldly changed that). They say "Avoid 'A said B'. ... Variants include 'A of B said C' and 'A said that B'." I've aimed to use a good mixture of those and vary sentence rhythme and combine reviewers' points where possible, but at a certain point I think summaries of reviews are a bit constricted in possible formats so feel a bit repetitive. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, on a second closer look, this is actually well done. I suspected it used a "A said B" format because the first half of the section seemed to be just a list of opinions. The opinions are actually consolidated in the first paragraph, in that they're about how the song handled Greta's message. I'll admit I rushed to judgement when I made this statement. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • However, I feel this part is pretty quotefarm-ism despite being about the same topic: "A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car.[55] Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine described it as "soul-stirring".[24] A PopMatters reviewer saw it as "evocative and gripping", while Madison Feller of Elle said that the "pretty stunning" track gave her chills.[18][56] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack analysed the speech as "intelligent and stirring".[57]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, this was a weaker passage. I think fewer examples can get the point across so I've gone with: A number of critics felt emotional when listening to the song, including Dillon Eastoe of Gigwise, who had to "pull over and cry" upon first hearing it in the car, and Madison Feller of Elle, who got chills from the song.[57][58] The Big Issue's Malcolm Jack and Mitch Mosk of Atwood Magazine found it stirring.[59] I think it's an appropriate amount of weight to one of the most major axes of feedback, but if it's still belabouring the point then maybe I could even just contract it to just mentioning the two reviewers who found it stirring, and the rest as additional references. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Additionally, I wouldn't use an opinion from the Washington Examiner, a conservative publication that, like other far-right publications, is filled with climate denialism. If he's writing that "climate change was not the issue that should be sparking global protests" and the journalist that wrote that also prominently appears on Fox News, it's very likely he's denying the issue of climate change, or trying to bullshit his way looking like he thinks it's an issue while writing for a source that doesn't. I would not give validity to such an questionable claim as that.
  • Alright, WP:RSP notes some disputes over the reliability of the source but this comment and the idea here of avoiding WP:FRINGE have pushed me to remove it. But to clarify a couple of the facts, I'll note that Schultz is a woman, and I don't see any connection to Fox News. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
  • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
  • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
  • Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would think that either option would be appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, done a mixture in the end depending on what I think worked best. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think that is the best way to address this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
  • Correct interpretation, Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
  • Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think "produced under" sounds better so that works with me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
  • Alright, fair enough, kept in "Background" only. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
  • Removed (I think someone else added this as I also find these quite EASTER-y). — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• In the note, the four citations seem like an example of citation overkill and I would recommend bundling the citations to avoid this.
  • I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
  • IABot was down when I tried this last, but now done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• IABot can be quite temperamental at times so I understand that lol. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.
  • No, I did search for this but I couldn't find anything with a non-trivial mention. I think you're right about it maybe being too recent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope my comments are helpful. I have focused on the prose and will leave the sources, images, and media to other editors. Once everything is addressed, I will support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. :) — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note--I replaced the graphics with plain text, cue FAC advice: "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." HĐ (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry about that, HĐ. I have read that before but it's a habit from GA and I completely forgot. — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  • • No worries. Good luck with the nomination! HĐ (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Giacobbe[edit]

Great work on this article. It's a great read, informative, and meets all the FA criteria. I can't think of any issues that haven't already been addressed by the above posters, so it's a support from me! Giacobbe ^talk 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, (CA)Giacobbe, I appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Tom[edit]

After reading the article several times, I think that the prose looks great, the references are very well organized, and the media is appropriately used throughout the article. The only thing I think is a little bit redundant and not directly related to the article itself, is the first paragraph of the 'Background and recording' section. It seems to be more appropriate for the album article. Nevertheless, I will Support, and leave the decision of removing or not removing the section to the nominator. — Tom(T2ME) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you're the second person to raise this, consider it done. However, I have moved the sentence saying it's the opening track of Notes on a Conditional Form to "Release and promotion" as I think it wouldn't make sense without it. Let me know if you think this change introduces any problems or confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! I think the article is in great shape now. Congrats! This most definitely deserves the golden star. :) — Tom(T2ME) 12:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• File:The 1975 - The 1975 (2019 song).jpg: Use, licence and rationale seem fine for me except for the broken Spotify link.
• File:Greta Thunberg at the Parliament (46705842745) (cropped).jpg: Licence and use seem fine for me.
• File:The 1975 (2019 song).ogg: In light of the in-text discussion, I think this one meets WP:NFCC#8 and the other inclusion criteria.
• File:Extinction Rebellion, green placard (cropped).jpg: License and use seem OK for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Spotify link with a magazine that uses the exact cover art (at a higher resolution than we do) and a permanent archive link. Not sure where the ALT text is missing—don't think the audio needs one (though it does have captions). — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

My bad on the "felt emotional" bit, and this is now something I can support for FA following its improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Who is the host of Sound Like A Plan?
  • Greg Cochrane, a journalist who's written for NME, the BBC and The Guardian. Also the musician Fay Milton (of Savages). Reliable coverage of the podcast in NME and Kerrang!. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• FN13 is missing author
• What makes pedestrian.tv a high-quality reliable source? Dork? Consequence of Sound?
  • (1) Pedestrian.tv is used as a primary source interview, and it's a video, so they just need to be reliable enough that we're confident the video hasn't been falsified, tampered with or selectively edited. You can read a bit about the publication in MediaWeek (a trade magazine) and Sydney Morning Herald—it's published by Pedestrian Group, associated with lots of reliable sources in Australia. It's journalists are paid professionals and it has a way to submit corrections. (2) Removed Dork. (3) Consequence of Sound just needs to be significant for opinion, as it's used with attribution under "Reception". It's one of the most significant indie music publications worldwide, and as such is cited very frequently by some of the most widely-distributed music publications: three recent examples from NME, Rolling Stone and the BBC. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Fn29 has the date in the wrong parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Two fixes and two replies—thanks for your review. — Bilorv (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

Nominator(s): Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Journalist. Politician. Rebellion Leader. William Lyon Mackenzie held many roles and got into a lot of trouble. He tried to reform the Upper Canada political system (what is now known as Ontario, Canada) and became Toronto's first mayor. He led the Upper Canada Rebellion, went a little crazy, and fled to the United States when government forces defeated the rebels. He organised an invasion of Upper Canada with American volunteers but was arrested by the American government and pardoned by President Van Buren. Upon his return to Canada, he became a politician and ranted against government proposals.

There are too many people to thank for their comments, both informally and in the PRs and GAN, so I will post a note on their talk page. I hope you enjoy reviewing this important biography in Canadian history as much as I enjoyed researching it. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive1#SandyGeorgia SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

• Reform movement. - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed
• He is considered the best-known Reformer of the early-1800s. - bit wishy to me. Best-known could mean two things here. The best known person who was a reformer, or the person best known for being a reformer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What about "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Much better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Dundee, Scotland - no need to link Scotland. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed
• gold medal and chain - is this a gold medal and a chain, or a gold medal and gold chain? (Or, a medal and chain combination that is gold). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't say, and the source says the medal was worth £250 so I removed "and chain" Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838) - do we need this info/navbox here? Seems out of place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This was placed before I started editing the article. I tried moving it to the bottom of the article but the formatting was weird. I am not sure if it should go somewhere else, so I removed it, as most of those links are in the article already. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, doesn't need to be there. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Is Rensselaer Van Rensselaer part of the Van Rensselaer (family)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. The family name is wikilinked later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Small suggestion - create a redirect for the name to that article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I am keeping Rensselaer Van Rensselaer as a red link in case his own article is created in the future. I changed the wikilink of "his family name" to "the Van Rensselaer family name" so its clearer where the wikilink is going. Z1720 (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• He was released on $5,000 (equivalent to $120,547 in 2019) - hmm, this article uses GBP in most places. If we are to use a converter, perhaps they should all go to pounds? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Something similar was expressed by a previous reviewer. I think most readers would understand that Mackenzie is paying his bail and fines in USD because he was arrested by the American legal system. Would posting the inflation in GBP cause the reader wonder why the inflation is calculated to a different currency? Also, would the conversion from USD to GBP happen before inflation is calculated, or after? I decided to keep the inflation converstion in USD because it was the simplest thing to do at the time. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

• Mostly all fine. No real issues. Seems very good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lee, responses above. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: in case they didn't see the responses above. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Naught to worry about, happy to support, but I have made some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Lee, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I've got this weekend off work, so I'll try to review this over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 23:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I am in the same boat. As the review is lengthy, I am going to unwatch for now; please ping me when Johannes Schade is finished reviewing (and I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear User:SandyGeorgia It seems I deleted your comment above by working on an old version. I am so sorry this happened. I am finished with my contribution here, if it was one. Z1720 and I got both a bit tired of it. You say "I would suggest they move the lengthy review to talk". I have move the conversation to Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie. With thanks, apologies, and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I put a copy of JS's review on WLM's FAC talk page. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "In 1834, York became the city of Toronto and Mackenzie was elected by the city council to be its first mayor, but he was not reelected the following year." - This makes it sound a bit like he lost election, when he really wasn't actively running. Rephrase?
  • What about, "He declined the Reformer's nomination to run in the 1835 municipal election."
    • That would work wonderfully.
      • Done
• ". He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - Not sure that the hyphen is needed
  • Removed
• What the Family Compact was is explained in the lead, but not really in the body.
  • Removed pre-1833 references to the Family Compact, explained who they were when they were named by Mackenzie in Sketches of Upper Canada in 1833.
• Second paragraph of Election to the Legislative Assembly, four of five sentences all start with "He". Can this be varied some?
  • Replaced one "He" with "Mackenzie". I tried rearranging sentences but it's difficult in this section. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "with each new constituency (also known as a riding) " - Piped link Riding (division)#Canada?
  • Done
• "Van Rensselaer, Mackenzie and 24 supporters occupied Navy Island on December 14" - Link Navy Island
  • Done
• "Durham sent an agent to interview Mackenzie, who reported that Mackenzie's grievance was with the composition of the Legislative Council vague references "to lift the hand of tyranny from the soil" - Something seems off here grammatically to me. Missing a word?
  • The grammar was off, I reworded this sentence. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "calling the legislature illegitimate after the Governor-General reinstated the Mackenzie-Cartier Administration without an election" - Is this an error for Macdonald-Cartier?
  • Not sure what you mean. Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it should be "Macdonald-Cartier Administration" based on context, rather than "Mackenzie-Cartier Administration". Is this correct?
      • You are correct. Fixed.
• "He is the most recognizable Reformer of the early-1800s." - From the lead - I didn't see this explicitly stated in the body
  • From "Historical reputation" section: "Historian Albert Schrauwers described Mackenzie as the "best-known reformer" of the early 1800s." Lee stated above that the meaning was unclear, so I changed "best-known" to "most recognizable" in the lede. Should I also change the wording in the body and remove the quotation marks? Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No, it's fine as is. Just me not seeing something.

Good work. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: - replies above. Getting close to supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 18:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Replied above. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    • • Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2 b, 2c, 4, and source reliability and formatting. Did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
  • Added info in the body. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I cross-referenced the lede and the body to fix this. It's ready for another check. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
  • Removed the ones that would be off-topic to explain, added info for the ones that were not described. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
  • Done
• FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
  • Added
• FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
  • Added. The other articles are accessed with online editions of the sources and a link is provided. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
  • They should be oldest-first, but the Gates sources were in the wrong order. I fixed it. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
  • I removed the archive link. I think it broke because it couldn't archive the Proquest website. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
  • Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
  • I assume you are referring to Dent. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Done
• Hamil is missing publisher
  • Fixed
• What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
  • A review of his book was conducted in the The Canadian Historical Review, an academic journal: [11]. It was republished by McGill-Queen's University Press [12] and Carleton University Press [13] Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • WorldCat and Google say Dundurn, so I changed Gates's reference to Dundurn. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Nikkimaria. I have commented above. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, a few days ago an editor converted the newspaper articles from <ref> to sfn. Do you have any concerns about this change? Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's not required, and if you were so inclined you could revert per CITEVAR. But if that is not an issue it's not a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't mind the change, just wanted to make sure it didn't change the result of your source review. Z1720 (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by GP![edit]

• Support: As the GA reviewer for this article a few months ago, I have watched its steady improvement over the past several weeks and have deliberately refrained from commenting here until some other uninvolved editors had a chance to look. Their reviews in tow, I am confident that my own impression has been confirmed, which is that this article is incisive, well-written, well-referenced, comprehensive, neutral, and interesting, representing the very best of what Wikipedia has to offer. As such, I am delighted to offer my support to this FA nomination (based on assessment of criteria 1, 2, and 4 ... I have not independently examined images). Go Phightins! 22:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Royal Calcutta Turf Club[edit]

Nominator(s):  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating the article, as I couldn't complete it last time due to being tested positive for COVID. I have tried to solve the issues mentioned last time (except 1-2 things which I am currently doing).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from buidhe[edit]

• Image licensing looks satisfactory. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• "Horse races were initially organised for the British cavalry" - this is implied by the text but not explicitly supported

• done: Changed races to events  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The same issue exists with that, though: the text says horse events were popular with the cavalry, and then goes on to say organised races were held at Akra, but doesn't explicitly say that they were organised for the British. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• "RCTC-organised races were among the most important social events of the bigwigs' calendar" - source?

• "At the opening of the Christmas..."  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• That sentence states that Christmas race week was an important social event; it does not say that races (plural) were "among the most" important. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Calcutta Derby Sweeps, organised by the RCTC, was the world's largest sweepstake in the 1930s" - given the note about potential miscalculation, is this claim adequately supported?
• FN29 doesn't link to anything
• What makes racingpulse a high-quality reliable source? puronokolkata? Bhattacherje? Golf Doctor?

• How to determine a source as high-quality reliable source?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• See this guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• 'PuronoKolkata' article is backed by sources. Racingpulse is managed by journalist. 'Golf Doctor' is from The Charlotte Post.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Golf Doctor source is supporting a historical claim rather than any sort of contemporary account for which a journalistic source would be more likely to be presumed notable. Being managed by a journalist doesn't automatically make something reliable. Regarding puronokolkata, how do we know that sources have been correctly interpreted? What is the expertise of the author? Are there fact-checking procedures in place? And what about Bhattacherje? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Basu has a typo in location

• Sorry, couldnt find the mistake.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• It has the name as 'Kolkota' while all others use 'Kolkata'. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• done: Corrected  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• When are you including publication location?

• Was unaware of this.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Sources - sometimes you're including "The" in the alphabetization and other times not
• The newspapers.nl.sg links don't appear to be working
• There are no citations to the Obituary in the Sources list, and the link is broken.

• done: removed it.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

There seems to be little sign of this gathering a consensus to promote. If it has not attracted more interest by the time it has hit the three week mark I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64[edit]

Gonna leave some comments soon. I may make slight edits while I go through, as I think it'll be easier than just leaving comments on minor points. JOEBRO64 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Yo, TheJoebro64, pinging you bro. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. I've read the article fully and don't see really anything to nitpick. My only issue was a minor quirk in the Writing section; the "they" in "They agreed to use 'Jones' instead" refers to Spielberg, Kasdan, and Lucas all, correct? I think it should be clarified because it's the start of a new paragraph. Otherwise I don't think I need to hold this up much longer so I'm throwing in a support. JOEBRO64 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Changed, thanks TheJoebro64!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

Excited to review this. BTW, given the comments you've received on your previous, if you'd like to review other featured articles in the review, I would strongly encourage it. I'm planning some film FA nominations in the future, although I don't have any right now.

Initial comments and lead

• I'll start out by saying every citation here is from reliable sources and formatted perfectly from a skimthrough, so that's a good sign.
• Poster doesn't have WP:ALT description.
• "While the pair had ideas for notable scenes in the film" Clarify. Are we meaning concepts for scenes that would be known years after release, or scenes that are the most essential in progressing the plot?
• An oddity I noticed with the locations listed. I get why La Rochelle and Tunisia were there because they were filmed the most prominently judging by the filming section, and I get Hawaii because even though it was filmed there for one scene, it was filmed in several areas of the state for the scene. However, I don't know why the entire state of California is listed. Only one scene used only one location of California, a University. Additionally, by that logic, shouldn't England also be listed since it was also used for one scene in location of the country, Rickmansworth?

More comments coming soon to a theater near you. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Added an ALT caption for the poster. I changed the lead part to setpieces and stunts. The gist of it from my research is they had an idea like "Oh let's have a big boulder chase Indy" and it was Kasdan's job to get Indy in front of the boulder and then NOT in front of the boulder, if that helps understanding. England is technically mentioned but not in an on location capacity so I've reworded and took out California. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi HumanxAnthro, did you see my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the delayed reactions yet again. A result of juggling everything at once. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Are you by any chance hoping to get this featured on the main page for its 40th anniversary in June? Either way, here are some comments:

• File:Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• Since there's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Harrison Ford by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg, File:Steven Spielberg by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg, File:Philip Kaufman 03.jpg, File:Lawrence Kasdan by Gage Skidmore.jpg, File:Frank Marshall Deauville 2012.jpg, File:Sahara close to Tozeur (Tunisia).jpg, File:Disneyindytruck1.jpg, File:Ark of covenant replica.jpg. File:Paul Freeman.jpg, File:Richard Edlund 1 (2).jpg (an extract from File:Richard EDLUND 1.jpg), are the uploaders' own works as claimed
• I'm unsure what to say about the licensing for File:Karenallen17 cropped.jpg. It isn't clear whether the file you derived this from (File:KarenAllen17.jpg) is something the original poster took on their own or got from elsewhere. File:Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.jpg has a similar ambiguity.
• No copyright concerns with File:George Walton Lucas.jpg, File:Tom Selleck at PaleyFest 2014.jpg. File:Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (cropped).jpg, File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Berlin, Aufmarsch der SA in Spandau.jpg, File:Indy and Marion.jpg. Just maybe remove the italics from years in some captions.
• What benefit does File:John Williams The Raiders' March from Raiders of the Lost Ark.ogg provide aside from serving as an ear-treat for fans? Don't get me wrong; I very much enjoy the theme song myself, just not seeing how it meets WP:NFCC#8.
• Are trailers really appropriate to include as external links? It comes off as promotional.
• Even though it seems to be a free upload, File:Sean Connery (1983).jpg feels decorative here and would be better for the Last Crusade article since that's when we're introduced to Henry Jones Sr.

More to come later. From a glance at the prose, I'll say now that "notable" from "notable scenes" is inappropriate POV and editiorializing, and that you could link to Indiana Jones (character) in the "Cast" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
• I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Following sufficient improvements, I'm happy to give my support! You're also welcome for that and the assessments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from A. Parrot[edit]

• Drive-by comment from A. Parrot. The article is certainly comprehensive—approaching it from an Egyptological viewpoint, I certainly appreciate the thematic analysis—but it may actually be too much so. I know the article was trimmed somewhat in response to Sandy's peer review, but it's still at 11,593 words. As much as size limits tend to be ignored these days, I feel like the level of detail here may tax even a fairly determined reader, and there's a lot that doesn't feel entirely on-topic. For instance, while the gist of the "context" section is certainly relevant, there's no reason why we need details about which movies were projected to do best that season. Similarly, the section on accolades doesn't need to list the nominees that Raiders lost to (many FAs on Oscar-nominated films don't do that, and if readers really want to know, they can click on the article for the Oscars that year). A. Parrot (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Parrot, thanks for your comments. I understand your perspective, but I will say that personally I regularly read these articles top the bottom with ease, particularly Groundhog Day and Ghostbusters II, which are of comparable length, Groundhog Day in particular because it's just a fascinating read, if I do say so myself. I don't think length is the issue as much as fluff and I agree, and as you say I have culled it quite a bit since the peer review. I can remove the award winners, I just felt this was a natural way of linking to more overlooked articles, since even as an 80s child I have never heard of some of them and would otherwise never come across the articles, which in turn may lead to the improvement of those articles. However, I'm not bound to that and can remove them if you prefer. The context section I feel is more important because it's setting the stage for what is expected to do well versus Raiders, which is kind of a meh on pre-release. Mainly it establishes that superheroics and comedy are the ones meant to do well. This is something I thought worked really well on Ghostbusters II which is the alternate, that Ghostbusters II is meant to do well and it ended up not doing so. I think especially with older films like this, where the history isn't just "and then we sent everything to the CGI department", and where it's history is occurring over multiple decades, it will veer on the longer side to do it justice. Anyway, let me know what you think A. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the point about box office expectations can be made more succinctly. When an article exceeds 10,000 words, I think it's advisable to start summarizing instead of detailing wherever possible. A. Parrot (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed it down a little, I know that HumanxAnthro is good at this stuff as well so it will likely come up in his review. As with the Die Hard review however, I will mention the themes section is 1,100 words and supplemental to the topic of the film itself, but a requirement of this level, and so it is difficult to cut 1,100 words to compensate for that section. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

As a frequent FA reviewer, I can tell you a lot of experienced reviewers get pretty strict with making sure there's context or background for everything, to the point of comicality and violating 4 of the FA criteria at points. I think, however, context sections are useful in plenty of instances, box office sections included, especially since major studio films get released in these economic contexts and are possibly affected by them. I have to say that where DarkwarriorBlake's Box Office sections go too far is bringing up the grosses of other films on the weeks the main subject debuted or ran.👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's VERY tight, but I've bought it down to exactly 10,000 words not including the themes section, so that's 10000 words relating to the film itself, and I trimmed some of the BO section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Huaynaputina[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, the first nomination didn't work out but at least one editor who had raised concerns back then appears to have been satisfied by changes performed at Peer Review, so I am trying again. This article is about a rather unimpressive-looking volcano in Peru which in 1600 had a major eruption. This eruption devastated the surrounding region and caused worldwide climate change, including one of Russia's worst famines. Pinging participants of the PR, these mentioned there and of the previous FAC: @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, Ceranthor, SandyGeorgia, AhmadLX, Heartfox, Buidhe, and Z1720: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler[edit]

• Making a placeholder for myself. Won't say much for now beyond smoothing the language in the early sentence: "Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andean Volcanic Belt, it is the product of the subduction of the oceanic Nazca tectonic plate beneath the continental part of the South American tectonic plate." Why so cumbersome? Why not something like:

• "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it was formed when the oceanic Nazca Plate subducted under the continental South American Plate and its molten contents were forced up?"

• Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Would something like, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate and by the former's molten contents being forced up" be better? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• OK, then how about, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate whose mantle in molten form has been forced up."? (i.e. without going into the finer details of the process at this stage, but then adding a sentence or two in an appropriate later section.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph, lead

• During the Holocene,

• "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.

• Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."

• Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,

• Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.

• Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)

I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• this eruption measured 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index

• This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions

• Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."

• infrastructure a

• "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.

• Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)

• It's a bit more the modern meaning, not simply architecture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• economic resources

• This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.

• Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.

• I don't think it's that much specified beyond "agriculture". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.

• There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.

• Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.

• (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.

• That is probably a better formulation, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph, lead

• Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.

• Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina

• lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.

• Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."

• Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area.

• "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
• "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."

• That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.

• occurred--> were to occur
• likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the lead. I hope I haven't made any typos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• Text-source integrety okay per previous FAC. I did noticed two more citations with improper name formatting. In FN 151, van den is part of the surname. In FN176 there is a double surname again formatted as a non-Spanish surname. Check if that is consistent throughout. FN160 seems dead. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Femkemilene:Corrected, with the catch that I don't know much about the formatting of Spanish (sur)names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

AhmadLX[edit]

• I still think a number of technical terms need to be explained a little. Holocene, for example, should be described; something like "Holocene, the current geological epoch, ...". I will list others as I go through the article.

  Thanks for that, AhmadLX. I've added a note for Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the Southern Volcanological Observatory." Any latest information on this? Did they do so or just said and forgot it afterwards;).

  Well, this is an odd one. Google News has both an article in 2020 saying the SVO will be ready in February 2021 but earlier articles that say it already exists. This one implies it already exists. Not sure how to resolve this. I've added the seismic monitoring part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Andes not linked at its first instance.

  Isn't the lead link enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay fine.

• "Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)." This is vague. Is its base at that elevation (as "lies" would suggest)? Or the highest point on the rim? Or the floor of the amphitheatre? Should be changed to something like "The summit of Huaynaputina lies at an elevation of about 4,850 metres (15,910 ft)."

  The source does not specify and none of the others I've seen discusses this aspect. I am guessing that the unusual morphology of the volcano makes it hard to assign it a height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This one says "Summit Elevation 4850 m (15912 ft)".

Hmmm. That source does not explain how it comes to that conclusion and the last digit (0) makes me wonder if they are approximating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It is the very source that you've used in the article to support the elevation thing.

Yes, but as I've said this volcano does not quite have a "summit" so I am wary of interpreting it as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tephra, Speleothems: short description.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The duration of the eruption is not well constrained but may have lasted up to 12–19 hours.[94] The event ended on 6 March with ash fall;" What was happening between 20 February and 6 March?

  Added a sentence, but I invite suggestions on how to reduce the two mentions of "ash fall". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for over/about two weeks and ended on 6 March."?

Yeah, that's better; implemented it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "It has been proposed as a marker for the onset of the Anthropocene." Important term; short description.

  I admit, the source there does not bother to actually state an explicit definition of the term and its importance; it's more like several allusions. Do you have a proposed explanation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the controversy regarding the exact starting point of the epoch is not relevant here. We can just brief that it is a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable. This can be helpful.

I agree that the controversy doesn't matter, but even from the source currently used it doesn't seem like everybody defines it as "a period in Earth's history in which human impact on global climate has been considerable." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you need links for crops and livestock.

  Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "...while in Moquegua children were reportedly running around and women screaming." This has nothing to do with "Religious response".

  True, but I don't see a better place for it and it's kind of important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO, it is completely trivial. People scream in every disaster. There is nothing unusual about it to warrant a mention here. If people didn't scream and run around in such an event, that would be something of a note.

I am going to disagree on this one. I think that sentence helps underscore that this was an actual human tragedy rather than a statistical pattern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "56.59 million tons Global [200]". [200] cites Gao et al. 2008 for the value. I couldn't find anything on Huaynaputina there.

  No, but Gao et al. 2008 points to this database which has the value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The Huaynaputina eruption[133] decreased the amount on solar energy reaching Earth by about 1.9 W/m2." Please add % drop.

  The source doesn't mention a percentage and I am kind of iffy of applying WP:CALC here; insolation variations while small are non-trivial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Iceland, Canada, Taiwan, California (I'm not sure about the other US states but this one is certainly well-known), Kazakhstan, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Switzerland, England, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Taiwan (again), Thailand, Japan, Korea, Nepal. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:Is there any other problem that needs addressing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Although I believe that several of my concerns were dismissed through unconvincing arguments (both here and in PR), I, nonetheless, think that this now meets the criteria. so I support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Quechua name of Waynaputina from the infobox should be mentioned in the names section

  Removed it pending a source as I can't find anything endorsing that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely for sure what the value of link to List of volcanoes in Peru in the infobox is

  For people who want to know more about Peruvian volcanoes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is the redirect El Misti the correct link in the context of " Other volcanoes in this zone from northwest to southeast include Sara Sara, Coropuna, Ampato, Sabancaya, El Misti, Ubinas, Ticsani, Tutupaca and Yucamane"?

  Yes, it's a common name for that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The event continued with earthquakes and ash fall for about two weeks[82] and ended on 6 March;[5] the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600 - is the " an error, or is it an unclosed quote?

  An error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• "the Huayruro Project began in 2015 and aims to rediscover these towns" - Any update on this?

  Not that much, and what little there is is a bit too specific I think. It's more about the towns than the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• While the flora of the volcano is mentioned, fauna don't seem to be. Even if wildlife is not present on the volcano in significant numbers, I feel like that should be mentioned.

  The problem is that there is no source definitively discussing fauna in the context of Huaynaputina. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• The external link is dead and should be removed or archived. If it doesn't add anything significant, just remove it.

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't see where the 500,000 age of rock figure from the infobox appears in the body; I may have missed it.

  It's not based on anything, just typical infobox OR. I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not all of the non-English sources state which language they are in; this should be added for all non-English sources.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm _Talk 21:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:Replied to queries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, with the understanding that the article will be updated in the future if studies on fauna on the volcano are performed. Did not check other criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 17:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

London and North Western Railway War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Image review

• Images are missing alt texts
• File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

SupportI supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Thryduulf

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.

• The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
  • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
• Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
  • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
• Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
  • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
• Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Comments from Nick-D

I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:

• The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
• The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
• Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

• Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
• Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
• Put the citations above the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by 👨x🐱[edit]

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD.

• Infobox image has no alt description.
• Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
• There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
• More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
• Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
• "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
• "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
• "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
• "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
• Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
• Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
• "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
• Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
• "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
• " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
• Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
• Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
• "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
• Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
• Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
• "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.

Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

1987 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • removed. I thought it was a commons image.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?

• I've tweaked the lead slightly, hopefully for the better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).

• It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could be worth a footnote, IMO, to clarify this. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena

• I've amended the lead as I didn't find a reference for him being the youngest winner in tournament history. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.

• I've linked the first instance to "foul" at Glossary of cue sports terms BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Downer needs a publisher.

• It's a self-published source, but I think it's fair to say that he is regarded as an expert. The book is sold via Snooker Scene. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.

• I normally check source reliability in my reviews, but I'm not familiar with these snooker sources at all, so I'll have to leave that for someone else. Hog Farm _Talk 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the constructive review Hog Farm. I've tried to address all of the points that you raised - let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, source formatting, and 4; did not check others or was not familiar enough with subject matter. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Please consider this a non-expert review.

• "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.

• Amended, but could perhaps still be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
  • Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.

• The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a shame, as players usually get a fine for this! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm fine with leaving it in if the source can't verify additional info. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?

• Yes, I've amended the prize fund section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.
  • I've reworded this (as per a suggestion to comment on "snookers required"), hopefully this is a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

More comments will come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.

• I think this is a feature of the reference template. Help:Citation Style 1 says "When an author is cited, the date of the cited work is displayed after the author's name ... If no author is cited, the date appears after the title". Let me know if there are any exceptions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?

• It's a self-published source sold via the magazine Snooker Scene. I think it's fair to say that the work is well-regarded. It's mentioned here as "a key resource for commentators and journalists alike." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first round. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Round two, just one comment:

• "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion

Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Added additonal comment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I added two comments above, and one below:

• For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.

• I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support from Pawnkingthree[edit]

• I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[edit]

• 1987 Embassy World Snooker Championship could be created as a plausible redirect to this article.

• Created. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.

• Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?

• Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• What about: "and had high odds against winning the tournament." or similar. The article goes into the details, and this would be a summary - but also make it clear it was the bookmakers who were against Johnson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.

• I've removed it as there was only the one 127 break, but would be happy to reinstate it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.

• added some content. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.

• Removed repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?

• That would be single-elimination tournament, which we already linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.

• Amended BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.
• "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.

• Amended, by deleting the earlier reference to this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?

• The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.
• "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"

• Amended - I didn't include the "and" because there's one soon after, so this could probably be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "wasn't" avoid contractions.

• Amended - also changed to "and was not" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "best-of-25 held" +frames.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?
• "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.

• Hyphens removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?

• Discussed below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Crop the Foulds image to get rid of the clown...!
  • You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• "in frame 7; allowing" no need for the semi-colon.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Link maximum break.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.

• cuegloss link added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
• Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.
• "This was the" +also.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "last red ball when" you link red ball here?
• "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?

• Even top players sometimes miss the object ball with the cue ball..so there is a difference, although perhaps "missed a red" is still better as a commonly-understood term? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, I get it. I'd never thought of it that way, maybe just "failed to pot a red"? It's just a mouthful right now to equate to "missed a red" (albeit now I understand the possible ambiguity here now!) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• You link yellow ball but not green or pink...

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.

• Agreed. Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

• "winners.[17][16][78]" order.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• "first frameof the" space.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?

• 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would just add "beating the previous record of 135 by Spencer" or words to that effect. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've had a go, but I'm not delighted with my wording. Maybe make this a footnote rather than body text? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 71, en-dash.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?

• Only because it's in the {{National Heritage List for England}} template. I have added the param that removes this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 30 is BBC Sport.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• As is ref 40.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Consistent ISBN formats.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dupplin Moor[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful

Done.

• Regarding the coats of arms, suggest having a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole. If these are kept, several are missing sources.

They have been removed.

• File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?

Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, would I be correct in assuming that there was more to come by way of a source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Will get to it later today. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nicholson 1961
  • "whom Edward I had deposed in 1296" exact words copied from the source. Should be rephrased.

Rephrased. And cite changed to Sumption 1990.

• • "Almost immediately" This doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which appears to say it happened 2 months later

Less than two months is almost immediately in Medieval terms. (On 17 October 1346 David II was captured by Edward III. His ransom negotiations overran and he was released in October 1357.) Changed to "Within two months Balliol granted ..."

• • Nicholson 1961, p. 126. — there's no page 126 in the source.

Apologies. Well spotted. Thank you. Wrong Nicholson work. They should have cited the 1974 one. Fixed.

• Webster 2004
  • "The Second War of Scottish Independence which had started with Balliol's invasion finally ended in 1357" I cannot verify this in the source which never mentions any "war of Scottish independence".

Grr! I used this to show when the war ended, having already established its name in an earlier sentence - which I deleted along with the cite in the copy edit! Now nailed down at each corner. (Can I cite to the title of a book?)

(t · c) buidhe 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that Buidhe, your comments so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks.

• between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?

That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.

• Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline

Done.

• Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?

Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.

It's not a job title; it's a title of nobility--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?

The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)

• Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...

Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...

Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)

• I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Fixed.

Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Patterson 1996 seems to be unused

Odd, but fixed.

• It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation

Oops. Now covered in main text.

• In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.

Done.

• Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.

Fixed.

• Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?

Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm _Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

• pike equipped, infantry hyphenate pike equipped, delete the last comma

That's not quite what the source says, so I have changed it to "pike-equipped ordinary infantry".

• Remove the adjectival command from the template for 600 feet

Done.

• were more able to use their weapons Suggest "had more room to use/swing..."

What do you think about "had room to use their weapons more effectively"?

• Put Ormrod in alphabetical order

Done.

• Nicely done.

Every one seems to like this. Perhaps I should skip ACR more often. ;-)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel, that is good of you. Your comments above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, but you probably missed my comment in Jim's section about capitalizing King of England?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66, I did. I disagree, but changed anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Ian Rose and Ealdgyth:, @WP:FAC coordinators: , as this has completed image and source reviews, has three supports, including one by a non-MilHist regular, and has been up for three weeks, can I have permission to nominate another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Love for Sale (Bilal album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating after a controversial source review derailed the previous nomination, which had garnered a good amount of supports otherwise. I replaced a few of the contested citations after that nom ended, but mostly I'm just interested in seeing how this pans out with someone else reviewing the sourcing this time... isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, per my past support. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ouch, I was going to contribute a review of some sort but after seeing why the article failed last time, I have no inclination to do so. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

• A fascinating record that I'd love to see promoted to FA. I read the previous nomination discussion, and I understand it got pretty contentious over certain things about sources (and at another point a topic that wasn't even related to the album), so I'm not intending to step on anyone's feet. However, two major issues are already present to my eyes.
  • The first paragraph of the background section is an overly-long paragraph of the artist's early life that establishes nothing relevant in relation to the rest of the content about the album. This is also a CONTENTFORK issue as all of this stuff is not only in the bio article of the artist, but also in the background section of the article about his previous album (which I think works better there). I feel starting the background at the time he was signed to Interscope and released his first album would do it.
  • I feel the "Music and lyrics" subsection isn't the best written. I think it's pretty good but it can feel like an indiscriminate list of critical opinions with no connection to each other at points.

More comments soon. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, all right. I can see how the background section could use some trimming. I'll work on that. And I might see how parts of the other section feel that way, but you gotta name some examples so we're on the same page about it. Looking forward to your comments! isento (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed the background section, but I've kept the notes on the Soulquarians, Glasper, jazz-voice training, etc. There are connections to these topics later on in the article. isento (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Got anything more to add, buddy? @HumanxAnthro: isento (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments coming, but there's one thing. Add a page number(s) to Reyes source and replace url with link that actually directs to the page the article start. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks man. I've added the link and page numbers. isento (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @HumanxAnthro:, just checking in with you, because of that note below. isento (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to be afraid. I'll just renominate. isento (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Namco[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

They may not possess the same level of recognition in the Western world as Nintendo or Sega, but Namco is undeniably one of the video game industry's most important, valuable, and beloved developers. The makers of many genre-defining classics, from Pac-Man to Xevious to Ridge Racer, Namco set itself apart from other companies through its unique corporate philosophy, forward-thinking, and ability to adapt in a constantly changing market. This article covers the entirety of Namco's 50 year history, from its origins as an operator of rocking horse rides in the 1950s to its 2005 merger with toymaker Bandai.

This article has been the focus of my editing for the past two years now. A GAN, two peer reviews, and hundreds of edits later, I believe it is finally able to be bestowed the honor of being one of Wikipedia's best articles (Sega's probably getting lonely in there). At over 131,795 bytes, it is certainly the biggest article I've ever worked on. Trying to summarize a company with a 50 year history was certainly a challenge, and underwent at least three rewrites. Due to the lack of "big" anniversaries for the foreseeable future, I am not interested in having this be featured on the main page on a specific date.

The article in its current state wouldn't have been possible without the help of Red Phoenix and Indrian, who have both been incredibly helpful with the writing and sourcing. I greatly thank them for helping get this page into the state it is in now. I also dedicate this to the hundreds of editors that have maintained it for so many years now. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your comments. Namcokid47 18:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Namco/archive2 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I already had my say during the extensive GA review process, so this is not just a drive-by support. I feel this is the finest article on a video game company on Wikipedia, and that even articles on companies not involved in that industry could take some pointers on how it not just describes what happened but also why those things happening was important. It's truly well done! Indrian (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Striking per my assumption of the nomination. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of work invested into this article should not go unnoticed. This is probably one of the best video game company articles i've seen on Wikipedia and it has my highest support vote! Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. From the merger sections:

The business takeover, where Bandai acquired Namco for $1.7 billion, was finalized on September 29... Namco Bandai's impatience to move forward with the merger and clashing corporate cultures between both parties resulted in a ¥30 billion deficit.

Can this be clarified? I looked at both pages of the referenced source, [14] , but Google Translate is hot garbage at Japanese sometimes. Deficit compared to what? If the two companies were each running a 15 billion yen deficit before, nothing really changed, as an example. An explanation would be nice but "impatience" is not really a sufficient reason for such a deficit to occur. Like, was Bandai impatient in that they overpayed for buying out Namco's stock and paid a higher premium than they really needed to? And when did this deficit show up, anyway? Normally it takes a bit of time for clashing corporate cultures to even "matter", unless the first thing Bandai did after the purchase complete was massive employee buyouts or the like. Has a native Japanese speaker reviewed that source? It have any more details? This sentence raises more questions than answers as written currently. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire: That was a mistranslation, which I've since corrected. Bandai Namco experienced a financial loss of ¥30 billion, not a deficit. Google Translate thought it was specifically a deficit for whatever reason, and I never bothered to look into what a deficit actually is, so I put it into the page. Sorry about that, I've fixed it now. Namcokid47 22:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Done
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed, looks like I already did that a while ago but left a few behind.
• Images are missing alt text
  • Added
• Some of the captions warrant citing - for example, that Pac-Man was their mascot from 1980
  • Sourced
• File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_rocking_horses,_1955.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • It's hard to pinpoint when specifically this image came from, all we know is that it's an official Namco image and was taken in 1955, meaning it meets Japan's copyright law regarding public domain images. It should still be usable, but I can try finding an earlier instance of this image.
    • Can you clarify why it is believed to be PD in Japan? The given tag states photos taken before 1947 or published before 1955 - this would need to have been published, not simply taken, at that time. Plus then we need to look at US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Nakamura_Seisakusho_logo.svg is complex enough to pass the threshold of originality
• File:Pac-Man_artwork_(2010).svg is incorrectly tagged - it's a character rather than a work of art. Also the FUR needs expansion.
  • Added tag and tried expanding
    • Needs more, or else why not simply use File:Original_PacMan2.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I really don't know what else I'm supposed to add. The FUR is taken from File:Sonic 1991.png from Sega since it's being used for the same exact purpose, so I don't know how else I can expand it. Chose not to use the Pac-Man image above as I don't think it does a good job at actually representing the character in the context of the page.
        • The Sonic design hasn't changed significantly over time, and has always been of a level of originality sufficient to warrant copyright protection. Neither is the case here. If you believe the non-free version is better in this context than the free one, then explain why in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Taiko_no_tatsujin_arcade_machine.jpg: what's the copyright status of the graphics?
  • Looking at it again, I'm not sure. Part of me is starting to think this is a derivative work as it's just a picture of the machine. I'll check with some folks on Commons.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria: Responded to comments. Namcokid47 01:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix talk[edit]

Don’t expect me to move fast; I’ve been deficient at editing in the last couple of months, I know. That being said, I wouldn’t miss this party for the world. Expect me to, at the very least, contribute a source review, since I know that’s usually the part others don’t want to do, and expect it to be thorough and detailed to satisfy the FAC criteria. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As a note for FAC coordinators, I have previously provided feedback for this article at my talk page, and Archive 5 of that page has my previous comments. That, however, is the extent of my past involvement in the article. Namcokid47 has done quite a good job with this article.

Now, onto a cursory look at the sources:

• Taking an overview over the references, there’s a lot of work to be done to meet WP:WIAFA criterion 2c - consistent citations. Don’t worry, that’s to be expected and part of what we’ll nip at through this process. We’ll detail through them as I get time, but I would definitely start now with looking at consistency. You will save yourself quite a bit of effort if you start now.
  • For instance, all internet sources should have the article title, website name, article author if available (“Staff” is not necessary), the date it was published if available, and naturally the URL. For fields such as access date and publisher, these need to be all or nothing - either every source gets them, or none of them do. Be extremely consistent in your source formatting across the whole article.
  • In the same vein, all books should be formatted the same, and all magazines the same. Reference structure naturally varies between reference types, but all references of the same type should be the same.
  • Linking to articles for websites, books, or authors should also be consistent. Personally, I would link all of them whenever possible for the ease of the reader.
  • All books need to have page numbers; this includes the Kent and Horowitz books, as well as They Create Worlds. If all the references are in just a few pages for one source, you can use a small range of pages. If it’s spread out, you’ll want to break that up - I’d personally recommend the method used on Sega, where repeated footnotes of the same book but different page numbers use an abbreviated format that links to the original reference above.
  • Although I know the kind of research you have done, and I commend your efforts greatly, I wouldn’t be doing my due diligence if I didn’t evaluate SandyGeorgia’s comments at the peer review. While I don’t always agree with her, I will review when I go in detail and perhaps suggest some sources if I have concerns. I will let you know if I share her concerns or not when I have had time to review appropriately.

I hope to return soon with a more detailed look. Red Phoenix talk 17:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I knew you'd show up eventually. I'm in no rush, so please take as much time as you need. In the meantime, I'll get cracking on those points regarding citations. Namcokid47 01:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I will start commenting on each of these as I complete them. Still getting up to speed on the article, so please be patient. Indrian (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's give this a start at a more detailed look. Expect this to take a while, as well as several passes as changes are made. To ensure that when I refer to a reference by its number it's the same for you as it is for me, I'll note this first pass is for revision id 1017821592:

• With 1 and 2, just be mindful of consistency with access dates and publishing locations, respectively. They're okay if every source of the same type has them, but not if we have a location for this book but not that one, and so on.
  • I have added retrieval dates to five web sources. I think they all have retrieval dates now, but there are a lot of them, so if I missed one, let me know. Likewise all books should now have a publication location with the exception of two for which this data does not exist: The Untold History of Japanese Game Developers and Galaxian Genesis -Kazunori Sawano Den-, which are both self-published works. I own both of them and can confirm no publisher location is given in either. There is also no publisher location information for either one on Worldcat.
    • I'll confirm that I'm good with this aspect, that if a location is not provided in the actual book that it can be missing and doesn't require all of them to be struck. That is still consistency as far as the criterion is concerned. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
  • I only have a partial copy of this book, so this may take me a little bit to track down. I can tell you that several of the citations do all come from that page, but not all of them do.
• I'll just point out that 3 is a perfect use of publisher when a website is an official site of a company or something. In this case, you don't need the website name if you use the publisher and it's the company's official website. Thumbs up!
• 4: I'm not sure I'd go with cite news for this one if Game Machine is a magazine and is the name of said magazine, which it appears to be. Game Machine wouldn't be the agency, it would be the publication's name, and thus should be italicized. I'd personally go with the cite magazine template, but you could also do cite journal if you prefer. Just make sure all magazines use one or the other, as they do format citations slightly different.
  • This was a problem with several magazines, not just Game Machine. I believe I have switched all of them over to the cite magazine format.
• 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
  • Likewise changed. Its a trade publication, which basically makes it a magazine for our purposes here.
• 6: Page numbers are the biggest deal here; see my note above. I don't think a link to Google Books is necessary as the citation is the book itself. I highly doubt the OCLC is necessary unless you're going to provide OCLCs for every book source, and another decision will need to be made on whether or not to hyphenate ISBNs, as 6 is hyphenated but 7 is not.
  • Addendum: When I specified a link to Google Books is not necessary, it's because the link only provides more info about the book. It's not to a preview of the text copy. Red Phoenix talk 16:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• 7: See 6 above.
• 8 and 9: Again if these are actually books, page numbers will be needed. 9 would also need an ISBN.

That's all I have time for at the moment, but we'll continue later. Red Phoenix talk 00:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going, shall we? Numbers as of revision 1019357606:

• Indrian, for the moment I won't comment on inclusion/exclusion of publishers since you're taking over the review, and for all I know you may come to a different conclusion than Namcokid47 on whether or not to include publishers in which kind of sources. The important thing is to be consistent on when we do include and when we do not, to meet criterion 2c. 10, for instance, struck me as odd having a person listed as the publisher, given it's the chairperson of The New York Times Company.
• 13, in line with the necessity for page numbers mentioned above, needs page numbers and in this case the two citations are quite a distance apart in the book. I would split these, as suggested. Since I have this book, I can give you these numbers: the note about Torpedo Launcher/Periscope is on pages 7 and 8; the Namco offer to buy Sega is on pages 253 and 254.
• 14: Link Play Meter since we have an article. It's going to be Volume 3, issue 1, and the actual title of the article is "Projection Racing: Conversation with Masaya Nakamura, Inventor of F-1", and it's on page 12.
  • Play Meter linked, proper title and page number added, and volume and issue number added to the citation. Note that while the article starts on Page 12, the information in question appears on page 13.
• 17: Though the source is good and can be kept, the link to Shmuplations will have to be removed. It's an amazing site, I agree, but there's no evidence permission was granted to translate and re-publish the material, so we have to err on the side that linking to the text is linking to a copyright violation. On the plus side: Here's the original source, at least as on the Wayback Machine. It looks like this starts on page 32 in the book.
• 19: RePlay is the name of the magazine, so should be italicized, with the capital P in the middle. Page numbers (28-30) should also be added.
  • Name capitalization corrected, volume, issue, and page numbers added. Note that the proper pagination is Atari 28-Atari 30, as this was a special section of the magazine numbered as such. There were also plain old pages 28-30 in the issue.
• 21 and 23: Need consistency on "Cash Box" or "Cashbox" - they're used differently between the two. Personally I usually go with Cashbox, but it's your call.
  • These should now be consistent. You are correct that there is inconsistency on whether its "Cash Box" or "Cashbox," which I think is because the spacing between the words is very small on the cover. The space is present, however, and a space can be more clearly seen between the words in the text of the publication. It also seems to appear with a space in most library catalogs, including the LoC, so I went with that.
• Similarly to publishers, ISSNs also need to be all or nothing for consistency in magazine sources - either identifiers are included, or they are not. It's probably easier not to include any, but you're welcome to try and hunt them all down. I just don't see them as necessary in this case.
  • I concur that ISSNs are not worth the trouble. They should all be gone now.
• 22 and 24: Likewise, books need to either have publishing locations, or not at all. Book publishers are important, but the locations are not as important as consistently having them or not.
  • As above, all book publishers should now have location information except for the two books for which this info does not exist.
• 26: Not sure if a citation template is being used here or not, but JoyStik is the name of the magazine and should be italicized. If there's not a cite template being used here, I certainly recommend one to make life easier.
  • For some reason, this was done with the cite book template with JoyStik as the publisher. Changed to cite magazine and added the volume and issue number as well as the actual publisher.
• 30: Link Gamasutra as the website.
  • Done
• 33: Call me crazy, but I don't see the direct correlation between a repair manual for a Pac-Man arcade cabinet published in December 1980 establishing that Pac-Man was a North American release of the Japanese "Puck Man" game in December 1980. Surely there's a better source for this?
• 34: I'd like to see such an impactful statement sourced better. This is a press release, so it implies a bit of bias for claims such as "a fixture in popular culture", and to a lesser extent, "multi-million selling media franchise". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not factual, only that such a claim would be better sourced to a true third party source.
• 35 and 36: IGN is a website, and as such, should be italicized.
• 37: I see this is the cite journal template formatting. As mentioned above, all magazines could be either cite magazine or cite journal, but they need to be consistent and use one or the other.
  • Fixed along with (hopefully) all the others.
• 38: IGN is a website, but 1Up.com during this time was owned by IGN Entertainment, IGN's company. If you choose to keep publishers, which I recommend against, make sure it's "IGN Entertainment" to avoid confusion with the website.
• 41: Note that this book is in Japanese. I'd also not use all caps for the title. Furthermore, I'm not familiar with the publisher (recognizing this is a Japanese publisher), and would be curious to verify this claim.
  • Added language field, the original title in Japanese, and a more accurate English translation title. Note the original title is in a mix of Japanese and English and the capitalization is found in the original. The capitalization is also present in Worldcat. In this case, I think that's the official way the title is rendered.
    • As long as the community is okay with this, I am. I've not found anything in the MOS that says otherwise on all-capitalization for this particular instance, only in other uses in the encyclopedia, so I'm good unless someone else objects.

I'm liking the progress so far. I'll try to continue on this weekend - I know my schedule is not the greatest anymore, and for good IRL reason, but that's why I'm glad we're starting this now. I will do my best to be timely. Red Phoenix talk 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's keep going. As of revision 1020893203:

• Still more instances of websites with and without publishers inconsistently as we go. Again, I won't note them all, just nudge that a decision still needs to be made there.
• 21: Cash Box, as a publication, should be italicized. I'm presuming it's in a "publisher" field and not "magazine", which is why the error?
• 47: Same as 17 above, I'm concerned about linking to Shmuplations, which likely does not have permission to reprint a translation. Furthermore, it's not the true source of this information. It appears the original source for this particular quote is a 2003 interview from the "GSLA", if you have any idea what that is. Perhaps it could be converted to a cite interview to make this work?
• 50: The author for this particular section is Stuart Campbell.
• 54: (No action needed yet. I am unclear on formatting of YouTube references, but believe this is incorrect. I need to research to verify this and what is the correct format, and will come back to this one later).
• 57: (No action needed here at all. I want to note, for any reviewers who may come to challenge this one on the basis this is a self-published book, that this was written and published by established video game journalist John Szczepaniak, who I know has previously written for Retro Gamer, and therefore I have no doubts about its suitability as a reliable source).
• 60: Forgive me for asking, but what makes Kill Screen a reliable source? I did see the author claims to be an established video game historian, but it's not someone I'm familiar with.
• 61: If we are keeping magazine publishing locations, just "United Kingdom" seems a little vague. Is that what the magazine says?
• 62: Granted I don't know a lick of Japanese, but I'm struggling to find the author name in the source.
• 63: In contrast to the magazines, is this actually a journal? It uses cite journal, but I'm not sure what kind of source this is. Likewise, if 63 is a journal, surely it would have a doi and other identifiers as well like 64 does?
• Still need to decide how to consistently hyphenate ISBNs.
• Should also make sure we're using the language parameter consistently with all foreign language sources.

Took a break here. Continuing:

• 79: Who is this interview with? It's not clear from the citation. Perhaps consider adding the name/s of the interviewee/s to the title of the citation, or use the cite interview template.
• 91: Just some future thinking here as we tackle the page number issue that 57 and 91 are the same source, and as such how we choose to handle 6, 7, 8, and 9 should be handled consistently here as well. As it stands, we have spelled out the full citation in 91 with the separate page numbers.
• 93, 94, 96, 106, 108, etc.: As noted above, consistency with the language parameter. Game Machine cites should note they are in Japanese. I've stopped listing them after 108, just check them all.
• 97 and 98: So far, we have utilized publishers with magazine cites. These two don't have them, however.
• 111, 142, 152, 156, etc.: IGN should be a website, not a publisher. Numerous occasions as you go, so I won't list them all.
• 112: Link Digital Spy as the website.
• 113, 148: Link Siliconera as the website. Also in 148, Siliconera should be italicized.
• 121, 124: Link Edge (magazine)
• 141: Why is Famitsu the website and IGN the publisher? These two don't add up.
• 144, 151, 161: Remove Namco.co.jp as the website. Namco as the publisher alone suffices here.
• 153: Wait a second, so SoftBank News isn't published by SoftBank Group? There are other occurrences above as well where there is no publisher noted for this website, but again, however you choose to deal with this is up to you as long as it's done consistently.
• 166: No website listed.
• 186: Same as 38 above
• 192: Again, drop the website if it's just a URL. Publisher alone would suffice.
• 205 and 206: GamesRadar or, as Wikipedia's article calls it, GamesRadar+?
• 209 and 210: A bit odd here - Next Generation is the magazine, and should be in front of Imagine Media and italicized. Presuming this might be another bad use of the cite news template? Same with 210 and The Wall Street Journal.

That concludes a first pass of the sources. There is a lot to be done here, I know, but no one ever said consistent citations were the fun part. I can try and jump in to give you a hand if time allows, but it's been tough lately for me to find available time. After you have made some decisions and set to fixing, I'll do a "final pass" to catch stragglers and any loose ends. I'll also check for any additional sourcing inconsistencies and conduct a few spot-checks, as this would have been Namcokid47's first FAC and those are usually mandatory for an editor's first. Red Phoenix talk 03:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review! I will keep chipping away at these this week. I have done my share of academic publishing, so I am no stranger to the importance of proper source formatting. I appreciate everyone's patience as I continue to plunge deeper into this FAC that is not of my own making. I remain confident I can carry it over the finish line! Indrian (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominator discussion[edit]

I've subheaded this discussion aside so that it does not get convoluted with my comments. I hope that's all right. Red Phoenix talk 15:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: : I'm really concerned about irl stuff right now, so I've chosen to retire likely for good. I'd like to have this FAC closed since I won't be here to address any comments or questions. I hope you can understand. Namcokid47 05:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame but RL must take precedence and I just hope all goes well for you, Namcokid. This hasn't been open too long but seems to be travelling pretty well; there is precedence for other editors stepping up to take over the nom in such circumstances, I might leave this open a bit longer and see if there are any takers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I can take a stab at it if that works. Obviously, I would withdraw my support. I was the GA reviewer, but I assume that is not a conflict of interest. I am incredibly knowledgeable about the topic (above and beyond just doing said review) and I would hate to see all this hard work go to waste. Indrian (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just throwing out my 2 cents that I support Indrian's offer. I can vouch for his knowledgeability based on past work with him, and I don't see a conflict of interest in him being willing to take over the work. Red Phoenix talk 11:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: So can we move forward on this basis? I don’t know what needs to happen procedurally. Indrian (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Indrian, you can indeed. Prior to becoming a coordinator I once did this myself - including "responding" to my own review, which was a little strange. Shout if you encounter problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Cool, I will start responding to comments, including the first round of source review, tomorrow. Just did not want to step on any toes. Indrian (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes that would be great, I would just add yourself as a co-nom at the top (co-nom so Namcokid still gets credit for their work starting it off) and, as you say, strike your support because you're now taking over the nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Panini!

Thank you, Idrian, for picking this one up. Namcokid put a lot of work into this and I would have been dissapointed to see it go to waste. Wanted to pop in and say Support on prose, however. It's a good read! I might come in with further comments in the future, but this is where I stand. Panini!🥪 14:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment, not super-important I'm a little concerned about The name Namco, an abbreviation of Nakamura Manufacturing Company (and the related matter of the English name of "Nakamura Manufacturing Company"), which looks suspicious on its face (why would they take the first two letters of the first and third words but not the second, and in Japanese ナ ム コ looks more like an abbreviation of なか　むら　コンパニー) and a quick Googling brought up this tweet from Bandai-Namco's official Japanese Twitter account that directly contradicts it and would seem to make more sense to begin with. The claim appeared in the article before the accompanying Kotaku source was produced,[15][16] which makes me suspicious of WP:CITOGENESIS (I have in the past seen Kotaku articles both obviously get their information from Wikipedia and present historical and Japanological research that is some below the standards of Wikipedia). I don't doubt that the former 中村製作所 referred to itself variously as "Nakamura Manufacturing Company" and "Nakamura Amusement Manufacturing Company", given that even now many Japanese companies seem to have no idea what their official English name is supposed to be, but if we are going to prioritize one over the other I kinda feel like it should be the one that the company itself says is the origin of the name our article uses as its title. Granted, sources, especially English-language ones, are difficult to find to support the existence of an English translation of an old name for a defunct company, especially because of the aforementioned CITOGENESIS, but it seems very likely that offline sources about this company from the pre-wiki days can be found if the above tweet is insufficient. (Unfortunately, when I tried doing an image search to see if old Pac-Man machines had English copyright information printed somewhere, the closest I got was to find out that apparently the company's US patent for its game machine was granted to "Kabushiki Kaisha Nakamura Seisakusho".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Francis Healy led a remarkable and fascinating life. He achieved many firsts for black Americans, yet never considered himself one. The historiography of this fact is most interesting and discussed in this article. He also transformed Georgetown University into a modern institution along the way. Ergo Sum 13:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

So far, I am leaning Weak Oppose for the following concerns of incompleteness and problems with prose:

• I've haven't researched the topic extensively, but I'm skeptical about this article's comprehensiveness. While other sources do get cited a few time each, most of this article is cited to Curran 1993 when there is much more literature to represent on this topic, including academic analysis. I find that this article is mostly just a bio of his life without opinions or analysis from outside sources about the impact of his work and why he is significant.
  • I have done a fair bit of research on Healy and have to disagree regarding comprehensiveness. The Curran book is cited only in the Georgetown presidency section, which makes sense because the Curran book is a detailed history of the history of Georgetown and therefore discusses Healy's presidency in detail. I have not come across any significant details of Healy's life that are absent from the article. I agree this article is just a biography of Healy; I don't claim otherwise. I'm not sure I know what other analysis of Healy you are referring to. All the meaningful analysis of his life that I've come across (primarily historiography of his race) is mentioned in this article. They all state approximately historiography, so citing to one reliable one is generally, I think, as good as citing to them all. Ergo Sum 22:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, I understand. I'll admit my judgement was based on the amount of citations and what citations were cited. as well as the amount of results in the Google scholar search. If I was a bit ignorant in my response, my apologies. I would still recommended reading the literature in the search I linked to see if there's anything else to include.
      • Absolutely, I'll do that and seee if I come across anything. Ergo Sum 02:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• For Ref 1, it is not harv citation style to use the title of the article in the ref when there isn't an author. You have to use the work or publisher.
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Watch out for non-neutral-point-of-view language. For example, "who was an important president of Georgetown University," and "Of them all, Patrick Healy most readily passed as White.[8] Indeed, his passport described his complexion as "light," suggesting he passed as a light-skinned White man, rather than a light-skinned Black man". " Healy experienced poor health, likely suffering from untreated epilepsy." likely to which researchers?
  • Respectfully, each of these is NPOV. These are all factual statements. None of them strike me as particularly controversial statements and they are all supported by reliable sources. Ergo Sum 22:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll clarify. Words and phrases like "important," "suggesting he passed" and "likely suffering" seem subjective. Whether person's race "passes" to another person seems to depend on someone's point of view. "Likely" indicates it's not definitely known, so personal interpretation is used to figure out probable solutions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I understand where you're coming from. These are all things that can be debated because they are essentially one source's interpretation of the world. For example, how important a president he was can be debated. Yet, such claims can't automatically excluded. In articles, I think it's worth qualifying a claim as only "according to X" if there is actually scholarly debate on the subject, i.e. if experts disagree. Here, however, there are reliable sources that make the claims, the claims seem prima facie reasonable to me, and I have not seen any experts reject the claims or arrive at contrary conclusions. E.g. as far as I can make out, there's pretty unanimous consensus among historians that Healy passed as White; i.e. consensus that the world at that time viewed him as White, not that historians agree that he was as a matter of fact White. Ergo Sum 02:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Why are many terms in the body linked on their first mention but not Jesuit?
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Para 2 of "Presidency" feels WP:EDITORIAL and non-encyclopedic in tone in places, and is also fluffy
  • I've rephrased some of the sentences that might be a bit editorialized. I'm trying to strike a balance between describing the grandiose plan that Healy/the bishops set out without endorsing this vision in Wikipedia's voice. What do you think of the new phrasing? Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• " until both of their deaths in 1850" --> "until both died in 1850"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• " Michael Healy was prevented by Georgia law" which law?
  • None of the sources give an actual code citation. They just say that it was the law in Georgia. Ergo Sum 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, I understand. Don't you love reliable sources that leave things vague, but you can't or clarify to reviewers because the source doesn't? I've experience that a lot.
      • It is certainly frustrating. Ergo Sum 02:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Awkward sentences: "Despite his appearance and self-identity, speculation as to his race remained with him."
  • It doesn't strike me as awkward. (Then again, I wrote it, so naturally I wouldn't). What about it strikes you as awkward? Ergo Sum 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • What does it mean for a speculation to "remain" with him? Does it mean his race was still speculated in his later life and after his death? 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I've rephrased the latter half to clarify. Ergo Sum 02:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1867, he professed his final vows" This sentence is too vague and is abrupt in the paragraph that it's in.
  • You'll have to help me out with the vagueness. I've linked "final vows," if that helps. Ergo Sum 22:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, that helps. Plus previous sections establish he did first vows for a religious institution, so that helps too.
• If Healy was considered the "second founder" of Georgetown, who was the first?
  • Ah yes, it would make sense to mention that. I've added it as a footnote. Ergo Sum 23:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• I noticed instances where full-sentence clauses are incorrectly separated by commas. For example: "As interracial marriage was prohibited by Georgia's anti-miscegenation law, Michael formed a common-law marriage with the 16-year-old Eliza in 1829" and "this proved less of a concern than the fact that because Healy's parents were never legally married in the eyes of the church, he was born out of wedlock"
  • These two sentences are grammatically correct. The commas offset dependent conditional clauses. I suppose they could be broken up into more than one sentence, but I'm generally in favor of keeping a sentence together if it is all concerned with one idea. Ergo Sum 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Whoops, there were small words I didn't notice at first that made me misread the sentences. Good catch, 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• The subsection about Curricular reform does not introduce the reader properly to it. It starts with "Healy continued the reform of the curriculum he began as prefect." When did he begin reforming? Why does it start abruptly in the middle of curriculum reformation?
  • That section is titled Curricular reform, so I thought it would make sense to start with a discussion of curricular reform. The reform as prefect I was referring back to was his reorganization of classes. Ergo Sum 23:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Healy determined that Georgetown's most pressing need was to expand its physical facilities." Another not-so-good introduction to a paragraph. When and for what reasons did he determine this?
  • I've added a bit of detail I could glean from the source. Ergo Sum 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, HumanxAnthro. I believed I responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Great work on the work, and thanks for responding to the comments. I'll admit I misread some things, and some of my comments were from a skimthrough, so I'll re-read it again. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: Have you had a chance to take another look at the article? Ergo Sum 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. My work on editing and reviewing other articles got in the way. I'm reading it now. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

HumanxAnthro I don't mean to pester. Just want to see if you've gotten a chance to give this a second look. Ergo Sum 00:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_solitaire.jpeg: the source provided is a "used by permission" note. Is this actually used by permission, or PD as claimed by the tags? If the latter, what was the first publication?
  • I've updated the tags and description. I'm not able to find it being published before 2003. I've left the bit about permission from Sweet because I have no way of confirming that and his account has not been active in 15 years. It may very well be true and possibly permission was given before OTRS was a thing (not sure when that was set up). Ergo Sum 01:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This appears to have been published in This Week in Black History in 1998. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for finding that. I have removed the infobox image and replaced it from one lower in the article. Sadly, this result is necessitated by convoluted and retrograde US copyright laws. Ergo Sum 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Patrick_Francis_Healy_portrait.jpg: what steps have been taken to investigate publication history? Ditto File:Patrick_Francis_Healy.jpg
  • I have searched Google, the Library of Congress, and the Georgetown University Archives. Ergo Sum 01:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The latter appears to have been published here.
      • Since that publication contains no copyright notice and I find no copyright registration, I believe it is PD and have updated the tag accordingly. Ergo Sum 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• File:Healy_Hall_early_rendering.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Corrected the tag. Work made for hire >120 years ago and not published before 2003. Ergo Sum 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

SupportComments from Coffeeandcrumbs[edit]

• "came to own" → "owned"
  • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• "who Michael Healy had purchased" -- why is this here? Is it self-evident if she was his "slave" that he "purchased" her. I also do not see it in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
  • It was possible to inherit slaves, to be gifted them, etc. It's not an incredibly important point, but it just makes clear that Healy had purchased her. Fixed the ref. Ergo Sum 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah! Ok. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "common-law marriage" -- not in the source cited, it is in O'Connor 1955, p. 175
  • Thank you for catching this. Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy" -- strange, can we use the word "doctorate"
  • It does strike my ear as a bit odd, but I think it's a fairly important point. There are non-PhD doctorates and even non-PhD doctorates in philosophy, such as ScD, DLitt, applied doctorates, and who knows how many new non-PhD degrees that are called doctorates. Plus, there is a lot of variance of names for doctorates around the world and by time period. The source refers only to the PhD, so while most likely that he also received the first doctorate at all, it is not certain and cannot be extrapolated. Ergo Sum 18:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I would have written this like so: "On July 26, 1865, he received a Ph.D. in philosophy, making him the first Black American to earn a Ph.D.". Not a big deal but the repetition of philosophy sounded strange in my ear. The Ph.D. would be repeated but there is some distance. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think that makes sense. Tweaked. Ergo Sum 04:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• "at the time in that neither" -- "At the time" may work better as the very beginning of the sentence.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "ever married anyone else, and after marriage" -- the comma here belongs after "and" ... actually the phrase "after marriage" is unnecessary since we already said three times in that paragraph that they were married. The phrase "the rest of their lives" is enough to convey the meaning.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "after graduating, Healy entered ..." -- Probably better to start a new sentence with this phrase and combine with the next sentence about the novitiate.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "because Healy's parents..." -- would need a comma before this phrase. another option is to put a en/emdash before it and another en/emdash instead of the comma after "law of the church".
  • I've rephrased the whole sentence because on re-reading it, it sounded clunky and confusing. I thinks it's much clearer now. Ergo Sum 04:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "While under canon law, this required that Healy obtain a dispensation to join the order, none was ever sought and he was admitted without issue."

-- Without a coordinating conjunction, this is a run-on sentence. This should be two sentences or add "but" or "however" etc. before "none was ever sought...".

• • Resolved per above. Ergo Sum 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1858, Healy went to Georgetown ..." -- This should be part of the next paragraph, or merge the two paragraphs
  • Done. Ergo Sum 04:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Library of Congress (LOC) says "study philosophy and theology". You say "taught". Why?
  • I've checked LOC and it says study, so I think that was a typo on my part. I've fixed it. Ergo Sum 04:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Why do we believe LOC that he went to Rome and not believe UCLA that he went to "Saint-Sulpice Seminary in Paris, France"?
  • I overlooked the mention of the Sulpician seminary. It was customary for American Jesuits at this time to send a promising student to one of the Roman universities, so it must be that he went to Rome first and then to Paris. I've clarified this in the text. Ergo Sum 04:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• "philosophy, and decided" -- this comma seems unnecessary
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 04:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

[Apologies for the sporadic pace. I have little free time these days.] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• "properties it owned in Washington" -- when appearing next to Virginia and Pennsylvanian, saying Washington could be interpreted as the state. Curran must have meant DC, right? or did Georgetown own land in Washington (state)? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 15:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Patrickneil[edit]

• Support with some comments:
  • In the middle paragraph of the lead, I think we loose who "he" is in "Healy's father sent him north... and he continued...", maybe that is a spot for the passive voice, i.e. "Healy was sent north by his father and later continued..." in order to keep Healy as the sentence subject, rather than Healy's father. Either that or something like "Healy's father sent Patrick north" would help.
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The next sentence starts "He then returned to Georgetown..." but we haven't established that Healy had been to Georgetown previously. Did we loose a sentence about him teaching there? Maybe "returned to America" or "to Washington, D.C."? Or "He taught at schools in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia, including Georgetown, where was was named chair of philosophy in 1866."?
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Healy became the president" could afford a better verb, like "Healy was elected" or "selected". Maybe "promoted" would reference his trajectory through chair, prefect, and vice rector?
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a couple times were the article uses the term "the North" where it could be more specific, like "New York and New England".
    • I'm only seeing three instances of it, and each one does refer broadly to the north such that narrowing it would be less accurate. Ergo Sum 03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I understand the meaning, I just think there's most specific options, "northern states without slavery", for example. It's just imprecise, like Maryland and Delaware were "northern" but still had slavery then. I guess I also find it a bit strange there is zero mention of the Civil War on the article. Perhaps at the start of the Georgetown University section we could say "In 1866... at Georgetown University, whose student body had been devastated by the effects of the American Civil War" or mention it was happening while Healy was at Louvain, like "On July 26, 1865, a month after the Civil War ended in America, Healy received..."?-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, that does seem to be a glaring omission. I've added a mention of the Civil War at the start of the Georgetown section. The trouble with saying something like the "slavery-free North" is that though less common than in the South, there was slavery in the North too. Ergo Sum 14:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
          • Right, that's what I'm saying. Healy wasn't just sent to "the North" but to specific "northern states where slavery had been abolished or never allowed." I know this is obvious to you and me, but I think we want to keep it clear to the reader that the absence of slavery is what differentiates the states, either by naming them or by describing them as such.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
            • Perhaps you could suggest the precise wording? My logic is that it starts out with the North and then proceeds to specify exactly where in the north: New York and then Massachusetts. That just reads naturally to me. Ergo Sum 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "in the eyes of the church" might be a common colloquial, but there could be a more encyclopedic phrase, "under church rules" or just "never married in a church".
    • Rephrased. What do you think of the new wording? Ergo Sum 03:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yep, good!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You probably know this better than me, but when referring to the school in 1850 or 1858, is "Georgetown College" or "Georgetown University" better? Seeing as it's him who worked to make it a university, and "University" doesn't get added to the official name till a good bit later, is using "University" a convenience for readers, or would he have actually called it "Georgetown University"? I hate to add more to the "Notes" section at the bottom, but maybe it could be clarified that way.
    • This is a sticky issue. The point at which it switched from Georgetown College to Georgetown University is somewhat up for debate. I've seen some sources that put it as early as 1815 (the year the college was chartered). Legally speaking, there was no such institution known as "Georgetown University" until 1966, and indeed some documents, especially legal ones, routinely refer to it as Georgetown College up until then. However, many sources start using university much earlier. The mid to late 19th century is when it first enters common circulation. So, for purposes of clarity, I've just made all references to "Georgetown University." Ergo Sum 03:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Then maybe we can add a modifier in the second paragraph of the Presidency section where the article describes Healy's goal of transforming Georgetown into a "university". Perhaps "into a modern university", or a "cohesive university", or a "liberal arts university"? Like Healy can't be transforming it into a university if we've already called it that.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Touche. I've added a clarifier. Ergo Sum 14:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "in the 1960s and 1970s" might be better specified as "by 1973".
    • I'm not sure when in the 60s thee university began identifying Healy as black, and the gap between (potentially) 1960 and 1973 is pretty big. I think a reader might be better off knowing that sometime in the 60s is when it first started. Ergo Sum 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think some of the facts in the first paragraph of "Georgetown University" might be out of chronology, unless it's intentionally summarizing the subsections or something. "On May 23, 1873, he also became the vice rector of the university" for example seems to be duplicated as the first sentence of the Presidency section. I assume "vice rector" and "acting rector" mean the same thing, but maybe the article should pick one.
    • Thanks for catching this. I've chronologized and removed the duplicate sentence. Ergo Sum 03:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article first mentions that he "established an alumni society" before he was president, while Early's health "began to fail" (maybe date that to 1872?), but then eleven paragraphs later says "in 1880, Healy re-established Georgetown's alumni association". Same with creating the Merrick Debate Medal and then six paragraphs later saying the Merrick Debate was established in 1875.
    • I went back and took a look at the sources. I had gotten confused on the timeline because one source said he did these things as prefect while another said he did them as president. I then realized that there was a period of time where he was both prefect and president, so I've rearranged the text accordingly. Ergo Sum 04:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the O'Connor source says ending the reading in the refectory occurred "before the Christmas holidays in the first year of his rectorship", i.e. December 1873, so shouldn't that go after Early dies in May 1873?
    • He didn't become rector until 1874. But, regardless, I've moved that text per above to the curricular reform section. Ergo Sum 04:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about Healy's poor heath, right now at the bottom of the "Presidency" section, might better start the "Later years" section to keep chronology. Or perhaps the first sentence, "Throughout his presidency Healy experienced poor health", could be tacked into the bit about him sailing to San Francisco, where his health is also mentioned.
    • Moved it to the Later years section. Ergo Sum 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep up the great work!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your thorough comments, Patrickneil. Ergo Sum 04:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jason Sendwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose to national political prominence and fell in a series of disputes before being murdered under dubious circumstances; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March 2018, and though it failed FAn that November, I've since expanded it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks appropriate (t · c) buidhe 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Can't say I've read the article in depth, but from a skim-through I'm already noticing insanely-long paragraphs, especially the first paragraph of "Rise to prominence." These could easily be split. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've split two of them, including that one specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I am hoping this article gets far more attention than the last time. I'm not a history buff but I'm hoping I find some stuff to comment on here. Let's also make sure commenters don't get into spats about nonsensical things like what happened with Tony and the nominator last time, and keep it focused on article content instead of behavior and beliefs of editors. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

The images should have alt text per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil[edit]

Reading through; first impression is that the lead is very strong from a prose POV, while the text in the body covers very complex political and sociologic dynamics, but is largely clear and precise. The references, from 10 minutes of looking, seem from the first quality of sources, but more later. Quibbles to follow, beware. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• It might be worthwhile, as you have the sources fresh in mind, creating an article for Association Générale des Baluba du Katanga.
• These sources are not employed in the inlne citations: Clarke, Stephen John Gordon (1968), East Africa and Rhodesia. 39. London: Africana 1977 - consider employing or moving to further reading
  • Removed.
• I agree with the point above re overlong and thus dense paragraphs, and have split a few. Note, generally much prefer longer rather than stubby paras, but some here had been mindbending.
• Sendwe was slated to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - "slated" should be "chosen"
  • Done.
• On 19 October, three days after Tshombe concluded a deal with Colonel Joseph-Désiré Mobutu to "neutralise" Lumumba, Sendwe was incarcerated by central government officials. The United Nations (UN) quickly secured his release on the basis of parliamentary immunity. As we are so specific re three days, can we better define "quickly". Also the scare quotes around "neutralise" seem coy.
  • The three days points to the time span between the Lumumba deal and Sendwe's detention, not the time between his detention and his release. "Neutralise" is not meant as scare quotes, it's meant to convey the ambiguity of the word in this context-death or some form of political incapacitation.

    Presumably so, as it was UN sanctioned, we know the day of release, so you can state. The scare quotes seem to avoid the issue; the article test does not indicate this "this context-death" you are here implying. Ceoil (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I've removed the "quickly"; Gerard and Kucklick do not provide a date for Sendwe's release. And to clarify, "neutralize" is the term used by the source, quoting Mobutu. The full quote is "neutralize Lumumba completely, if possible physically". Thus, the word is meant to be open ended. I didn't see the point in explaining all of this in the text of this article since that fact mostly pertains to Lumumba. Gerard and Kucklick seem to frame Sendwe as Mobutu's bargaining chip with Tshombe, so I'd rather focus on what happened to him then all of the intrigue behind Lumumba's downfall.

      • Ok. And I take your point re "neutralize". Ceoil (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• the only figure with enough clout in Katanga to challenge Tshombe - "clout" is vague, state if either or both "political or popular clout...."
  • Qualified as "political".
• This article needs a content review by an expert or at least a very well informed editor; there are passages that indicate romanticasation. Best I can offer here is spot check on compliance with utilised sources, which will move onto in a week or so. Delegates pls keep open until then. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Who is Erik Kennes and who made him boss, and of what. Similarly, we are given no indication of Kabuya Lumuna Sando's authority.
  • Political scientists, qualified.
• Kabuya, noting the newer clothing worn by the soldiers...He reasoned that - "newer clothing" obviously is flimsy legal basis - "claimed" rather than "reasoned"
  • Qualified clothing claim as "allegedly" and changed reasoned to "argued".
• through his success with national and international figures - how. Friendship, negotiation, strong arming, what?
  • Negotiation. Added.
• In 2011 a congress of the "Luba People" declared that Sendwe was among "our valiant martyrs",[90] but there is little study of him in Congolese historiography.[91] - Noticed this too, and almost nothing in English. Why is this I wonder, if the article is give (probably) speculate on reasons from later sources?
  • Loffman mostly attributed this to the fact that Congo Crisis historiography is swallowed up by focus on Lumumba, Mobutu, and Tshombe, and that Sendwe was a "mid-level figure" in Congolese politics, and such people rarely get that much study in African historiography. My own experience in this field gives me reason to agree with him. He didn't argue that this was necessarily unusual or out of the ordinary, so I saw no need to further elaborate on it.
    • ok Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• (On 28 November) a new état d’exception (state of emergency) was.... - a new one? Article doesn't seem to mention the old one. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Based of the source material it had been essentially redeclared. I think an original state of emergency had been declared by Lumumba's Government back in 1960, but no extraordinary commissioner had been appointed. The Adoula Government redeclaring it makes sense (since the Lumumba government was long gone and they wanted to probably stress their own attitude towards what was going on). But this is all back story that I don't think is worth getting into. I'm excising the "new" to avoid confusion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Good enough Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• To note, the below are nitpicks and am leaning support on prose. Source review to follow.
• Over time the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga while Belgium gradually withdrew its support for it - This implies cause and effect. Bridge with "and" rather than "while" if the meaning is not "Belgium gradually withdrew its support because the central government hardened its attitude against Katanga.
  • Changed.
• His attempts to do so as well as his hopes... - no big deal, but a bit gushy, maybe aims rather than hopes
  • Revised.
• were stymied by the Belgian government, which disliked his closeness to Lumumba - "disliked" is a bit coy, can you spell out the political/strategic reason. Also who says "stymied" anymore..."blocked" or "frustrated"
  • Kennes writes (translated from French): "Jason Sendwe, State High Commissioner, wants to fully play his role as mediator, by trying to integrate Balubakat and Conakat representations at the provincial level and national, and keeping Katanga in the national fold. His initiatives are thwarted by the deputy chief of staff of the Belgian Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens, Harold d'Aspremont Lynden, on the pretext that Sendwe is subservient to the Lumumba government with which 'any attempt at fruitful collaboration was henceforth doomed to certain failure'. It is not certain, however, that local and provincial officials followed Sendwe in this way." As such, I've revised that part of the sentence to say were frustrated by the Belgian government, which perceived Sendwe as an instrument of the Lumumba Government, with whom they had tense relations. More info on Belgium's bad relations with the Lumumba Government at Lumumba Government. I'm not quite sure what the "strategic" reasoning was, other than that they simply didn't trust Sendwe.
• Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army into northern Katanga - Were the millitary that disorganised; part..ie send a bunch of guys...should it be lead the "northern offensive" or something
  • More on that offensive plan (the part that was actually executed) here: Invasion of South Kasai. The ANC was very much disorganized, my impression is that a lot of the affair was simply gathering what troops were loyal enough and ordering them to attack. If I had info on troop numbers or units I would have included it.
• The dismissal caused a substantial amount of turmoil
  • Changed to political turmoil.
• to serve on a reconciliation commission to achieve an understanding between Kasa-Vubu...to achieve ...tasked with
  • Revised.
• Overall the writing is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support substantive issues dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than three weeks in and this has attracted little attention and no supports. Unless it receives considerably more attention over the next day or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Ceoil's deleted comment - which was fine. But Indy beetle, if you can call in any favours to get further commentary here, I suggest that you do so soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum[edit]

I am by no means a subject matter expert on Congolese politics, so I have to defer to those more knowledgable on questions of comprehensiveness. Ergo Sum 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there no link for Mwanya?
  • No, it was/is apparently a very small place.
• Can link nationalism in the lead.
  • Linked to Congolese nationalism (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
• Can also link "the country's independence" to Congo Crisis
• Can combine the two lead sentences about June 1964
  • Done.
• Can link nursing
  • Done.
• Optional, but could consider wrapping "École officielle pour Infirmiers à Élisabethville" and other French phrases with {{Lang}}
• "by the lack of educational opportunity under colonial rule" - this can use some explanation. What exactly was lacking? Were there simply no medical schools, were they restricted only to certain people, etc.
  • No proper medical schools, revised.
• Is there any more specific information available about his marriage, such was when it was or to whom?
  • No, not that I've uncovered.
  • Sadly, this information is not known for him and a lot of other mid-level Congolese politicians of this era.
• "the stated aim to encourage" - the construction I see much more frequently is "aim of encouraging". Just something to consider
• "leadership style" - what was his style?
  • Changed to "dynamism", word used by the source.
• I don't love the vertical list of 3 political positions, but I don't believe it contradicts any MOS rules
• Can link xenophobia
  • Done.
• "elected with 20,282 votes" - this clause strikes me as a bit abrupt. Perhaps rephrase to "Sendwe was elected to the Chamber of Deputies with 20,282 votes..."
  • Done.
• "abstain from sitting, thus when the assembly" - I believe this is a comma splice. The comma should be replaced with a semicolon or period.
  • Done.
• Should link Belgian Parliament
  • Done.
• Why is "outlawed" put in quotations marks
  • The source also puts it in quotes.
    • I think this will need some explanation, if any can be found with further research. Otherwise, it leaves a reader wondering what this means. Was it that he was not welcome but not actually outlawed, or that he was outlawed but that rule was not enforced? Ergo Sum 18:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I do think it was more akin to calling him a persona non grata than legal outlawing him (declaring him outside the protection of the law and liable to be shot on site, as traditionally understood in most jurisdictions), but the source does not go into detail on this. I'm sure if Tshombe's government had the chance they would have arrested Sendwe. This was not a matter of lack of desire to enforce; the parts of Katanga Sendwe visited during this time (far as I can tell) were outside the control of Tshombe's government, so they had no way of getting a hold of him. Plus, seriously attempting to arrest him and harm him would have incensed the Congolese central government and the UN and probably looked bad in the foreign press.
        • That makes sense. It would be good if you could clarify this meaning in the text, or at least add a footnote. At the moment, it just is not clear what it is meant to communicate. Ergo Sum 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• "attitude against Katanga and Belgium gradually withdrew" - should probably be a comma after Katanga
  • Done.
• Not sure government should be capitalized in Adoula Government
  • Sources are very much mixed on this style, but per MOS:INSTITUTIONS I think this is how it should be done.
• vis a vis is usually hyphenated and accented
  • Done.
• "at 22:00 on 23 December" - need a comma at the end
  • Done.
• "probably so he could use them" - using probabilistic language in the voice of Wikipedia usually encounters some pushback. It would be best to specify who is saying "probably"
  • The UN, revised for clarification.
• "executive position at a company" - is there any information on which company or in what industry?
  • Nope, the importance of this just seems to be he would get a cushy salary in a place where he could do little political damage so he would shut up.
• " in a vote, 28–3" - can replace the comma with "of"
  • Done.
• "On 27 May," - article has thus far eschewed commas after introductory prepositional phrases, but best not to start now
  • Removed.
• I generally support linking words and phrases that can have technical meanings, including political concepts. When there is doubt, I tend to link. Not required, but might be considered.
• {{Use dmy dates}} would be useful, plus a spelling convention template, e.g. {{Use British English}}, if applicable.

That's all I have for now. Ergo Sum 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Support on the substance. I only quibble about the one remaining point above (re "outlaw") but think the article is ready for FA. Ergo Sum 03:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Consider me a non-expert.

• "with a brief interruption." when was the interruption?
• "and his reputation thereafter drifted into obscurity." Delete thereafter as it is unnecessary.
• "to a Baluba family." Baluba is an uncommon term. I would add a small descriptor of who they are at the end of this sentence to explain who this group is without clicking into their Wikipedia article.
• In the lede, it says he couldn't be a doctor due to "to restrictions on advancement for Africans in the colony" but in the body it says he was restricted by " the lack of medical schools in the Congo." These need to match.
• "He was able amass much of their support through his dynamism and frequent interactions with the population." This sentence sounds like WP:PUFFERY and not encyclopedic. I think you should describe what he did specifically to get their support (Did he travel around to give speeches to villages? Did he organise any campaigns?)
• I think the list of his three tenents would be better as prose.
• "In May he traveled to the United States at the invitation of the American government." What was the purpose of this trip? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?
• "In the national elections before the Republic of the Congo's independence on 30 June 1960 Sendwe was elected" comma after 1960
• "Invested with the responsibilities of his office," Sounds puffery and POV. Perhaps, "After assuming the role of State Commissioner of Katanga, he attempted to restore central control over the province." Also, what does central control mean? I would change this wording.
• "Sendwe was chosen to lead part of the army" Who chose him? What were the circumstances of him being chosen?
  • See Invasion of South Kasai, it's disputed as to who planned the offensive, and thus we don't know who ultimately decided to include Sendwe. As for why they would have chosen him, he held the job of State Commissioner, which made him the designated representative of the central government in the province. So the job he had made it a logical choice for him to lead the army on a campaign to restore central government authority. He also, as a BALUBAKAT leader, would have had popularity among the Luba population in northern Katanga. But this is all just my reading of the situation.
• "brokering an understanding between Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba" What's an understanding? A peace deal, a ceasefire, a political alliance?
• "to neutralise Lumumba," What does this mean? What happens when Lumumba is neutralised?
  • See Ceoil's comments above, where this is discussed at length.
• "On the whole his tour improved security in the region," Delete on the whole
• "and BALUBAKAT began to organise its own administration" -> "and BALUBAKAT organised"
• "the UN feared this was so he could use them to boost his support." Does the "them" refer to the UN, or to the refugees?
• "which was reversed by the intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister." So did the Deputy PM reverse the ban, or did he convince Sendwe to reverse the ban?
• "On 27 May 1964 a coup in Albertville by Simba rebels led by Kabila overthrew Sendwe's government." put a comma after rebels and Kabila
• "including having him shot," -> including executing him
• "reestablish his authority" His authority as what?
• "Political scientist Erik Kennes examined various testimonies." testimonies about what? I assume Sendwe's death, but this sentence's wording is awkward.
  • Clarified.
• "wanted Sendwe dead so as to make rapprochement with Tshombe easier." -> wanted Sendwe dead to make rapprochement
• "Kennes discounted the theory, reasoning that it was unlikely" -> Kennes reasoned that this was unlikely
  • Done.

Those are my comments in the first readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants vs. Zombies is a video game developed and published by PopCap Games. When it was first released, it became the fastest-selling game developed by PopCap Games. I have worked on this article since November 2020. It passed a GA nomination on February 18, 2021. Now a peer review and a copyedit has been done on the Plants vs. Zombies article and now it is ready for Featured Article Candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Plants vs. Zombies (video game)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm very familiar with the game. My comments:

• "If a zombie makes it to the house on any lane, the level is over." Would it be more accurate to say the game is over, or that the player has failed the level?

• Done

• Zombie is linked on a second or later use in the lead.

• Done

• "The player can only pick a limited number of plants through seed packets at the beginning of each level,[7]" Perhaps you mean "... limited number of types of plants ..."?

• Done

• It might be better to describe the stages as the Zombies advancing across the front yard by day, then night, the pooled backyard by day, then night, then the roof. The Lawnmowers are not used on the pool lanes, nor on the roof, though there are analogues, by the way.

• Comment: It is already made clear that stages 2 and 4 are night levels, stages 3 and 4 are pool levels, and stage 5 is a roof level. Also, the gameplay section did originally did mention the different types of lawnmowers. I removed them following a peer review in order to make the gameplay section more consise.

• Something more could be said about the role of Crazy Dave, that in addition to running the shop he offers (somewhat eccentric) help and advice, and "chooses" the preselected seed packets when playing Adventure Mode after beating Zomboss.

• Comment: Like above, they were originally mentions of this but were removed for more conciseness following a peer review.

• It might be mentioned that as one advances in Adventure Mode, there is access to more types of seed packets.

• Done

• You are not consistent on whether the "M" in "Adventure Mode" is capped.

• Comment: There is only one instance of the "mode" in Adventure mode is capitalized and that is the heading in the gameplay section.

That's what I mean. Does it need to be capped?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't. Done

• There is a clarification needed tag that should be resolved.

• Done

• Perhaps something could be said about that the zombies' intent is to eat the brains of the house occupants, and if they get past the defenses, they do so.

• Done

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I have addressed all your current problems. Lazman321 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "On May 20, 2009, Plants vs. Zombies was reportedly the fastest-selling video game created by PopCap Games.[103][104]" This seems awkwardly phrased. Perhaps the game "was declared the fastest-selling" or similar.

• Done

• Some of the strings of citations are not in numerical order, which is OK if what you are doing is always putting the most important citation (the one the cited material most relies on) first. Is that what is going on?

• Done

• Can anything be said about marketing of objects based on the game, toys etc?

• Not Done Information about that is only possible if reliable sources report on it, which they haven't.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAntro[edit]

I'm ready to look at this again after the peer review. I will say that I disagree with the use of present perfect tense in the third paragraph, as all of the citations are reviews from 2009, upon the game's release. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• A possible comprehensiveness issue. I see no representation from scholarly and academic literature; this is especially concerning given that this game has been analyzed for its contribution to the tower defense genre, and the fact that, according to the Edge source in Ref 17, "during the making of this game tower defence kind of exploded in popularity" only adds to this problem. The only thing the Legacy section discusses is its DLCs, sequels and cultural references, but nothing about its impact on the design of games in the industry.

• Comment: I am looking through the sources and none of them seems to help say how this video game impacted design on video games or the genre of the tower defense genre. While its design was definitely unique, especially in terms of its tutorial, it wasn't ever stated to be influential or having an impact. A lot of the sources just say that Plants vs. Zombies was a popular tower defense game. They often just use the game as examples of something with occasional but trivial analysis. Saying in the article that Plants vs. Zombies has been the subject of many scholarly sources is original research unless a reliable source directly says so, which none have. Maybe if you can find some sources that directly state significant information about Plants vs. Zombies's legacy, maybe that will help.

• Working: You know what. I've found some sources that I could probably integrate into the legacy section and Plants vs. Zombies impact on tower defense and overall the industry. Lazman321 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not Done Nevermind Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some cites have work names linked in every instance, while others not all the time and at random moments. This is inconsistent and not in line with the manual of style. You either have to link all source names the first time they're cited, or link them in every citation.

• Done though I can't do anything about Metacritic at the moment.

• Whoever programmed cite MC needs to understand Metacritic is not a work. Until he realizes that and changes the template accordingly, you're going to have to manually cite the Metacritic sources with a cite web template, and the name of Metacritic in the publisher= field. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: That was not was I talking about. Metacritic is a website, which by definition is a work, not a publisher as per WP:CS1. I was talking about its link being on every single citation. I can edit the template to remove that. Lazman321 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments

• " tower defense and strategy video game" Redundant. Tower defense is a subgenre of strategy.

• Done

• 1b issues. The article does state Weedlings was a working title, but never gives the reason for why its change, which was to differentiate itself in the saturated market of gardening games, which is in the Edge interview. In the same instance where he discusses this, he also gives a reason for why he ultimately went zombies as the antagonist, which I also see nowhere in the the Development section: "In fact, the game was called Weedlings, but many gardening games were coming out at that time and that just didn’t sit well with me. I tend to try to make games that are a little bit original. That’s when I came up with zombies, which are perfect because they move slowly so you have a lot of time to react to them."

• Done

• "Showing her how to customize their card decks inspired him to design Plants vs. Zombies with seed packet"
  • (1) I don't see how the experience of teaching her how to play Magic plays into this conception. I think the customability of the Magic is what influence the seed packets, not the girlfriend's learning of Magic. Presenting it like this without specifying Magic is a custom game is both misleading and too vague.
  • (2) Who is "their"? Were there multiple people whose cards were owned by while the couple played Magic?

• Done

• "finding common tower defense gameplay elements to be awkward, such as mazing and juggling," I know "mazing and juggling" is linked, but I still think how this sentence interprets the Edge interview is too vague. I find Fan's words in the Edge interview to be far clearer, that the "awkward" thing was that enemies would never go after towers obviously attacking them: "Originally the game was laid out the same way, but I realised there was something unintuitive about it. I always wondered why these guys never think to attack these towers that are shooting at them, so I was looking for a way to have the towers be directly threatened by the antagonist."

• Done

• "The Jackson-inspired zombie" Not in citation given. It is only from the subjective viewpoint of the sources currently in the article that it looks like Jackson in Thriller. "Jackson-inspired" implies the creator intentionally was influenced by Thriller to make the dance, which is not covered in the MTV Multiplayer source that cites this phrase. Sure, Jackson's actual estate perceived it as a rip-off, but that's not evidence the game's creator intended it that way.

• Done

• I don't see any reason to have the first two sentences of the Legacy section in that section and not in a section about the game's sales. The events discussed in those sentences happened close to the game's release, not a decade later, and the citations used for these sentences were published upon release as well.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Done with more of your commments. Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments

• "The team discovered" Wait, this game was done as a team? I initially thought Fan made the game by himself with his girlfriend. [Looks at infobox] Oh, there definitely was a team to this. Any info on how this team came together? Did PopCap sign the man to make another game with staff? A team is randomly introduced here, and this sudden first mention of it may confuse readers.

• Done

• Link "real-time strategy" in "Design" section.

• Done

• I would really give Ref 27 another read, because I'm finding major details about the making of this game in it that I don't see in the wikipedia article. For example, Fan designed all of the concepts based on the knowledge of casual players: "Fan knew he wanted to use stationary "towers," and players immediately understand why rooted plants are unable to move. Zombies, on the other hand, are known for moving slowly, making them a perfect fit for the game's single-screen fields." Another example, specifically about how the characters were designed: "In Plants vs. Zombies, Fan made sure that each character visually represented its function. The standard "Peashooter" plant, for instance, has a giant mouth for spitting projectiles, and its name further suggests what it's capable of."

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)@HumanxAnthro: Addressed your current requests. Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

4/11/21

• I echo yet again for the nominator to give Ref 27 more reads, because only those two examples have been added. Trust me when I say there is more than 2 cites worth of material in that source. Given missing info I have found in other citations in this article, I'd recommend the nominator read the other references to look for any other missing details himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: Done Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Please excuse the lack of comments over ten days. I have been juggling other reviews and articles on Wikipedia and sometimes delays like this happen. My apologies.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

4/22/21 Now that this has a re-write and expansion, here's some more comments. I'll have more to make after this.

• The lead is well-written but feels short a little on summary of development.

• Done

• "who want to eat the player's brains" (1) This might get nitpicky, but the cited source only describes the game as the player defending themselves from zombies, without specifying the zombies want to eat brains. (2) The eating-brains is probably fluff. It is common knowledge that zombies try to eat humans' brains, and in the slim chance a reader doesn't know that, they have the zombie article currently linked to read that.

• Done

• "five or six horizontal rows and nine columns," This is cited both to PopCap and GamesRaders+ cites (or Refs 7 and 8). PopCap source does give numbers for the amount of rows, but not for the amount of columns. I also saw no specification of the number of columns in the GamesRadar+ source. Did I miss it, or is it covered in another source?

• Done

• "The player places different types of plants and fungi on individual squares of the grid" The only citation for this sentence is the GamesRadar review. The source talks about there being a variety of plants and seeds as the game progresses, but never specifically discusses a grid or the player specifically placing a planet on the square of a grid. It also doesn't talk about fungi also being usable to defend against Zombies.

• Done

• Per MOS:CITEPUNCT, you must place references after punctuation marks. There are references in the middle of the sentences, something I noticed in the Gameplay section. Check for others.

• Not Done: That is not what the guideline says. It says that if the reference is located next to a punctuation mark, it should be after the punctuation mark. Citations are allowed to be put mid-sentence as long as it is next to the cited material. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple reference numbers are not in increasing numerical order. "[7][5][11]" "[7][6][9]" "[7][6]" This is what I noticed just reading the gameplay section. Check for others.

• Done

• The Critical response section is navigable and well-written, but a couple of spots use full quotes that could be paraphrased or be partial quotes in some sports, and an issue, which I brought up in the peer review, of not using past tense for 2009-published reviews in the third paragraph remains.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lazman321: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments (4/23/21)

• "generally stylized as a lawn" Why not just say it's a lawn? Why say it's stylized as one? The GamesRadar source citing this statement certainly doesn't put it that way. It just says it's a lawn

• Done

• "Each plant has a different style of defense, such as shooting" Why only one attack method listed? I get we're trying to make this a little of a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but if there are multiple types of attacks, why only bring up one? Can't you bring up any other examples that reliable reviews provide, cause I've spotchecked a few of the currently-used review sources and I know they talk about them?

• Done

• "by using certain plants that generate sun, like Sunflowers." Again, why only one example listed? The VideoGamer brings up the sun-shrooms, which "produce sun during the night."

• Done

• "Different types of zombies have their own special behaviors and their own weaknesses to different plants." Same issue. I know we're not a WP:GAMEGUIDE, but I think we're leaving readers in the dust by not giving them examples, especially when they the types of Zombies, especially the dancing and football ones, are enthusiastically covered in reviews. Again, only use the ones brought up in reliable sources so it's not GAMEGUIDE-ish.

• Done

👨x🐱 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: Done with this set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done

• Missing alt text

• Done

• Done for one, not the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• File:Plants_vs_Zombies_Gameplay.png needs a more detailed FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's been expanded, but not appropriately. It looks like it's been largely copied from the lead image? They serve different purposes within the article so should have different rationales. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The templates being used are different. I'm mostly using the default text on the rationales. Is that wrong? Lazman321 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It reads as if the default text is for a lead image; that's not the use of the image here. What are you trying to convey with this image? What benefit does it provide to readers to have it here? Why is it needed in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free? These are the sorts of questions that the rationale should answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is used for readers to have a better understanding of the gameplay itself and can also be used to tell people that they made it to the right article if it was what they were looking for. This is what is mentioned in the rationale and I believe it is sufficient. Plus, I can't even change the descriptions. Lazman321 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The explanation currently in the FUR is insufficient, because it doesn't tell us what benefit this image provides in addition to the lead image, which is also non-free. If there is no added benefit we won't be able to use it. You do have the ability to edit the FUR here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I replaced the rationale with a non-free media rationale in order to actually edit the descriptions. I have clarified the purpose of use in the rationale. Lazman321 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done with your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

I am not sure I have time for a full review but I have a few comments:

• Per WP:VGBOX the game was released for multiple platforms with a similar cover, art without any platform-related logotypes should be used where possible either from an official source or by editing the cover picture in order to create a platform-neutral picture. The current cover art has various PC logos, etc, found a platform neutral one free from of them here [17].

• Done

• In the lead and body "Plants vs. Zombies received critical acclaim" 8 versions on Metacritic 2 (iOS) recieved "universal acclaim", DSiware " mixed or average" and rest "generally favorable", not sure how that results in overall critical acclaim.

• Comment: Is generally positive a better summary? Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe so yes, should be reflected in the lead as well

• Surely Stephen Notley should be mentioned at least once in development section since Notley was the writer, or the fact he only wrote the almanac section.

• Done

• Are there any free images avaliable of development staff or any other relevant images (appears to be this at commons [18] though not sure how copyright works in regards to that).

• Working: I have asked Dean Takahashi through Twitter to license a picture of George Fan he took during a 2018 interview about Octogeddon under Commons. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done: @Spy-cicle: Takahashi agreed to send OTRS an email saying that he will license the image under Commons license. He chose CC-BY-SA 4.0 International and now the image is in the article. By the way, in regards to the cosplay images, the problem is not copyright. The problem is this article does not have a cultural impact section as there is little-to-no information about its cultural impact. The closest would be the cultural references section, but adding a picture of cos players would add nothing to the section or this article. Lazman321 (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ah I see nice one on getting that free image. I understand what you mean about the relevance of cosplayers if there is no cultural impact section.
• The Fan image should have an alt text, and should be on the right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Possible to mention the link to the series article in some way (i.e. it spawned a series including third-person shooters, etc or something)

• Done

• The way it was placed seems a little MOS:EGGy, may need to reword a little bit.

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• The release section only mentions a PlayStation Network (should also be linked) port as if it is digital only on ps3 there appears to be a disc version also.

• Not Done: There needs to be reliable sources that mention the physical copies of the PS3 version, not store directories. If you can find some, I will definitely add them. Done for linking.

• There seems to be some strange inconsistent linking in the reference sometimes websites like IGN other times they are not.

• Comment: Can you please specify. Lazman321 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• For example in ref #37 IGN is linked, whilst in refs #40, #44, #45, etc it is not. The website parameters (IGN is just one example) should either be consistently linked or consistently not linked in references (iirc MOS does not mandate which one but may be worth double checking).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I've always been told that you only link the first instance of a work in a citation. But, I guess it is allowed to link every instance of a website in a citation. Done. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• First reference to readme appears to be dead (url-status should be changed)

• Done

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#GameplayFor readability, choose either "the player" (singular) or "players" (plural) and stay consistent throughout the section. inconsistent across the gameplay section.

• Done

• The usage of USD $ need MOS:NBSP and the M needs to spelt out on first usage per MOS:CURRENCY or spelt out both times since they are in different sections.

• Done

• The nbsps do not appear to be placed correctly (example $11{{nbsp}}billion, see MOS:NBSP).

• Done Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.

@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your second set of requests. Lazman321 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll circle back to this once I have some more time on my hands, but it is certainly looking better.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Nice work - made some tweaks. Seems alright on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments by Qwertyxp2000[edit]

Independent thinking here, but I would like to say that the content coverage of the article as a whole feels complete. It covers a well-balanced amount of both the in-universe and out-of-universe content in both quality and quantity, including the ratio between them. The word variety and sentence structuring appears to be clear and concise; neither too excessive nor too vague. Sources appear to be reliable and primarily secondary upon first glance, and source formatting feels well-structured upon a brief look at the reference list. Balance in Critical Reviews section appears to be done exceptionally well for tower defense games. The entire article provides a good example of how a tower defense game game should be formatted. The legacy section is also structured very clearly, and I can easily understand the content of those sections just by reading the entire sections within several minutes of deep reading. The leading section is a bit long for my liking, but the leading section sure sums up the entirety of the article sufficiently, keeping the most important points written there including the basic information about the game itself, the design and development, and the critical reviews and legacies.

If I have some criticism, I would probably work a bit more on the Legacy section and its subsections by introducing a bit more about each stage of the legacies, like perhaps add a leading section in Legacy about the general legacy of the Plants vs Zombie original game, obviously backed up with reliable secondary sources that is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would like to say this is a good candidate for Featured Article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Will get to soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Non source-related comment - You use both Stephen Notly and Stephen Notely. Which is correct?
• No action needed - while the Reddit thing looks a little dodgy, the verification checks out, so I'd say it's about equivalent to using the subject's social media and is cited very minimally, so its probably fine
• Who is James Gwertzman? That Slide Share source linked to him looks WP:SPS.
• In the body, it's the Suburban Almanac. The two times you cite it, it's Suburben Almanac. Which spelling is correct?
• Padgadget appears to be a blog, what makes it high-quality RS?
• One source links to Major Nelson, but that's a dab page.
• WP:VGRS says that Kotaku is reliable post-2010. There is a single 2010 cite to Kotaku that might ought to be replaced to be on the safe side.

I think that's it for formatting/reliability. Will conduct spot checks for text-source integrity and copyright soon. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered[edit]

Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by AviationFreak[edit]

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

• The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.

• I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?

• Changed to "circulation", in line with how it's described in Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?

• Changed to "revised". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".

• The "small improvements" are referring to the gameplay changes, hence why it's mentioned straight after gameplay in that sentence. I've added "to it" at the end for clarity though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements

• It was actually that initially, but was changed during one of the copy-edits. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.

• Changed to "revised sound" (and used the same prose for its mention in Reception), but I feel it sounds better without the "and". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oops, meant to say I don't agree with the "a", considering both use "and". Changed your edit. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.

• I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?

• Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd go with the first one. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.

• True, but I think this is potentially WP:OR. None of the sources explicitly describe it as "many" either. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Gotcha - Hadn't looked at the sources. If that's what they say, I agree with the current wording. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.

• Left as is, but I know what you mean. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?

• Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.

• Changed to suggestion. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.

• Done, and split into two sentences as it was getting too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?

• It's the name of the political party in-game so yes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There should be something like "in another" after ...in a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.

• Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the relevant guideline here is MOS:PLOTSOURCE, which says that plot citations are nice but not necessary. If secondary source summaries of the game exist it would probably be worth citing them in the Plot section. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.

• It's a change in the remaster. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.

• Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Put it in the infoxbox. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
• Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
• Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?

• It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Much better, prefer "designed" to "drafted". AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?

• Propose the following: "The artificial intelligence of NPCs was improved to respond more realistically to the environment; conversely, grass was animated to react to the player character's presence." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds good. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.

• Left as is. Seen several articles that refer to it as such. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.

• Changed to "contained". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.

• Removed from Development. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
• Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.

• Changed to just "Target" as the sources don't give further details. One of them calls the reservation card a "pre-order card", so have just wikilinked to the pre-order page. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
• more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.

• I don't see an issue with the grammar here, and I feel this alternative is too long. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.

• See below comment re. Pellas.

• The Pellas sentence looks great, but I'm talking here about the first sentence in that paragraph. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extraneous comma after "On Steam".

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.

• Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• This looks great to me. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
• In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.

• Changed to "an indication of future virtual goods". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.

• Done. I'd checked all of these previously, so must have missed this one. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
• I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
• Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.

• Combined the end of the sentence with the following one, so both sentences are of similar length. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

Miscellaneous

• Noticed this right off the bat, so looking at miscellaneous first. The article switches between abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to Modern Warfare Remastered and Remastered. I believe sticking with one or the other would be a benefit. It appears most sources abbreviate to Modern Warfare Remastered, so I'd stick with that in my opinion.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have noticed that using its full title makes the already-long subsection heading of "Pricing of DLC and standalone version of *title*", compared to the others, strikingly longer. Do you have any objections in replacing it with "game" instead? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Gameplay" and "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Plot"; I normally see this formatted as "X of Y", so this could look like "Gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and "Plot of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" if you prefer.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• A glance at Plot, it might be confusing to some readers. You could cite the game for clarification if you believe some parts are confusing to explain in simplicity (you can check out Paper Mario: The Origami King#Plot for an example of this)

• These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Good Job! I really like this lead.
• However, I strongly dislike parenthesis, as to me they simply look unprofessional. They could be changed to hyphens, I guess.

• This was done during a copy-edit but I wasn't keen on it either; we have another use of hyphens in the lead so makes sense to do the same here. Changed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example." While this is not really important to understanding gameplay, it doesn't hurt to have anyways considering the length of this section. Your choice.

• I'd say mentioning you can see your arms and gun while prone matters even less, but yes, without them the section would be notably short; will keep. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "... and cheats while adding several new cheats." "Cheats" is repeated twice here.

• It's because there are only new cheats, not new collectibles, or are you saying it would sound better without the noun being used twice? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."

• "The multiplayer mode offers a greater ..." -> "The multiplayer mode offers a larger ..." because "greater" sounds more ad-like.

• Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• "A number of weapons not featured in Modern Warfare were added." This sounds rather clunky to me. They simply added more guns, correct? Maybe something along the lines of "Modern Warfare Remastered also added additional weapons" or something like that.

• Used your suggestion but with "the game" instead as having the title mentioned near the end of the paragraph didn't seem appropriate. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• I have nothing specific to point my finger at. I'm angry about that. I promise I'm nitpicky! I'm a Wikipedian!

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini!🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and Comicbook.com, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini!🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Masters (snooker)[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the latest Masters championship from January this year. 20 year old Yan Bingtao won the event on his debut appearance. The Masters invites the 16 best snooker players in the world for a single-elimination bracket. I've spent a bit of time on this article, and gone through GAN earlier this year. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Kickstarting this FAC with an assessment of its images:

• File:2021 Betfred Masters Snooker Tournament Logo.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• I see no good reason to doubt that File:Marshall Arena Milton Keynes 6 July 2020.jpg, File:Kyren Wilson PHC 2018-4.jpg, File:Ronnie O’Sullivan and Hilde Moens at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 01.jpg, File:Stuart Bingham PHC 2016-1.jpg, File:David Gilbert PHC 2016-3.jpg, File:John Higgins at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-04 01.jpg, and File:Yan Bingtao PHC 2016-2.jpg are the uploaders' own works as claimed. It just feels overly monotonous to have all of them aligned towards the right; have some align to the left instead. For captions that include names of multiple people, it would help to specify who is who. You shouldn't just assume viewers will know figure it out right away.

Might come back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll put something on there (pictured) to show who is who. I don't feel that moving items to the left arbitrarily makes the article easier to read, personally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, MOS:IMAGELOCATION says It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. On another note, the caption for the Ronnie O'Sullivan picture still is ambiguous since two people are shown within it. You can use "(left)" and "(right)" to distinguish them from one another. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but that also says that they should mostly be on the right. As much as having all of the images look at the text, I don't think this is particularly warranted; although happy to discuss. I have fixed the O'Sullivan image Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

I may claim WikiCup points, if I consider my review to be substantial enough. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: "Sixteen players were invited to the event, the highest from the snooker world rankings..." - how about something like "The top sixteen players from the snooker world rankings..."?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Lead: "The World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association organised the tournament broadcast by the BBC and Eurosport in Europe, but was played behind closed doors because of COVID-19 restrictions." needs a bit of rework.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Lead: Should be "Yan" throughtout, rather than "Bingtao" twice, I think.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Overview: "The World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, " - this statement has been accepted in numerous reviewed articles, but as the WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST, is it really right to say that WST is a subsidiary? WST is "administered by" World Snooker Limited, which is 51% owned by Matchroom Sport Ltd. Source
  • I have zero idea. The current wording was suggested by someone else (I think Rodney Baggins.) This will be wording we use a lot, so probably worth coming up with a suitable wording for the relationships in these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament summary:"Steve Davis referred to Yan as "naive" saying," - I think the comma should be a word earlier.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Optional: Tournament summary: paraphrase "flying start and get his tail up"?
  • I'm not sure what I would paraphrase it too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament summary: There is a duplicate link for "plant" but might be worth retaining this as it could be an unfamiliar term to many readers.
  • I'm happy to remove or keep. I have no worries either way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament summary: The archived page for "Masters snooker 2021 – Yan Bingtao holds nerve to beat John Higgins 10–8 in gripping final" appears briefly for me but then blanks. I assume that "The odds were 50–1 against Yan winning the event" was the case before the tournament started - can the timing be added in?
  • Done. I've replaced with another ref anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament summary: "Other players appreciated Yan's play." - if this is about the Davis and O'Sullivan comments following, it seems redundant. Davis, who is mentioned earlier, isn't an active professional tour player, and O'Sullivan is also mentioned earlier.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament summary: Davis commented he was "impressed with his temperament" and his nerve" - stray quotation mark.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Tournament draw: "Numbers given show the players' seeding for the tournament."- add that it is the numbers to the left of the players' names, and the numbers in parentheses for the final.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Century breaks: source retrieval date has to be on or after 17 January to support the content, doesn't it?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Looks to me like the captions are all sentences rather than sentence fragments so should all have full stops, per WP:CAPFRAG. (Happy to be corrected on this.)
  • This is one of those "rules that are mostly not true" deals, at least for me. I almost never use fragments in captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Caption: "making his debut at the event" - suggest slight reword as his actual debut match was against Robertson. Maybe something like "who made his debut Masters appearance at the event," ?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• References: For Snooker Scene, "|magazine=Snooker Scene" rather than "|publisher=Snooker Scene"; location is Halesowen rather than Haloswen.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    • BennyOnTheLoose. I've replied to the above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi BennyOnTheLoose, any further thoughts on this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Gog the Mild I'm happy that the article is a suitable length, with an appropriate range of sources, is well-structured, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. I would like a view on the "subsidiary of" issue from others, and have a few more points, none fundamental. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: slight tweaking needed for "organised the tournament and was broadcast by the"
• Lead: "won the match 10–8 to win" - suggest changing either "won" or "win".
• Overview: "Barry Hawkins, second reserve also" - I think either "second reserve Barry Hawkins also" or add a comma for "Barry Hawkins, second reserve, also"
• Overview: (optional) "Initially, the Masters" to ""Initially, the 2021 Masters" as we were mentioning the 1975 event just a paragraph ago.
• Overview: "organised the event sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" - maybe something like "organised the event which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company" just to make it very clear that it was the tournament and not the WPBSA that was sponsored, which I believe is the statement being made.
• First round - not sure about MOS - should it be "Gary Wilson" and "Kyren Wilson", or "Gary" and "Kyren"?
  • MOS:SAMESURNAME is the guideline, but I've read it a few times, and it seems to contradict itself. Anyone know for sure? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• First round: "David Gilbert had been drawn against the world number one, Judd Trump; however, he had been replaced by Joe Perry" - is "Trump had been replaced" better?
• Final: "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the 2006 Masters." reads to me like he won the 2006 event more than once. Maybe something like "Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006."?
• Final: "At age 20 years, 11 months" doesn't quite read right to me.
• Century breaks: consider replacing one instance of "made" in "made during the tournament, the highest was a 145 made"
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, I have made the suggested changes, all seems like suitable wording changes. My only issue is the Gary/Kyren wording, which I read both ways, as in the MOS I linked says that you should use both "Gary" and "Gary Wilson". Happy to fix up if there is a suitable way to deal with this, but it's a bit more difficult as they aren't related. This would be great to know, as they also played at the World's article I'm working on now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your responses, Lee Vilenski. I'm happy to support. None of the other reviewers seem troubled by the "subsidiary" issue so I'm fine with that part being left as-is pending any new views. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

As promised.

• by sports betting company Betfred. "bookmaker" could be a more concise description.
  • Sure, but then it would read bookmaker Betfred, which I'd like to avoid. I think everyone would understand what a "betting company" is, but a bookmaker could be something like an accountant to those not in the know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• The defending champion was Stuart Bingham, who defeated... to "The defending champion, Stuart Bingham, had defeated..." for flow.
  • I've made the change, although I'm not convinced it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• You could mention that Barry Hawkins was the second reserve player as this is what I believe he was.
  • Sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• to host an audience since the 2020 World Snooker Championship. you could include a date or month for this event for perspective.
  • Done.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• See first comment regarding the second mention of Betfred.
• A breakdown is shown below: "is as follows" might be more appropriate wording.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Masters began on 10 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
  • You'd be surprised - quite a few events take place in different years than their titles suggest! We do define this earlier, so I've removed from the summary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Gary Wilson, world ranking number 18, you previously say Hawkins was ranked 18th. Presumably the rankings changed in this time, or is this a mistake?
  • Nope, typo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Remove the duplicate link to 'fluke'.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Steve Davis suggested Ding had "panicked", while the 1997 world champion, Ken Doherty here you give a mention about the achievements of Doherty, but not about Davis. Any reason for this?
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• on the 14 and 15 remove 'the'.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• played between David Gilbert and Wilson why do you refer to Gilbert by his full name here?
  • done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Six-time champion Steve Davis see three comments above. This mention of his achievements should be moved upwards to his first mention. Also, why do you refer to him by his full name?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• after a 47-minute ninth frame why is this length of time considered significant? You might want to clarify this.
  • I've added "lengthy". Almost an hour is quite a long frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Former world champion John Parrott described Higgins' performance as "spellbinding", whilst Stephen Hendry see five comments above for the same query.
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Both semi-final matches were played on 16 January 2021 we already know it's in 2021.
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• contested between David Gilbert and John Higgins any reason why you refer to them by their full names?
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've noted a general trend where you refer to players by their full names if they weren't mentioned for a while. Just wondering whether this is something you deliberately do, which is absolutely fine, or whether this needs to be addressed?