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 в достаточной степени 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 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 ]

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 были некоторые субъективные проблемы с понятностью некоторых из них. Подобное возражение, похоже, в последнее время сошло на нет, и здравый смысл в некоторой степени 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)

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)

Уилла Кэтэр [ править ]

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

Эта статья про Уиллу Кэтэр, писательницу, которая в течение нескольких лет в двадцатом веке жила со своим домашним партнером Эдит Льюис. Ее больше всего помнят за ее романы о равнинах, которые сделали 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 [1] 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 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)

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 ( [2] ). 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 основе 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 заканчиваются 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)

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)

• 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)

@ 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)

Комментарии 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 величайших классиков Великобритании» - 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 перефраз.

• 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)

Комментарии 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, а пару предложений - в статьи, посвященные критике текста. В остальном я удовлетворен тем, что это по существу 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, кажется, никого не беспокоило, но на самом деле я думаю, что это имеет 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)

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)

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?
• Есть ли причина, по которой у персонажа и актрисы схожие имена?
• «кого нанимают работать в офис небольшой строительной компании» - Разве это не должно быть активным голосом? «кто начинает работать в офисе небольшой строительной компании»
• «быстро женится на овдовевшей хозяйке» - не уверен, что «быстро» многое делает для понимания читателем.
• «Многочисленные продюсерские компании наблюдали за съемками» - Если их всего пять, разве их нельзя назвать?
• Ведущий упоминает, о чем говорится в отзывах, но не говорит, были ли они положительными или отрицательными.
• 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?
• «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.
• Есть еще одно предложение, в котором все происходит «быстро», но разве это не подразумевается автоматически, поскольку в сериале всего шесть эпизодов?
• 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!
• «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».
• «Шойер заявила, что она« вызывает смех, которого даже нет в сценарии ». Что это значит?

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).

Комментарии от Aoba47 [ править ]

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

Жадность (игровое шоу) [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 00:57, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Эта статья о недолговечном игровом шоу Fox « Жадность» , которое считалось ответом сети на успех шоу « Кто хочет стать миллионером» на канале ABC . Ведущим ее был Чак Вулери из « Колесо фортуны» , « Love Connection» и « Scrabble» , и он длился примерно восемь месяцев с ноября 1999 года по июль 2000 года. Статья только что прошла номинацию GA в прошлом месяце. Я и раньше приносил несколько статей об игровых шоу в статус FA, но прошло несколько лет с тех пор, как я работаю в FAC, поэтому любые отзывы приветствуются и ценятся. Bcschneider53 ( разговор ) 00:57, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарий от Aoba47 [ править ]

• Потратив день на размышления об этом, я решил поддержать статью для продвижения. Я верю, что номинант сделал все возможное, чтобы найти вторичные источники, чтобы поддержать продакшн, поэтому я думаю, что использование первичных источников (то есть эпизодов) должно быть нормальным. Удачи с КВС! Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 20:36, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения [ править ]

Изображения имеют соответствующую лицензию. Никкимария ( разговор ) 19:48, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор источника [ править ]

Быстрый вопрос: где был открыт доступ к Furman & Furman 2000? Спасибо, Heartfox ( разговор ) 04:26, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox : У меня есть личный экземпляр книги. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 12:56, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «задают вопрос с числовым ответом от 10 до 999. Каждый участник вводит свои ответы, используя клавиатуру перед собой». → неудачная проверка

• Удалено, учитывая, что это было на клавиатуре, в любом случае, вероятно, чрезмерно. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Утверждение «Шести конкурсантам задают вопрос с числовым ответом от 10 до 999» не видно на приведенных страницах книги. Heartfox ( разговор ) 20:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Сделанный. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Начиная с эпизода шоу от 28 апреля 2000 года (первый эпизод Super Greed) и продолжаясь до конца шоу, квалификационный раунд был исключен», → но как вы можете процитировать один эпизод и не знать, что это был Super Greed до / после этого?

• Переделал этот раздел. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «хотя в некоторых эпизодах, вышедших в эфир в июне 2000 года, все еще содержался уточняющий вопрос» → цитируется только один эпизод

• Этот раздел переработан, на YouTube полностью доступен только выпуск колледжа, так что остальное сложно проверить. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «С 28 апреля по 19 мая 2000 года шоу носило название Super Greed». → цитируется только серия от 28 апреля.

• Привел новый газетный источник. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Вы можете переместить сноску в конец предложения.

• Сделанный. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• fn 43 принадлежит Zap2it , поэтому я бы поместил это в параметр agency =. Там также есть дата Лос-Анджелеса, поэтому я бы добавил место = Лос-Анджелес.

• Добавлен. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «повторные показы« Жадности »транслировались по Game Show Network (GSN) время от времени с января 2002 года» → но источник - с 2002 года, как это может быть «с тех пор»?

• Подправлено, ссылка действительно только проверяет, в первую очередь, GSN приобретает шоу. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• fn 2 дата отличается от веб-сайта.

• Я понятия не имею, в чем дело с этим. Дата в URL-адресе отражена в цитировании, а контекст статьи дает понять, что она была написана в 2000 году, а не в 2005 году, поэтому я выбрал первое. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• что делает Mental Floss достойным цитирования в FA?

• Насколько я помню, у меня никогда не было никаких возражений против этого, хотя я заменил его источником из The Atlantic . - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Уоррен был самым большим победителем программы ... и недолго удерживал титул победителя крупнейшего игрового шоу в США за все время; в сочетании с предыдущей серией побед в шестизначной серии на Sale of the Century в 1986 году» → не в источнике.

• Переделал этот раздел. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Уоррен стал самым крупным победителем программы с $ 1,410,000 и недолго удерживал титул победителя крупнейшего игрового шоу в США всех времен» → В этом эпизоде ​​прямо упоминается, что он был его самым большим победителем и что он был самым крупным победителем игрового шоу в США. все время?

• Вулери упоминается только в эфире , что Уоррен побил рекорд по самой большой игре шоу победитель все время, которое , очевидно , означает , что он был бы Жадность " большим победителем s тоже. Поскольку после Уоррена никто не выигрывал приз в размере 2 000 000 долларов, Уоррен в итоге стал самым крупным победителем программы. Этот источник в LA Times, кажется, упоминает Уоррена как № 4 за все время, пока Кен Дженнингс был на Jeopardy! , Это было бы достаточно для цитирования его Greed " самым большим победителем слишком? - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «выиграл 1 765 000 долларов» → источник не приводит цифру в тысячах.

• Добавлен второй источник. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Рекорд Уоррена был вскоре после этого, когда Дэвид Леглер выиграл 1 765 000 долларов на телеканале NBC Twenty One» → источники не упоминают, что Леглер побил рекорд Уоррена. Тем временем кто-то другой мог его обыграть.

• Тот же источник в LA Times, который я предложил выше, упоминает Олмстеда и Тутанта под номерами 1 и 2 соответственно, за которыми следуют Леглер с 3 и Уоррен сразу за 4. И Олмстед, и Тутан выигрывают после Леглера, что означает, что Леглер побил рекорд Уоррена. Я думаю, что мы могли бы использовать этот источник для обоих вышеупомянутых двух пунктов, но я хотел объяснить мои рассуждения здесь и получить от вас зеленый свет, прежде чем делать это. Это сработает? - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• предложите переместить fn 32 в конец предложения

• Сделанный. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• fn 33; есть ли лучший источник, чем то, что кажется самоизданным?

• Это сложно, потому что Томпсон был в значительной степени незаметен на Greed, никогда не упоминался в эфире ... это единственный источник, который я смог найти. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я думаю, что его нужно будет удалить, если не удастся указать лучший источник.

• Разве это не тот случай, когда первоисточники лучше, чем отсутствие источника вообще? Это явно голос Томпсона, не говоря уже о том, что он работал с Fox в то время в нескольких других программах, некоторые из которых были игровыми шоу. Если в этом разница между поддержкой и противником, я не позволю этому стоять на пути. Но я чувствую, что полностью удалить его - все равно что исключить Джонни Гилберта из Jeopardy! или Родди из "Цена правильная" . - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Источники Los Angeles Times , New York Times выглядят как url-status = limited

• Пытался изменить это, но он вернулся как недопустимый параметр на моей стороне? Я предполагаю, что это потому, что не подписчики получают только ограниченное количество бесплатных статей, но когда я пошел менять статус на ограниченный, это дало мне недопустимое сообщение в разделе ссылок. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Мои извинения; Я имел в виду url-доступ, а не url-статус. Это также относится к Атлантике . Heartfox ( разговор ) 20:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Сделанный. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 00:55, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• fn 41 от WP: FORBESCON , и я думаю, это скорее мнение, чем факт, поэтому я бы использовал его только для его мнения в разделе приема. Есть ли другие источники, указывающие на Гейл Берман?

• Еще не видел ни одного, но я проверю, я полагаю, может быть что-то, что обсуждает общий сдвиг в стратегии Фокса, даже если в нем прямо не упоминается жадность. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Думаю, это сделано сейчас с помощью нового источника в газете. - Bcschneider53 ( разговор ) 18:07, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я бы удалил ссылку на автора Forbes из заявлений о третьих лицах. Статья в The York Dispatch опубликована в Los Angeles Daily News, так что это будет агентство = и в ней есть дата Пасадены, поэтому я бы добавил место = Пасадена, Калифорния. Heartfox ( разговор ) 20:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Сделанный. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 00:55, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• «Премьера« Жадности »с рейтингом 4,0 среди взрослых в возрасте 18–49 лет» → не в фн 76

• Переделал. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Я настоятельно рекомендую предоставить полную информацию о просмотрах / рейтингах для премьеры (и, если возможно, финала). Например, это Newspapers.com вырезка показывает он получил 9,86 миллиона зрителей, что является более полезным , чем «почти 10000000».

• Сделано к премьере, проверим финал (хотя следует также отметить, что в последней серии не было ничего особенного из-за резкой отмены шоу). - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Теперь получены финальные рейтинги. - Bcschneider53 ( разговор ) 18:07, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Он транслировался за пределами США?

• Насколько мне известно, формат был лицензирован на международном уровне, но я не верю, что американская версия транслировалась сама по себе. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Кажется, я видел материал на ProQuest, который транслировался на канале Global в Канаде. Может быть, попробуйте поискать еще раз. Также для ссылок ProQuest вам нужно сделать только https://proquest.com/docview/ <номер документа> /, и вы можете удалить весь лишний материал wikipedialibrary.idm, а также [FINAL Edition] из заголовка, поскольку он просто номер газеты, а не собственно название статьи. Heartfox ( разговор ) 20:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Добавлено и готово. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 00:55, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Я чувствую, что в Библиотеке Википедии есть источники , к которым не обращались. Например, эта статья USA Today содержит ценную исходную / производственную информацию, но не используется в статье. Есть также много неиспользованных обзоров, которые могут улучшить раздел критического приема. Мне придется возразить, потому что я не думаю, что он достаточно хорошо исследован, и есть проблемы с целостностью источника текста. Я бы не стал считать эту статью «завершенной» на данный момент. Heartfox ( разговор ) 23:17, 22 апреля 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox : Спасибо за ваш обзор. Мне жаль слышать, что вы не думаете, что это достаточно хорошо исследовано, тем более что я провел столько же (если не больше) исследований для этого шоу, чем любое другое мое игровое шоу FA. Конечно, это не значит, что там ничего нет, поэтому я сделаю все возможное, чтобы посмотреть, что еще есть, и, надеюсь, превращу вашу оппозицию в поддержку. Тем не менее, я надеюсь, что большинство проблем с целостностью исходного текста теперь исправлено, и что я смогу исправить последние несколько в ближайшее время. Не стесняйтесь еще раз взглянуть на это, чтобы увидеть, действительно ли мои изменения решили ваши проблемы. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 01:08, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Да, не торопитесь, я вернусь через несколько дней, отвечу на комментарии и, возможно, оставлю еще. Я ожидаю, что мое противодействие будет временным. Я проверяю Furman & Furman на archive.org, и, если это не другое издание, некоторые утверждения в статье по-прежнему не соответствуют книге (так что, возможно, я бы просто процитировал премьеру вместо этих основных фактов, если их нет в вторичный источник). Heartfox ( разговор ) 08:19, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

@ Heartfox : Спасибо за терпение. Я считаю, что рассмотрел последние несколько пунктов, и я был бы признателен еще раз взглянуть, чтобы убедиться, что я ничего не пропустил. А пока я посмотрю, смогу ли я найти еще несколько обзоров. Еще раз спасибо, - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 18:07, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Я вычеркнул адресованные комментарии и ответил на другие. Я также заметил, что нет конкретного источника для программы, последний раз транслировавшейся 4 июля? Дата отмены не обязательно является последней датой трансляции. Heartfox ( разговор ) 20:03, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Я так понимаю, вы имеете в виду 14-е? У меня есть еще один источник книги, в котором 14 июля указана дата окончания. Я добавлю его, продолжая рассматривать остальные вопросы. - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 15:31, 27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

@ Heartfox : Я думаю, что все вопросы уже рассмотрены (или, по крайней мере, отмечены). Готовы еще раз взглянуть, что еще нужно сделать. Спасибо, - Bcschneider53 ( обсуждение ) 00:55, 28 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Миссурийский кавалерийский полк Николса [ править ]

Номинант (и): Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Хотя это короче, я считаю, что все освещено досконально - это не самая масштабная тема. Сформированное в середине 1864 года, подразделение в целом несколько раз недоброжелательно относилось к железнодорожному имуществу, участвовало в незначительных боевых действиях и сыграло значительную роль в битве при Маленькой Голубой реке. В какой-то момент в 1865 году подразделение распалось, хотя детали действительно неясны. Что известно, так это то, что большинство бойцов подразделения не позаботились о получении официальных документов о сдаче. Hog Farm _Talk 01:55, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Обзор изображения - пройти : File: Battle of the Blue by Benjamin D. Mileham.jpg , возможно, является PD, но для лицензирования требуется дополнительная документация, нам нужно задокументировать дату смерти Майлхема, чтобы применить указанный тег PD, а создание картины не эквивалент публикации. ( t · c ) buidhe 03:02, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Можно ли разделить раздел Price's Raid на подразделы для удобства чтения? ( t · c ) buidhe 03:02, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Buidhe : - Не удалось найти дод для Майлхэма, поэтому я заменил его другим изображением рейда Прайса, сделанным человеком, погибшим в 1914 году. Я также добавил три подзаголовка в раздел «Рейд Прайса». _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 13:26, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

Прошедший. Никкимария ( разговор ) 00:56, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• FN14: сайт здесь не нужен
  • Удаленный.
• В источнике "Официальных отчетов" указаны редакторы, которые должны быть включены сюда. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 20:01, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Nikkimaria : - Спасибо, что заставили меня сделать это. В процессе поиска редакторов я обнаружил, что на самом деле использовал переиздание 1902 года вместо оригинала 1893 года, и также изменил цитату, чтобы отразить это. Hog Farm _Talk 21:51, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии

• историк Джеймс МакГи считает, что отряд действительно вернулся в армию Конфедерации. Вам действительно нужен первый «тот»?
  • Не уверен, поэтому я удалил его как в начале, так и в какой-то похожей фразе в теле
• В июле законодатели штата, выступающие против отделения, провели голосование против отделения, в то время как Джексон и законодатели, выступающие за отделение, проголосовали за отделение в ноябре, присоединившись к Конфедеративным Штатам Америки и действуя как правительство в изгнании. Если законодатели штата, выступающие против отделения, проголосовали против отказа от отделения, как этот штат фактически присоединился к Конфедеративным Штатам Америки? сбивает с толку.
  • В Миссури было два конкурирующих правительства; Я пытался прояснить это
• поражение конфедератов в кампании в Атланте можно связать с кампанией в Атланте?
  • Связано
• давая Линкольну преимущество на выборах над Макклелланом, согласно нашей статье о президентских выборах в США 1864 года , Линкольн выиграл с большим, чем «преимущество». Therapyisgood ( разговорное ) 14:49, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Лучше ли работает фраза «дал Линкольну преимущество на выборах над Макклелланом»?

Являются ли изменения удовлетворительными для вас, @ Therapyisgood : ? _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 23:53, 18 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Я хотел бы услышать, как кто-то, не входящий в MILHIST, прокомментировал WP: LENGTH, поскольку он применим к этой статье, прежде чем я поддержу (например, статья или разделы слишком длинные?). Therapyisgood ( разговорное ) 16:58, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии поддержки от Sturmvogel_66 [ править ]

• Не думайте, что действие Бунвилля заслуживает упоминания в леде.
  • Удаленный
• Большая часть первого абзаца раздела «Фон» должна быть сжата. Все, что читателю действительно нужно знать, - это то, что в штате было два конкурирующих правительства и что Союз имел фактический контроль.
  • Я сократил этот абзац до пяти предложений.
    • Отлично, но все же в нем есть неважные или нерелевантные факты. Как партизанская война и предыдущее командование Прайса государственной гвардией штата Миссури связаны с историей полка? - Штурмфогель 66 ( разговор ) 16:59, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
      • Оба они исчезли. Что-нибудь еще, что нужно обрезать? _{Разговор о} Hog Farm 17:56, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
        • Подойдет, свинья, так и подойдет. (См. Бейб, если вы не можете разобрать фразу.) - Штурмфогель 66 ( разговор ) 20:45, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Известно, что существовало десять рот полка. Одна была обозначена буквой G, а другая - буквой H, в то время как обозначения других компаний неизвестны. Предложите объединить их следующим образом: «Известно, что существовало десять компаний, но единственными подтвержденными обозначениями являются G и H. компании "или что-то подобное
  • Сделанный
• захват оповещения Джонса о близости станции Хэй для имени; предложите изменить его на "станцию" или аналогичный
  • Сделанный
• ссылка арьергарда
  • Сделанный
• Прайс приказал Шелби участвовать в преследовании отступающих солдат Союза. [18] Полк Николса участвовал в преследовании, которое не увенчалось успехом. Объедините их со словами «Принц приказал Шелби и его бригаде участвовать в безуспешном преследовании солдат Союза» или чем-то подобным.
  • Сделанный
• дефис на 300 человек, арьергард
  • Я думаю, что получил это в нужном месте
• Не могли бы вы объяснить немного подробнее, как полк позволил войскам Союза уйти во 2-й битве при Лексингтоне? - Штурмфогель 66 ( разговор ) 19:23, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Уточнено - также перефразировано, чтобы было понятнее, вся бригада находится вне позиции.
    • @ Sturmvogel 66 : - Я ответил на все комментарии. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 02:49, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Поддержка , обзор, не относящийся к MILHIST, и проверка прозы, см . Обсуждение FAC . Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 00:23, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

The 1975 (песня 2019 года) [ править ]

Номинант (ы): - Билорв ( разговор ) 01:50, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Можно было бы ожидать, что четвертая песня 1975 года под названием "The 1975" будет трудным поисковым запросом, но в отличие от трех других - которые о ... эээ, оральном сексе - в этой есть ключевое слово "Грета Тунберг", которая выражает этот протест. песня об изменении климата. В случае повышения, это будет первый зеленый плюс из номинированных заметок о хорошей теме в условной форме (для которого все заслуги принадлежат (CA) Giacobbe ), который превратится в золотую звезду. Я уверен, что статья является исчерпывающей, и с нетерпением жду предложений по дальнейшим настройкам и улучшениям. - Билорв ( разговор ) 01:50, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка Ли Виленски [ править ]

Совсем скоро начну обзор этой статьи! Мои обзоры, как правило, сосредоточены на проблемах прозы и MOS, особенно на lede , но я также буду комментировать все, что можно улучшить. В течение следующих двух дней я опубликую несколько комментариев ниже, на которые вы должны либо ответить, либо задать мне вопросы по вопросам, в которых вы не уверены. Я буду требовать баллы на википедию, как только этот обзор закончится.

Lede

• Песня была выпущена 24 июля 2019 года, можно ли сказать, что она была выпущена как сингл ? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 года (UTC)
  • Проверьте сноску на это: "People" теперь признан ведущим синглом (подразумевая, что "The 1975" не был синглом из-за того, как он был / не выпущен), хотя некоторые репортеры на момент выхода "The 1975" были немного ленивы и использовали слово "сингл". Возможно, вы могли бы назвать это промо-синглом, но я искал источники, говорящие об этом, и в их отсутствие я думаю, что это оригинальное исследование . Сообщите мне, если размещение сноски не является лучшим вариантом, чтобы привлечь внимание к этому. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Группа ранее открывала каждый из своих альбомов одноименной песней с одинаковым текстом; однако четвертая версия отличается от этого набора текстов. - Я не знаю, что это значит? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Я мог понять, что это значит. В отличие от другого одноименного открывающего альбома группы, этот не об оральном сексе. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 22:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Это бит "с одинаковым текстом", в котором плохая формулировка ... Тот же текст, что и у чего? Я понимаю, что ответ - «те же слова, что и друг у друга», но при первом чтении это было совсем неясно. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
      • Да, я согласен с этой двусмысленностью, но «общий набор текстов» (и другие изменения), надеюсь, исправят это. - Билорв ( разговор ) 12:58, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Итак, есть четыре альбома, и все четыре начинаются с песни под названием "The 1975", первые три имеют одинаковые тексты, но этот был другим? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Да, в последнем пункте точно правильно. Я пытался перефразировать. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• В нем - наверное, стоит сказать в версии 2019 года, так как «это» меня немного сбивает с толку, учитывая вышесказанное. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• «Наш дом горит» - шапки нужны? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Путаница изобилует. В моем экземпляре « Никто не слишком мал, чтобы иметь значение», заголовок пишется с заглавной буквы (минус «Есть», но наш стиль - использовать его с заглавной буквы), хотя вы можете найти примеры и не примеры речей, написанных с заглавной буквы / без заглавной буквы, например Разве я не женщина? vs Никогда еще столько не было в долгу перед столь немногими . Я считаю, что шапка - это правильно (это название произведения). Также есть вопрос о курсиве / кавычках, но я думаю, что в статье No One просто неправильно использовать и кавычки, и курсив (!), И похоже, что в большинстве статей используются кавычки. Так что по умолчанию я не выполняю никаких изменений, но дайте мне знать, если вы чувствуете себя решительно. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Думаю, вопрос не в том, как это выглядит на трассе, а в заглавных буквах речи. Я счастлив, если это то, как RS описывают речь (а не производную работу). С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
      • Ага, я думаю, что это так. - Билорв ( разговор ) 12:58, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Наверное, стоит упомянуть об отношениях Греты и Rebellion. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • В теле упоминается, что пожертвование было сделано по просьбе Тунберга, но хотя Тунберг и XR объединены комментаторами новостей или, возможно, частью одного и того же явления, я не вижу никаких формальных связей. Она выступала на выступлении XR, но также выступала в сотнях других организаций - не больше, чем она имеет отношение к XR, чем к парламенту Великобритании . - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• к 1975 году - группой, или мы на сверхсложной территории. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Конечно. Я понимаю, что это очень сложная тема из-за такого рода вещей. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Группа открыла свой бис песней "The 1975" до того, как пандемия COVID-19 остановила их турне. - наверное, стоит упомянуть: «Во время тура в 2020 году группа открыла свой выход на бис песней…» или это сбивает с толку то, о чем мы говорим. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Does When турне в 2019 и 2020 годах, до закрытия из-за пандемии COVID-19 , группа открыла свой выход на бис песней "The 1975". решить проблему? - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Намного лучше. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Проза

• Обычно мы предпочитаем, чтобы на изображениях лицо было направлено в сторону текста или вправо. Есть ли причина не выравнивать по правому краю? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Нет особой причины, изменено на выравнивание по правому краю. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• вместо этого будет «эра» двух альбомов, которые были записаны вместе - это, вероятно, требует некоторых пояснений. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Хорошо, а как насчет того, чтобы 31 мая 2018 года группа объявила, что они разделяют запланированный контент Music for Cars на два альбома. ? - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Намного лучше С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• "The 1975" - это открывающий трек второго из этих двух альбомов - это может немного сбить с толку, потому что "The 1975" также является названием вводного трека первого из этих двух альбомов. Возможно, измените это и скажите: «Второй из этих двух альбомов открывается треком под названием« The 1975 ». С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Грета Тунберг. Тунберг - старайтесь не повторять подобные слова. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Тунберг начал прогуливать школу - стал не посещать ... Пропускать немного неформально. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 15:00, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Поменял на "пропавшую школу". - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• «Наш дом горит», может быть, это подойдет в качестве WP: REDLINK ? Я был бы удивлен, если бы ее речь не была примечательной сама по себе. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • После некоторого перетасовки других перенаправлений (некоторые выпуски Scenes from the Heart называются « Наш дом в огне» ) связал « Наш дом в огне» (речь) и создал страницу как перенаправление на соответствующий раздел « Речи Греты Тунберг» , помеченный с {{ R с возможностями }} (я думаю, что известность правдоподобна). - Билорв ( разговор ) 12:58, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Заключительные слова: «Итак, все, пришло время для гражданского неповиновения. Пора бунтовать. - На самом деле я не люблю говорить« это лирика »без комментариев. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( Обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Суть этого фрагмента больше в том, чтобы объяснить, о чем песня, но гражданское неповиновение упоминается в начале абзаца. Я заменил его на. Она говорит, что существующие правила необходимо изменить, и призывает к бунту, потому что это справедливая часть речи, в которой она утверждает, что действующих правил недостаточно, а действовать в рамках них недостаточно. - Билорв ( разговор ) 12:58, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Хили охарактеризовал песню как «довольно красивую внешне», но также «довольно грустную, довольно красивую» и «довольно зловещую» - нам нужно здесь цитировать? Разве нельзя сказать «песня внешне красивая, но в то же время грустная и зловещая». С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 08:43, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 12:58, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Дополнительные комментарии

Кроме того, если вам понравился этот обзор или вы ищете элементы для обзора, у меня есть некоторые из них в моем списке номинаций . С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:45, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Оцените обзор, спасибо, что нашли время. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

@ Lee Vilenski : что-нибудь выдающееся или еще какие-то комментарии, или вы счастливы «поддержать»? - Билорв ( разговор ) 10:07, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

С радостью поддержу сейчас, если только кто-то не решит серьезную старую проблему. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 14:44, 20 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от 👨x🐱 [ править ]

Песня "The 1975" с Великим Тунбергом? ... О, это не о сексе. Слава Богу. В противном случае я бы поклялся, что песня была о ее секс-кукле ....... Я не шучу, она существует.

Отличная работа над статьями 1975 года. Я нахожу, что они раздуваются, но, тем не менее, они хороши, хотя это уже тема для отдельного разговора. Эта статья выглядит действительно хорошо собранной, поскольку ее проза понятна, а большинство источников достоверны. Однако у меня есть несколько серьезных проблем:

• Первому абзацу «Предыстория и запись» нет места в этой статье. Он ни с чем не связан, и единственное, что имеет значение, это то, что это первый трек в одном альбоме. У читателей есть статьи из соответствующих альбомов, если они хотят больше узнать об их истории.
  • Я собираюсь отказаться от этого: нормально придавать окружающий контекст второстепенным работам в более широком контексте, например, в статьях Black Mirror, над которыми я работал, во всех них есть абзацы о серии, в которой они находятся (пример : вверху San Junipero # Production ). Странное совпадение в том, что 3/4 серии Black Mirror изначально были заданы как серия 3, а затем разделены на 2, а Music for Cars изначально был альбомом 3, а затем разделен на альбомы 3/4. Еще один пример, который приходит на ум, - это отдельные статьи о лодочных гонках, количество общих оценок к настоящему времени должно быть выражено тремя цифрами (пример: The Boat Race 1909 # Background). Что касается связи здесь, большая часть вторичного освещения этой песни говорит о том, как она была использована в Notes on a Conditional Form (переход в "People", используемый для задания тона для альбома), и это связано со многими контента "Выпуск и продвижение". - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Мне хорошо известно (и я писал и редактировал) многие статьи содержат справочные разделы для установления контекста. Однако эти разделы обычно охватывают те части более широкого контекста, которые больше всего влияют на остальную часть статьи или относятся к ней. Я нисколько не вижу, как разделение альбома на два повлияло на то, как эта песня создавалась, выпускалась и продвигалась. Я скучаю по нему? 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 00:29, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
      • Как была написана песня - в рамках «эры» музыки группы Music for Cars , что означает, что ее производственный цикл перекрывался с другими песнями той эпохи, и они использовали студии звукозаписи, которые использовали в то время, и, возможно ( в зависимости от того, кого вы спросите) есть общий музыкальный стиль. Позже в статье упоминаются некоторые идеи по поводу того, что оба альбома ознаменовали переход к более откровенно политическим месседжам. (И фоновая эмбиентная музыка в этой песне такая же, как и в A Brief Inquiry ... и в других местах на NOACF , поэтому ясно написана / спродюсирована как часть тех же сессий, но это оригинальное исследованиес моей стороны.) Как он был выпущен - первоначальная ранняя дата, которую обещал Хили, с последующим постоянным переносом, привела к тому, что большая часть музыки для альбома NOACF была выпущена до того, как альбом был закрыт. Если бы это был один альбом или был выпущен вовремя, то эта песня была бы частью другого альбома, или никогда не записывалась, или была бы записана несколькими месяцами ранее. Как это продвигалось - продвигалось в турах Music for Cars (включая туры для первого из двух альбомов). По сути, производственный цикл не состоял из двух последовательных альбомов (в этом случае я бы не стал упоминать предыдущий альбом). Производственный цикл составлял сразу два альбома. Может быть, я смогу как-нибудь выделить некоторые из этих связей в абзаце? - Билорв ( разговор) 00:50, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
        • Дело принято. Я сначала не уловил эту связь, когда писал. Я просто подумал, что в предложениях говорится, что песни обоих альбомов были более политическими, чем предыдущие, и что на 2019 год у них было готово четыре трека из Notes. Я не связал и не уловил, что это результат разделения альбома. Я не могу сказать, читал ли я недостаточно внимательно, или статья могла бы прояснить это для читателя, но я бы сделал то, что вы предлагаете, тем не менее, чтобы быть в безопасности. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 01:11, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
          • Хорошо, посмотрим, что вы думаете о новой версии этого абзаца. - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
            • Теперь абзац был полностью удален, как это было изначально предложено в приведенном ниже отзыве. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:30, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Разве функция type = в шаблоне информационного окна не должна быть «Рекламный одиночный»? Очевидно, он не был впервые выпущен как часть релиза альбома.
  • Об этом говорилось выше - на мой взгляд, было бы оригинальным исследованием назвать это рекламным синглом. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Точка взята 👨x🐱 ( разговор ) 00:29, 16 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Раздел приема, хотя и хорошо перефразирован, страдает от того, что WP: RECEPTION хмурится.
  • Вы можете привести пару примеров? Я на самом деле использовал Википедию: копирование разделов приема неизмеримо часто за последние несколько лет, и это то, к чему я здесь стремился (предполагая, что это страница, которую вы имели в виду - WP: RECEPTION на самом деле не перенаправлял туда, хотя и был указан как ярлык, но Я смело это изменил). Они говорят: «Избегайте 'A сказал B'. ... Варианты включают 'A из B сказал C' и 'A сказал, что B'». Я стремился использовать их хорошее сочетание, варьировать ритм предложений и комбинировать мнения рецензентов, где это возможно, но в определенный момент я думаю, что резюме обзоров немного ограничены возможными форматами, поэтому кажутся немного повторяющимися. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • На самом деле, если присмотреться, это действительно хорошо сделано. Я подозревал, что здесь использован формат «А сказал Б», потому что первая половина раздела представлялась просто списком мнений. Мнения фактически объединены в первом абзаце в том, что они касаются того, как песня передала послание Греты. Признаюсь, я поспешил с суждением, когда сделал это заявление. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 00:29, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Тем не менее, я считаю, что эта часть является довольно цитатным фермизмом, несмотря на то, что она посвящена одной и той же теме: «Многие критики чувствовали себя эмоционально, слушая песню, в том числе Диллон Истоу из Gigwise, которому пришлось« остановиться и заплакать », впервые услышав ее. в машине. [55] Митч Моск из журнала Atwood Magazine охарактеризовал его как «волнующий душу». [24] Рецензент PopMatters оценил его как «вызывающий воспоминания и захватывающий», в то время как Мэдисон Феллер из Elle сказала, что «довольно ошеломляющий» трек дал ее озноб. [18] [56] Малкольм Джек из The Big Issue проанализировал эту речь как «умную и волнующую». [57] « 👨x🐱 ( разговор ) 01:15, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
      • Да, это был более слабый отрывок. Я думаю, что меньшее количество примеров может объяснить суть, поэтому я остановился на следующем : ряд критиков чувствовали себя эмоционально, слушая песню, в том числе Диллон Истоу из Gigwise, которому пришлось "остановиться и заплакать", впервые услышав песню в машине. и Мэдисон Феллер из Elle, у которой мурашки по коже от песни. [57] [58] Малкольм Джек и Митч Моск из журнала Atwood Magazine из Big Issue сочли это волнующим. [59] Я думаю, что это подходящее значение для одной из наиболее важных осей обратной связи, но если он все еще обсуждает суть вопроса, то, возможно, я мог бы просто сократить его, просто упомянув двух рецензентов, которые нашли это волнующим, а остальные в качестве дополнительных ссылок . - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Кроме того, я бы не стал использовать мнение Washington Examiner , консервативного издания, которое, как и другие ультраправые публикации, наполнено климатическим отрицанием. Если он пишет, что «изменение климата не было проблемой, которая должна вызывать глобальные протесты», и пишет журналист, который также заметно появляется на Fox News , весьма вероятно, что он отрицает проблему изменения климата или пытается обмануть себя, выглядя так, как будто он думает, что это проблема, когда он пишет для источника, который этого не делает. Я бы не стал подтверждать такое сомнительное утверждение как это.
  • Хорошо, WP: RSP отмечает некоторые споры по поводу надежности источника, но этот комментарий и идея избежать WP: FRINGE подтолкнули меня к его удалению. Но чтобы прояснить пару фактов, отмечу, что Шульц - женщина, и я не вижу никакой связи с Fox News. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 21:28, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Это (CA) Джакоббе, которого вы должны поблагодарить за другие статьи, между прочим, это не означало претендовать на звание GT nom, поэтому я скорректировал формулировку. Ответы на эти комментарии приходят сейчас. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:49, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Ответил, дайте мне знать, что вы думаете. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:31, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Больше комментариев

• «The 1975» - песня протеста, где Тунберг произносит устное выступление »Ни CNN, ни The Guardian не упоминают, что песня относится к этим двум жанрам. Говоря о CNN, ссылка, а также ссылка 3 (BBC) классифицируют его как трек эмбиентной музыки. Я бы посоветовал использовать это вместе с цитатой из PopMatters, чтобы еще раз подтвердить его жанр как эмбиент. The Guardian также классифицирует его как «минимальный», чего я не вижу в статье.
  • Источник Телеграфа изначально был там для "песни протеста", но затерялся в перестановке - исправлено. Инсайдер добавлен как «устное слово», как вы предлагаете ниже. Упомянутая эмбиентная музыка, и при ее следующем упоминании мы теперь говорим «минимал» в Guardian ref. - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Интересная и уникальная критика песни в ссылке 3, которую я не вижу в Reception: «Эссе прямое по своему содержанию, но не содержит реальных практических мер, которые, по ее мнению, должны быть реализованы». Та же самая цитата также нападает на 1975 год за то, что он летал на самолетах во время туров, что, я думаю, тесно связано с темой этой песни: «1975 год в настоящее время находится в мировом турне и отыграют концерты в Италии, Корее, Румынии, Сингапуре, Украине, В ближайшие недели Дубай и Австралия. Скорее всего, они полетят во многие из этих стран, несмотря на то, что авиаперелеты вносят значительный вклад в изменение климата ».
  • Теперь упомянул самолет как раз перед объявленными мерами по снижению негативного воздействия на окружающую среду. В «Прием» добавлено предложение: автор BBC рассматривал песню как свет с конкретными предложениями, но напрямую с обменом сообщениями. Я не думаю, что ясно, что это конкретно критика, поскольку BBC не отметила это под подписью, и у них есть по крайней мере заявленная позиция не выносить оценочные суждения собственным голосом организации («беспристрастность», как они называют Это). - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• AllMusic не является произведением, и его название не должно форматироваться как таковое в шаблоне цитирования и прозе.
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Я только что обнаружил, что в обзоре альбома Insider песня классифицируется как устное слово. Используйте эту ссылку для категоризации.
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 14:38, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Сообщите мне, если какие-либо из этих проблем не были решены в достаточной степени или есть что-то еще. Я думаю, что после этих изменений статья выглядит лучше. - Билорв ( разговор ) 18:03, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)

@ HumanxAnthro : что-нибудь выдающееся или еще какие-нибудь комментарии, или вы счастливы "поддержать"? - Билорв ( разговор ) 10:07, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии поддержки от Aoba47 [ править ]

• Я бы избегал однословных цитат, таких как «неудача» и «искренний», поскольку я не думаю, что они особенно полезны для читателя и могут отвлекать от других цитат. Я получил эту записку в прошлом FAC, поэтому я также хотел обратить на это ваше внимание.
  • Прежде чем я сделаю это, просто уточнить: предлагается ли здесь произносить слова, но без кавычек, или использовать почти синоним / перефразировать / перефразировать, чтобы избежать цитаты? - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Думаю, уместным будет любой вариант. Aoba47 ( разговорное ) 23:20, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Хорошо, в итоге я сделал смесь, в зависимости от того, что, на мой взгляд, сработало лучше всего. - Билорв ( разговор ) 00:35, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Я думаю, что это лучший способ решить эту проблему. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:43, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• В разделе «Предпосылки и запись» 1975 год должен быть связан в первую очередь. Заголовок и основная часть статьи обрабатываются отдельно, поэтому в обоих случаях группа должна быть связана в первом экземпляре.
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Просто примечание, но инструкции FAC не рекомендуют использовать готовую графику, поскольку это может «замедлить время загрузки страницы, а сложные шаблоны могут привести к ошибкам в архивах FAC». Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:21, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Это супер-придирка, но для этой части, предполагаемой условности появления гостей в музыкальном существе , я бы сказал, что их воспринимаемая условность в большей степени подчеркивает, что это исходило от них (если я правильно читаю эту часть).
  • Правильная интерпретация, Сделано - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Это, наверное, очень глупый вопрос, но я все равно его задам. Я не уверен в этой части . Песня была спродюсирована лейблом Dirty Hit . Как звукозаписывающий лейбл может спродюсировать песню? Я чаще всего видел слово «продюсер», связанное с продюсерами песни, а не с лейблом.
  • Совсем не тупой вопрос. Поразмыслив, я думаю, что "произведенный под лейблом Dirty Hit" может решить вашу проблему с этим. Дэниел и Хили - известные продюсеры, но (по крайней мере, если это что-то вроде обычного процесса производства музыки) они используют ресурсы лейбла и работают с ними над различными задачами, составляющими производство. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Я думаю, что «произведено под» звучит лучше, так что мне это подходит. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:23, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• В статье повторяет , что эта песня является первым на альбоме ( Заметки на бланке Условный открыт с треком под названием «1975». И «1975» является первой песней на 22-трековых Примечания по форме условного . ) И он производит впечатление излишне повторяющегося, а не полезного. Я бы сказал эту информацию только один раз. Я бы порекомендовал держать его там, где, по вашему мнению, он наиболее актуален.
  • Хорошо, достаточно честно, хранится только в «Фон». - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Я не уверен в связи в этой части, более явных политических сообщениях , поскольку я считаю, что это выглядит как пасхальное яйцо . Не думаю, что сразу понятно, что «политическая» ссылка приведет к статье о музыке и политике . Если вы хотите сохранить ссылку, думаю, потребуются дополнительные пояснения в прозе.
  • Удалено (я думаю, что кто-то добавил это, так как я тоже нахожу их довольно восторженными). - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• В этой части, консервативный политик Тереза ​​Вильерс , пожалуйста, дайте ссылку на Conservative, поскольку это будет полезно для незнакомых читателей, особенно тех, кто живет за пределами Великобритании.
  • Готово - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• В примечании четыре цитаты кажутся примером чрезмерного цитирования, и я бы рекомендовал объединить цитаты, чтобы избежать этого.
  • Я думаю, что при объединении теряется связь с исходной ссылкой, поэтому мне нужно сделать копию (нежелательно, поскольку изменение одного не изменит другого, и тогда вы не сможете увидеть все использования источника из ссылки "^ ab c" с, верно?). Так что не идеально для ссылок, используемых где-либо еще. Я только что назвал публикации и дал ссылки после названия. Или, может быть, я мог бы убрать одну и оставить нам три цитаты. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Разделение цитат за каждой публикацией решает эту проблему для меня, по крайней мере, поэтому я думаю, что это должно быть хорошо. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:23, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Это не требуется для FAC, но я настоятельно рекомендую вам заархивировать свои цитаты, чтобы избежать гниения ссылок и их смерти.
  • IABot был недоступен, когда я попробовал это в последний раз, но теперь готово. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• IABot может быть довольно вспыльчивым, так что я понимаю это смехотворно. Спасибо, что обратились к этому. Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:23, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Это скорее уточняющий вопрос, но были ли написаны какие-нибудь научные статьи об этой песне? Похоже, что большинство этих цитат - это онлайн-источники, что понятно, поскольку эта песня относительно недавняя. Мне просто было любопытно научное освещение, так как это похоже на то, что могло бы привлечь такое внимание и учебу.
  • Нет, я искал это, но не нашел ничего с нетривиальным упоминанием. Думаю, вы правы в том, что, возможно, это произошло слишком недавно. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Надеюсь, мои комментарии будут вам полезны. Я сосредоточился на прозе и оставлю источники, изображения и медиа другим редакторам. Как только все будет рассмотрено, я поддержу эту статью для продвижения. Надеюсь, у вас будут отличные выходные! Aoba47 ( разговор ) 04:41, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Да, абсолютно они полезны. Запрошено одно разъяснение, а остальные я попытался решить. - Билорв ( разговор ) 22:45, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо, что обратились ко всему. Я поддержать статью для продвижения. Удачи с FAC и удачных выходных! Aoba47 ( разговор ) 00:45, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Спасибо, приятных выходных тоже. :) - Билорв ( разговор ) 01:24, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Примечание. Я заменил графику на простой текст, подсказывая совету FAC: «Пожалуйста, не используйте графику или шаблоны на страницах номинаций FAC. Графика, такая как Done и Not done, замедляет время загрузки страницы, а сложные шаблоны могут привести к ошибкам в архивы FAC ". Хо ( разговорное ) 01:16, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

  Извини за это, Хо . Я читал это раньше, но это привычка от GA, и я полностью забыл. - Билорв ( разговор ) 09:47, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

  • • Не волнуйтесь. Удачи в номинации! Хо ( разговорное ) 11:27, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка Джакоббе [ править ]

Отличная работа над этой статьей. Это отличное чтение, информативное и соответствует всем критериям FA. Я не могу вспомнить какие-либо проблемы, которые еще не были рассмотрены в приведенных выше плакатах, поэтому это моя поддержка! Gia co bbe ^talk 15:32, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо, (CA) Джакоббе , я ценю это. - Билорв ( разговор ) 15:47, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка Тома [ править ]

Прочитав статью несколько раз, я думаю, что проза выглядит великолепно, ссылки очень хорошо организованы, а средства массовой информации используются в статье надлежащим образом. Единственное, что я считаю немного избыточным и не имеющим прямого отношения к самой статье, - это первый абзац раздела «Предыстория и запись». Кажется, это больше подходит для статьи в альбоме. Тем не менее, я поддержу и оставлю решение об удалении или не удалении раздела номинатору. - Том (T2ME) 17:04, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Поскольку вы второй, кто поднял этот вопрос, считайте, что это сделано. Тем не менее, я переместил предложение, в котором говорится, что это вводный трек « Примечаний к условной форме», на «Выпуск и продвижение», поскольку я думаю, что без него это было бы бессмысленно. Сообщите мне, если вы считаете, что это изменение вызывает какие-либо проблемы или затруднения. - Билорв ( разговор ) 23:30, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор изображения [ править ]

• Файл: The 1975 - The 1975 (песня 2019 года) .jpg : Использование, лицензия и обоснование кажутся мне нормальными, за исключением неработающей ссылки Spotify.
• Файл: Грета Тунберг в парламенте (46705842745) (обрезано) .jpg : Мне кажется, лицензия и использование подходят .
• Файл: The 1975 (песня 2019 года) .ogg : В свете обсуждения в тексте, я думаю, что эта соответствует WP: NFCC # 8 и другим критериям включения.
• Файл: Extinction Rebellion, зеленый плакат (обрезанный) .jpg : Мне кажется, лицензия и использование подходят. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:57, 29 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Не все изображения содержат текст ALT. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:57, 29 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Уильям Лайон Маккензи [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Z1720 ( обсуждение ) 16:54, 14 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Журналистка. Политик. Лидер восстания. Уильям Лайон Маккензи сыграл много ролей и попал в большие неприятности. Он попытался реформировать политическую систему Верхней Канады (то, что сейчас известно как Онтарио, Канада) и стал первым мэром Торонто. Он возглавил восстание в Верхней Канаде, немного сошел с ума и бежал в Соединенные Штаты, когда правительственные войска победили повстанцев. Он организовал вторжение в Верхнюю Канаду с американскими добровольцами, но был арестован американским правительством и помилован президентом Ван Бюреном. По возвращении в Канаду он стал политиком и выступал против предложений правительства.

Слишком много людей, которых нужно благодарить за их комментарии, как неформальные, так и в PR и GAN, поэтому я опубликую заметку на их странице обсуждения. Надеюсь, вам понравится просматривать эту важную биографию в истории Канады, так же как мне понравилось ее исследовать. Z1720 ( разговор ) 16:54, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Википедия: Рецензия / Уильям Лайон Маккензи / archive2 . Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 17:20, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Внесение в списки наблюдения с прицелом на поддержку; пожалуйста, свяжитесь со мной, когда независимые рецензенты закончат. Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 17:20, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображения - пройти

• Файл: Второй рынок в Йорке (Торонто) .jpg , Файл: MrsMackenzie.jpg, когда он был впервые опубликован? ( t · c ) buidhe 21:35, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Изображение второго рынка: работа, созданная в 1888 году. Миссис Маккензи: работа, созданная в 1850 году. Я обновил метки авторских прав на обоих изображениях в Commons, чтобы отразить это. Дайте мне знать, если вам понадобится дополнительная информация. Z1720 ( разговор ) 21:52, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Дата производства не обязательно совпадает с датой публикации. AFAIK, предыдущая работа не была бесплатной в Канаде на дату URAA, основанную на дате смерти автора, поэтому для публикации в США потребуется публикация до 1926 года. У второго нет информации об авторе, поэтому неясно, когда истек срок его авторских прав в Канаде, хотя, если он был сделан в 1850 году, я предполагаю, что он достаточно старый. ( t · c ) buidhe 22:17, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)
      • Я разместил свое продолжение на странице обсуждения этого FAC. Z1720 ( разговор ) 23:55, 14 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Ли Виленски [ править ]

Совсем скоро начну обзор этой статьи! Мои обзоры, как правило, сосредоточены на проблемах прозы и MOS, особенно на lede , но я также буду комментировать все, что можно улучшить. В течение следующих двух дней я опубликую несколько комментариев ниже, на которые вы должны либо ответить, либо задать мне вопросы по вопросам, в которых вы не уверены. Я буду требовать баллы на википедию, как только этот обзор закончится.

Lede

• Реформистское движение. - каналы к перенаправлению С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 12:49, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Фиксированный
• Он считается самым известным реформатором начала 1800-х годов. - немного пожелал мне. Самая известная здесь может означать две вещи. Самый известный человек, который был реформатором, или человек, наиболее известный как реформатор. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 12:49, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Что насчет «Он самый узнаваемый реформатор начала 1800-х годов». Z1720 ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Проза

• Данди, Шотландия - нет необходимости связывать Шотландию. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Удаленный
• золотая медаль и цепочка - это золотая медаль и цепочка или золотая медаль и золотая цепочка? (Или комбинация медали и цепи, которая является золотой). С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Источник не сообщает, а источник говорит, что медаль стоила 250 фунтов стерлингов, поэтому я удалил Z1720 «и связал» ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Восстание в Верхней Канаде (1837–1838) - нужна ли здесь эта информация / навигационный ящик? Кажется неуместным. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Это было размещено до того, как я начал редактировать статью. Я попытался переместить его в конец статьи, но форматирование получилось странным. Я не уверен, следует ли его куда-то еще, поэтому я удалил его, так как большинство этих ссылок уже есть в статье. Z1720 ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Является ли Ренсселер Ван Ренсселер частью семьи Ван Ренсселеров ? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Да. Фамилия приведена в вики-ссылках позже в статье. Z1720 ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Он был выпущен на сумму 5000 долларов (что эквивалентно 120 547 долларам в 2019 году) - хм, в этой статье почти везде используются фунты стерлингов. Если мы будем использовать конвертер, возможно, все они должны перейти в фунты? С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Нечто подобное было высказано предыдущим рецензентом. Я думаю, что большинство читателей поймут, что Маккензи выплачивает залог и штрафы в долларах США, потому что он был арестован американской правовой системой. Может ли публикация инфляции в фунтах стерлингов вызвать у читателя вопрос, почему инфляция рассчитывается в другой валюте? Кроме того, произойдет ли преобразование доллара США в фунт стерлингов до расчета инфляции или после? Я решил сохранить инфляцию в долларах, потому что в то время это было самым простым делом. Z1720 ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Дополнительные комментарии

• В основном все в порядке. Никаких реальных проблем. Вроде очень хорошо. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:02, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Спасибо, Ли, ответы выше. Z1720 ( разговор ) 13:40, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Кроме того, если вам понравился этот обзор или вы ищете элементы для обзора, у меня есть некоторые из них в моем списке номинаций . С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 13:45, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Привет, Ли , просто напоминание. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 09:48, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)

HF [ править ]

В эти выходные у меня выходной, поэтому я постараюсь повторить это в течение следующих нескольких дней. Может претендовать на 5 очков в WikiCup. _{Обсуждение на} свиной ферме 23:30, 15 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• @ Z1720 : - Пингуйте меня, когда Йоханнес Шаде закончит, и я проверю. Я бы предпочел дождаться обзора, потому что я не хочу работать с перекрестными целями. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Я в одной лодке. Поскольку обзор длинный, я пока не собираюсь следить за ним; пожалуйста, свяжитесь со мной, когда Йоханнес Шаде закончит рецензирование (и я бы посоветовал им перенести длинный обзор на обсуждение). Сэнди Джорджия ( Обсуждение ) 23:24, 21 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Уважаемый пользователь: SandyGeorgia Похоже, я удалил ваш комментарий выше, работая над старой версией. Мне очень жаль, что это произошло. Я закончил свой вклад здесь, если он был один. Мы с Z1720 оба немного устали от этого. Вы говорите: «Я бы посоветовал им передать длинный обзор на обсуждение». Я перевел разговор на Talk: William Lyon Mackenzie . С благодарностью, извинениями и наилучшими пожеланиями, Йоханнес Шаде ( выступление ) 18:25, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
    • Я поместил копию обзора JS на страницу обсуждения WLM FAC . Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:40, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии

• «В 1834 году Йорк стал городом Торонто, и Маккензи был избран городским советом в качестве его первого мэра, но в следующем году он не был переизбран». - Это немного похоже на то, что он проиграл выборы, когда действительно не участвовал в активном участии. Перефразировать?
  • Что насчет того, что «он отклонил кандидатуру реформатора на муниципальных выборах 1835 года».
    • Это прекрасно сработало бы.
      • Сделанный
• ". Он является самым узнаваемым реформатором начала 1800-х годов". - Не уверен, что дефис нужен
  • Удаленный
• То, что было «Семейным договором», объясняется в заголовке, но не в теле.
  • Удалены ссылки на Семейный договор до 1833 года, объясняющие, кем они были, когда они были названы Маккензи в « Очерках Верхней Канады» в 1833 году.
• Во втором абзаце « Выборы в Законодательное собрание» четыре предложения из пяти начинаются с «Он». Можно ли это немного изменить?
  • Заменил одно «Он» на «Маккензи». Я пробовал переставлять предложения, но в этом разделе это сложно. Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:25, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• «с каждым новым округом (также известным как верховая езда)» - Трубопроводная связь Верховая езда (разделение) #Canada ?
  • Сделанный
• «Ван Ренсселер, Маккензи и 24 сторонника оккупировали остров ВМС 14 декабря» - Link Navy Island
  • Сделанный
• «Дарем послал агента, чтобы взять интервью у Маккензи, который сообщил, что Маккензи недовольна расплывчатыми ссылками на состав Законодательного совета, чтобы« поднять руку тирании с земли ». Мне кажется, что-то здесь грамматически не так.
  • Грамматика была отключена, я перефразировал это предложение. Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:25, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• «Назвать законодательный орган нелегитимным после того, как генерал-губернатор восстановил администрацию Маккензи-Картье без выборов» - это ошибка Макдональда-Картье?
  • Не уверен, что вы имеете в виду. Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:25, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Я думаю, что это должна быть «администрация Макдональда-Картье», исходя из контекста, а не «администрация Маккензи-Картье». Это правильно?
      • Ты прав. Фиксированный.
• «Он самый узнаваемый реформатор начала 1800-х годов». - От свинца - в теле этого явно не видел
  • Из раздела «Историческая репутация»: «Историк Альберт Шрауверс описал Маккензи как« самого известного реформатора »начала 1800-х годов». Ли сказал выше, что значение было неясным, поэтому я изменил «самый известный» на «самый узнаваемый» в lede. Стоит ли также изменить формулировку в теле и убрать кавычки? Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:25, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Нет, все в порядке. Просто я чего-то не вижу.

Хорошая работа. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 15:22, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• @ Z1720 : - ответы выше. Приближаемся к поддержке. _{Обсуждение} Hog Farm 18:44, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
  • Ответил выше. Z1720 ( разговор ) 18:55, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • • Поддержка WP: FACR 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2 b, 2c, 4, а также надежность и форматирование источника. Других не проверял. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, ​​27 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника [ править ]

Выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• Некоторые подробности в начале, кажется, нигде не цитируются - например, что документы о помиловании не удалось из-за отсутствия подписчиков.
  • Добавил инфу в тело. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
    • Здесь все еще есть проблемы - например, ведущий утверждает, что он «обнаружил» документы, описывающие финансовые операции, но в теле говорится только, что он «скопировал» их. Никкимария ( разговор ) 12:20, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
      • Я сделал перекрестную ссылку на lede и body, чтобы исправить это. Готово к очередной проверке. Z1720 ( разговорное ) 15:52, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Точно так же некоторые детали в информационном окне нигде не цитируются - например, роль Александра Макдонелла.
  • Удалены те, которые не по теме объяснять, добавлена ​​информация о тех, которые не были описаны. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Пояснительные примечания, как правило, должны быть в другом разделе по сравнению со ссылками.
  • Сделанный
• FN262: если вы собираетесь цитировать обновленную версию, это также должно указывать на автора, который выполнил обновление
  • Добавлен
• FN263: страница? То же FN265, проверьте другие
  • Добавлен. Доступ к другим статьям осуществляется с помощью онлайн-изданий источников и предоставляется ссылка. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Как вы заказываете несколько работ одного и того же автора в Процитированных произведениях?
  • Они должны быть сначала старые, но источники Гейтса были расположены в неправильном порядке. Я починил это. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Ссылка на архив для Armstrong 1971 не работает
  • Я удалил ссылку на архив. Я думаю, он сломался, потому что не смог заархивировать сайт Proquest. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Использовалась ли печатная версия DCB или онлайн-версия?
  • Хотя изначально я использовал онлайн-версию, Йоханнес Шаде сказал, что мне следует вместо этого ссылаться на печатную версию. Во время перехода я проверил информацию (так как мне нужно было найти номера страниц), и теперь информация цитируется в книге. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Заявления об объеме обычно не должны быть частью заголовка
  • Я полагаю, вы имеете в виду Дент. Фиксированный. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• Будьте последовательны в том, указываете ли вы места для книг
  • Сделанный
• Хамил отсутствует издатель
  • Фиксированный
• Что делает Hoar надежным источником высокого качества?
  • Рецензия на его книгу была проведена в академическом журнале The Canadian Historical Review : [3] . Он был переиздан издательствами McGill-Queen's University Press [4] и Carleton University Press [5] Z1720 ( обсуждение ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Dundurn Press или просто Dundurn? Проверить согласованность. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 20:39, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • WorldCat и Google говорят Dundurn, поэтому я изменил ссылку Gates на Dundurn. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо за комментарии Никкимария . Я прокомментировал выше. Z1720 ( разговор ) 02:33, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Привет, Никкимария , несколько дней назад редактор преобразовал газетные статьи из <ref> в sfn. Есть ли у вас какие-либо опасения по поводу этого изменения? Z1720 ( разговор ) 14:09, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Это не обязательно, и если вы захотите, вы можете вернуться в соответствии с CITEVAR. Но если это не проблема, то это не проблема. Никкимария ( разговорное ) 14:23, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Я не возражаю против изменения, просто хотел убедиться, что это не повлияет на результат вашей проверки источника. Z1720 ( разговор ) 15:00, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Королевский клуб дерн Калькутты [ править ]

Номинант (и): Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 09:07, 14 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

Повторное номинирование статьи, так как в прошлый раз я не смог ее завершить из-за положительного результата теста на COVID. Я попытался решить проблемы, упомянутые в прошлый раз (кроме 1-2 вещей, которыми я сейчас занимаюсь). Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 09:07, 14 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

Комментарии от buidhe [ править ]

• Лицензирование изображений выглядит удовлетворительно. ( t · c ) buidhe 23:42, 20 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Никкимарии [ править ]

Обзор источника - выборочные проверки не проводились. Версия проверена .

• «Изначально скачки были организованы для британской кавалерии» - это подразумевается в тексте, но не поддерживается явно.

• сделано : Изменено гонки на события Саа  ❯❯❯  Будьте безопасны 19:09, 28 апреля 2021 (UTC)  

• «Гонки, организованные RCTC, были одними из самых важных общественных событий в календаре больших шишек» - источник?

• «На открытии Рождества ...» Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 19:09, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

• «Калькуттский дерби», организованный RCTC, был крупнейшим в мире розыгрышем в 1930-х годах »- учитывая примечание о возможном просчете, адекватно ли это утверждение подтверждается?
• FN29 ни на что не ссылается
• Что делает racingpulse качественным и надежным источником? пуроноколката? Бхаттачерджи? Гольф-доктор?

• Как определить источник как качественный надежный источник? Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 07:30, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

• См. Это руководство . Никкимария ( разговор ) 12:53, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Статья PuronoKolkata подкреплена источниками. «Racingpulse» находится в ведении журналиста. «Доктор по гольфу» из «Шарлотт Пост». Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 17:56, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)  

• У Басу опечатка в местонахождении

• Извините, не удалось найти ошибку. Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 07:30, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

• Он носит название «Калькутта», в то время как все остальные используют «Калькутта». Никкимария ( разговор ) 12:53, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• сделано : Исправлено Saha  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 17:33, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

• Когда вы указываете место публикации?

• Не подозревал об этом. Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 07:30, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

• Проверьте алфавитность источников - иногда вы включаете "The" в алфавитном порядке, а иногда нет.
• Ссылки газетах.nl.sg не работают
• В списке источников нет ссылок на некролог, и ссылка не работает.

• сделано : удалил. Саха  ❯❯❯  Оставайтесь в безопасности 07:23, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)  

Никкимария ( разговорное ) 22:39, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

В поисках утраченного ковчега [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Темный воин / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:56, 13 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Эта статья посвящена приключенческому фильму 1981 года «В поисках утраченного ковчега» (он же «Индиана Джонс и в поисках утраченного ковчега»). Хотя это не мой любимый фильм в сериале, он самый важный, не только для самой серии, но и из-за его влияния на последующие фильмы, это огромный успех, и каким-то образом Джордж Лукас снимал его и «Империя наносит ответный удар» одновременно. Сомнительный талант, каким он мог стать, этот человек был гением на пике карьеры. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:56, 13 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Поддержка от theJoebro64 [ править ]

Скоро оставлю несколько комментариев. Я могу вносить небольшие правки, пока прохожу, так как я думаю, что это будет проще, чем просто оставлять комментарии по незначительным вопросам. ДЖО БРО 64 13:51, 15 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Это нормально, спасибо TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!

Эй, TheJoebro64 , звоню тебе, братан. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 09:10, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо за толчок. Я прочитал статью полностью и не вижу ничего, что можно было бы придраться. Единственной моей проблемой была небольшая причуда в разделе «Написание»; «они» в «Они согласились использовать вместо этого« Джонса »» относится ко всем Спилбергу, Кэздану и Лукасу, верно? Я думаю, это следует прояснить, потому что это начало нового абзаца. В противном случае я не думаю, что мне нужно выдерживать это намного дольше, поэтому я добавляю поддержку . ДЖО БРО 64 15:46, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Поменял, спасибо TheJoebro64 !! Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 18:51, 23 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от 👨x🐱 [ править ]

Рад рассмотреть это. Кстати, учитывая ваши предыдущие комментарии, если вы хотите просмотреть другие избранные статьи в обзоре, я настоятельно рекомендую это сделать. Я планирую выдвигать несколько фильмов в FA в будущем, хотя сейчас у меня их нет.

Первоначальные комментарии и рекомендации

• Я начну с того, что все цитаты здесь взяты из надежных источников и идеально отформатированы на основе беглого обзора, так что это хороший знак.
• На плакате нет описания WP: ALT .
• «В то время у пары были идеи для примечательных сцен в фильме« Уточнение ». Имеем ли мы в виду концепции сцен, которые станут известны спустя годы после релиза, или сцены, которые являются наиболее важными для развития сюжета?
• Я заметил странность с перечисленными локациями. Я понимаю, почему были там Ла-Рошель и Тунис, потому что они были сняты наиболее заметно, судя по разделу съемок, и я получаю Гавайи, потому что, хотя он был снят там для одной сцены, он был снят для сцены в нескольких частях штата. Однако я не знаю, почему в списке указан весь штат Калифорния. Только в одной сцене использовалось только одно место в Калифорнии - университет. Вдобавок, по этой логике, не следует ли включать и Англию, поскольку она также использовалась для одной сцены в месте расположения страны, Рикмансворте ?

Скоро появятся новые комментарии в ближайшем к вам театре. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 20:45, 16 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Добавлен заголовок ALT для плаката. Я сменил главную партию на постановки и трюки. Суть моего исследования заключалась в том, что у них была идея типа «О, давайте устроим большую погоню за боулдерингом, Инди», и задачей Кэздана было поставить Инди перед валуном, а затем НЕ перед валуном, если это помогает понять. Технически Англия упоминается, но не в качестве места, поэтому я изменил формулировку и убрал Калифорнию. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Привет, HumanxAnthro , вы видели мой ответ? Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 09:10, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Еще раз извините за запоздалую реакцию. Результат жонглирования всем сразу. 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 12:15, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор СМИ от SNUGGUMS [ править ]

Вы случайно не надеетесь, что это будет показано на главной странице к его 40-летию в июне? В любом случае, вот несколько комментариев:

• File: Raiders of the Lost Ark Theatrical Poster.jpg имеет соответствующий мех.
• Поскольку нет никаких доказательств, свидетельствующих об обратном, я добросовестно предполагаю, что Файл: Харрисон Форд, Гейдж Скидмор 3.jpg , Файл: Стивен Спилберг, Гейдж Скидмор 2.jpg , Файл: Филип Кауфман 03.jpg , Файл: Лоуренс Кэздан, Гейдж Skidmore.jpg , Файл: Фрэнк Маршалл Довиль 2012.jpg , Файл: Сахара недалеко от Тозера (Тунис) .jpg , Файл: Disneyindytruck1.jpg , Файл: Ковчег завета replica.jpg . File: Paul Freeman.jpg , File: Richard Edlund 1 (2) .jpg (отрывок из файла: Richard EDLUND 1.jpg ), являются собственными работами авторов , как заявлено
• Я не уверен, что сказать о лицензировании для File: Karenallen17 cropped.jpg . Неясно, был ли получен файл, из которого вы это сделали ( File: KarenAllen17.jpg ), исходный постер сам по себе или откуда-то еще. Файл: Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular.jpg имеет похожую двусмысленность.
• Никаких проблем с авторскими правами у файлов: Джордж Уолтон, Лукас.jpg , Файл: Том Селлек на PaleyFest 2014.jpg . Файл: Elstree Studios - geograph.org.uk - 1184042 (обрезано) .jpg , Файл: Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Берлин, Aufmarsch der SA в Spandau.jpg , Файл: Indy and Marion.jpg . Просто удалите курсив с лет в некоторых подписях.
• Какую пользу дает File: John Williams The Raiders 'March от Raiders of the Lost Ark.ogg, помимо того, что служит для фанатов удовольствием? Не поймите меня неправильно; Мне самому очень нравится эта музыкальная тема, я просто не вижу, как она соответствует WP: NFCC # 8.
• Действительно ли трейлеры целесообразно включать в качестве внешних ссылок? Это выглядит как рекламный.
• Несмотря на то, что это кажется бесплатной загрузкой, File: Sean Connery (1983) .jpg кажется здесь декоративным и будет лучше для статьи Last Crusade, поскольку именно тогда мы познакомимся с Генри Джонсом-старшим.

Больше будет позже. Бросив взгляд на прозу, я скажу, что «примечательное» из «примечательных сцен» - это неприемлемая точка зрения и редактирование, и что вы можете связать Индиану Джонса (персонаж) в разделе «Актеры». SNUGGUMS ( обсуждение / редактирование ) 02:42, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Да, я мог бы подрезать его, но я бы хотел получить его там на годовщину. Я не ожидал , Die Hard FA «s так долго (спасибо за вашу помощь с этим). Теперь у меня достаточно фильмов 80-х, так как я готов к 40-летию, чтобы появиться на первой странице до 2024 года, если я смогу сделать это (нужно, чтобы Охотники за привидениями поднялись до FA). К сожалению, слишком поздно для «Империи наносит ответный удар», но из тех, что я сделал, это тот, который меня меньше всего интересует, поэтому я отложил его до последнего.
• Я заменил книгу Карен Аллен на книгу с более ясным автором. Я предполагаю, что если это на Викимедиа, это уже было проверено, но на самом деле это не так часто. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Я удалил файл Raiders March. Это уже было в статье, но я признаю, что не спешил удалять его, потому что эти саундтреки к фильмам 80-х - главное, и я люблю их слушать. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Я могу понять вашу точку зрения на трейлере, но я просто подумал, что было интересно посмотреть, КАК трейлер продавался людям в то время. Ему 40 лет, поэтому я не думаю, что это слишком рекламно, но я считаю, что это оправдано. Обычно я бы включил изображение театра, в котором премьера состоялась, но, похоже, у него не было стандартной крупной премьеры где-либо заметной. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Изображение Индианы Джонса Spectacular приписывается Сайбьоргу , и при обратном поиске изображения кажется, что оно появляется только в Fan Wikias, откуда оно было взято. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• Я буду защищать изображение Шона Коннери, как похожее на изображение Джереми Айронса в « Крепком орешке» , поскольку он упоминается в тексте, сопровождающем раздел, и это имеет отношение к этому, даже если оно на 60% декоративно. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:15, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)
• О, еще персонаж Индианы Джонса связан в сюжетной части, поэтому его нет в актерском составе. Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:28, 17 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Достаточно честно по ссылке. Файл: Карен Аллен (8707577445) .jpg определенно лучший выбор для Аллена, поскольку я мог проверить его статус авторских прав. Что касается рисунка «Индиана Джонс Stunt Spectacular», очень жаль, что Сайбьорг не редактировал с 2018 года, иначе мы могли бы попросить у этого пользователя пояснений. Лучше заменить его чем-нибудь другим или вообще не иметь его. SNUGGUMS ( обсуждение / редактирование ) 18:11, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Другие комментарии от SNUGGUMS [ править ]

После значительных улучшений я рад оказать свою поддержку ! Добро пожаловать и за это, и за оценки. SNUGGUMS ( обсуждение / редактирование ) 18:08, 19 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Комментарий от А. Попугая . Статья, безусловно, всеобъемлющая - подходя к ней с египтологической точки зрения, я, конечно, ценю тематический анализ, - но на самом деле это может быть слишком много. Я знаю, что статья была несколько урезана в ответ на рецензирование Сэнди, но в ней все еще 11 593 слова. Несмотря на то, что в наши дни ограничения по размеру обычно игнорируются, я чувствую, что уровень детализации здесь может утомить даже достаточно решительного читателя, и есть много вещей, которые не кажутся полностью уместными. Например, хотя суть раздела «контекст», безусловно, актуальна, нет причин, по которым нам нужны подробности о том, какие фильмы были спроектированы как лучшие в этом сезоне. Точно так же в разделе наград не обязательно перечислять номинантов, которых Рейдерыпроиграл (многие FA в фильмах, номинированных на «Оскар», этого не делают, и если читатели действительно хотят знать, они могут щелкнуть статью для получения «Оскара» в том году). А. Попугай ( разговор ) 04:13, 28 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Привет, Попугай, спасибо за комментарии. Я понимаю вашу точку зрения, но скажу, что лично я с легкостью читаю эти статьи сверху вниз, особенно День сурка и Охотники за привидениями II., которые сопоставимы по длине, в частности, «День сурка», потому что это просто увлекательное чтение, если я сам так говорю. Я не думаю, что длина - это такая же проблема, как чушь, и я согласен, и, как вы говорите, я немного отобрал ее после экспертной оценки. Я могу удалить победителей премии, я просто почувствовал, что это естественный способ ссылки на более недооцененные статьи, поскольку даже будучи ребенком 80-х годов, я никогда не слышал о некоторых из них и в противном случае никогда не наткнулся бы на статьи, что, в свою очередь, может привести к к улучшению этих статей. Однако я не привязан к этому и могу удалить их, если хотите. Раздел контекста, на мой взгляд, более важен, потому что он создает основу для того, что, как ожидается, преуспеет в сравнении с Raiders, что является своего рода препятствием на предварительном релизе.В основном это устанавливает, что супергерои и комедия - это те, которые должны преуспеть. Это то, что я думал, действительно хорошо сработало в Ghostbusters II, который является альтернативой, который Ghostbusters II предназначен для хорошего, но в итоге этого не произошло. Я думаю, что особенно в старых фильмах, таких как этот, где история не просто «а потом мы отправили все в отдел компьютерной графики», и где ее история происходит на протяжении нескольких десятилетий, она будет отклоняться в сторону более длинной стороны, чтобы отдать должное. В любом случае, дайте мне знать, что вы думаетеИстория тянется на несколько десятилетий, и, чтобы отдать должное, она будет отклоняться в более длительную сторону. В любом случае, дайте мне знать, что вы думаетеИстория тянется на несколько десятилетий, и, чтобы отдать должное, она будет отклоняться в более длительную сторону. В любом случае, дайте мне знать, что вы думаетеA. Parrot Darkwarriorblake / СТРАНИЦА СЕКСУАЛЬНОГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ! 12:32, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Я думаю, что вопрос об ожиданиях кассовых сборов можно сформулировать более лаконично. Когда статья превышает 10 000 слов, я думаю, что лучше начать резюмировать, а не детализировать везде, где это возможно. А. Попугай ( разговор ) 07:38, 29 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Уайнапутина [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Джо-Джо Эумер ( выступление ) 16:31, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Хорошо, первая номинация не сработала, но по крайней мере один редактор, который тогда выразил озабоченность, похоже, был удовлетворен изменениями, внесенными в Peer Review , поэтому я пытаюсь снова. Эта статья о довольно невзрачном вулкане в Перу, в котором в 1600 году произошло сильное извержение. Это извержение опустошило окружающий регион и вызвало изменение климата во всем мире, включая один из самых страшных голодовок в России. Пинг участников PR, упомянутых там и предыдущего FAC: @ Gog the Mild , Iridescent , Femkemilene , ComplexRational , Fowler & fowler , MONGO , Ceranthor ,SandyGeorgia , AhmadLX , Heartfox , Buidhe и Z1720 : Джо-Джо Эумер ( выступление ) 16:31, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Лицензирование для обзора изображений выглядит хорошо ( t · c ) buidhe 04:01, 13 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии Фаулера и Фаулера [ править ]

• Делаю для себя заполнитель. Не буду много говорить сейчас за сглаживая язык в начале предложения: «Часть Центральной вулканической зоне на вулканическом поясе Анд , это произведение субдукции океанической Наска тектонической плиты под континентальной части Южной Америки тектоническая плита ». Почему так громоздко? Почему бы не что-то вроде:

• «Лежа в Центральной вулканической зоне в Андах , она была сформирована , когда океаническая Наска субдуцированной под континентальной Южной Америкой плиты и ее расплавленное содержание было вынуждены вверх?»

• Примечания: это свинец. Его язык должен быть доступным и легко объяснять науку. «Центральная вулканическая зона» перенаправляет на участок АВБ, поэтому повторяться не нужно. Не нужно также объяснять, что плита SA может иметь океаническую половину, но следует дать некоторую подсказку о ее рождении (не углубляясь в конвекцию в мантии). Подробнее позже. Приятно это видеть. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 17:38, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Хм. Это лучше, но прошедшее время проблематично (субдукция все еще происходит, а Хуайнапутина все еще существует и все еще может вспыхнуть снова). Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:35, 13 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Будет что - то вроде «Лежа в Центральной вулканической зоне в Андах , она была образована субдукцией океанической Наски плиты под континентальной Южной Америкой плиты и первый от второго расплавленного содержания принуждает вверх» быть лучше? Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 12:25, 13 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Похоже, я пропустил еще одну проблему ... "и из-за того, что расплавленное содержимое поднимается вверх" - это не совсем то, как работает процесс. В статье это не обсуждается, но основным процессом является выброс флюидов опускающейся плитой в вышележащую мантию, что вызывает ее плавление. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 14:25, 13 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Хорошо, тогда как насчет «Лежа в Центральной вулканической зоне в Андах , она была образована субдукции океанической Наска плиты под континентальной Южной Америки плиты , чья мантия в расплавленном виде был вынужден вверх.»? (т.е. не вдаваясь в более тонкие детали процесса на этом этапе, но затем добавляя одно или два предложения в соответствующем последующем разделе.) «Разговор» Фаулера и Фаулера 14:55, 13 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Это за вычетом последнего предложения, которое не поддерживается остальной частью статьи (пока). Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 16:51, 13 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Второй абзац, ведущий

• В течение голоцена ,

• «Во время» имеет значение «повсюду» или «во время» и чаще применяется к времени, которое закончилось.

• Лучше на мой взгляд: «В холецене ...»

• Присутствующие люди в городе Арекипа ,

• Арекипа была основана в 1540 году, и спустя 60 лет, скорее всего, все еще оставалась колониальным поселением.

• На мой взгляд, лучше: «городок» или «поселение» (позже мы говорим «столичный район Арекипы», чтобы люди достаточно скоро узнали, что это город сейчас).

Я думаю, что по современному определению это будет считаться «городом». Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• это извержение получило 6 баллов по индексу вулканической эксплозивности.

• Такого индекса тогда еще не было и, скорее всего, он основан на исторических реконструкциях.

• На мой взгляд, лучше: это извержение было рассчитано на 6 лет ... "

• инфраструктура

• «Инфраструктура» - это современное слово (около 1920-х или 30-х годов), которое в наши дни означает электростанции, шоссе, аэропорты, порты, плотины, железнодорожные пути и многое другое.

• Лучше видеть: «фундамент зданий» (если это то, что имеется в виду; если нет, возможно, вы сможете немного подробнее объяснить, что это такое)

• Это скорее современный смысл, а не просто архитектура. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• экономические ресурсы

• Это тоже расплывчато в контексте относительно нового колониального урегулирования.

• На мой взгляд, лучше всего упоминать наиболее значимые ресурсы по именам.

• Я не думаю, что это что-то особенное, помимо «сельского хозяйства». Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Извержение оказало значительное влияние на климат Земли; температура в Северном полушарии снизилась, и миллионы тонн кислоты выпали. Наводнения, голод и волны холода привели к многочисленным местам в Европе, Азии и Америке. Нарушение климата вызвало социальные потрясения в таких далеких странах, как Россия, и, возможно, сыграло роль в наступлении Малого ледникового периода .

• Здесь есть некоторые проблемы с согласованностью: «миллионы тонн кислоты», происхождение и действие которой необъяснимы, появляются посреди климата. Социальные потрясения возникают между волнами холода и Малым ледниковым периодом.

• На мой взгляд, лучше: извержение оказало значительное влияние на климат Земли: температура в северном полушарии снизилась; волны холода затронули места в Европе, Азии и Америке; и нарушение климата могло сыграть роль в наступлении Малого ледникового периода . Результатом стали наводнения, голод и социальные потрясения.

• (Обратите внимание, точки с запятой разрешены в списках, особенно с внутренними запятыми.) Если извержение действительно имело такое влияние, то вполне вероятно, что наводнения, голод и социальные потрясения были более распространены, чем в некоторых странах, которые мы можем к списку. Кроме того, это было жестокое физическое событие; это ситуация, для которой мы можем - без стилистических забот - использовать слово «воздействие» в его переносном значении.

• Да, наверное, это лучшая формулировка. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Третий абзац, ведущий

• Уайнапутина не извергалась с 1600 года. В ее амфитеатре есть фумаролы , и в этом регионе есть горячие источники , некоторые из которых связаны с Уайнапутиной.

• Наверное, лучше, если вторая Хуайнапутина ---> "этот вулкан". и «Этот вулкан» в следующем предложении ---> Huaynaputina

• находится в отдаленном районе, где мало человеческой деятельности.

• На мой взгляд, лучше сделать оговорку ограничивающей: т.е. «находится в удаленном регионе, в котором мало человеческой деятельности».

• Тем не менее, около 30 000 человек живут в окрестностях, еще 1 миллион - в столичном районе Арекипы .

• «Даже так», вероятно, более точно, чем «все еще» или «Хотя Х. находится в удаленном регионе, есть ...» (но это не так уж важно; я использую «все еще»)
• «Окружающая территория» может означать «непосредственно прилегающая территория», что может сбивать с толку; На мой взгляд, лучше: в непосредственной близости от него проживает около 30 тысяч человек, а еще 1 миллион ... "

• Готово. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Если произойдет извержение, подобное событию 1600 года, это, вероятно, приведет к большому количеству погибших и вызовет существенные социально-экономические потрясения.

• произошло -> должно было произойти
• вероятно -> вполне вероятно. (Ваша последняя статья о вулкане была написана на британском языке / английском языке Содружества, где избегается наречие «вероятно», относительно недавний американизм, предпочитая «очень вероятно». В данном случае более скромное «вполне вероятно», вероятно, лучше. (Примечание: I я обычно использую только «вероятный», хотя обычно в неформальных ситуациях.)

Сделанный. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 09:32, 19 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Это свинец. Надеюсь, я не допустил ни одной опечатки. Фаулер и Фаулер «Разговор» 19:48, 18 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор источника [ править ]

• Целостность источника текста в порядке согласно предыдущему FAC. Я заметил еще две цитаты с неправильным форматированием имени. В FN 151 ван ден является частью фамилии. В FN176 есть двойная фамилия, снова отформатированная как не испанская фамилия. Убедитесь, что это постоянно. FN160 кажется мертвым. FemkeMilene ( разговор ) 11:03, 18 апреля 2021 (UTC)

  @ Femkemilene : исправлено, но я не очень разбираюсь в форматировании испанских (sur) имен. Джо-Джо Эумер ( выступление ) 12:30, 18 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

AhmadLX [ править ]

• Я все же считаю, что некоторые технические термины необходимо немного пояснить. Например, следует описать голоцен; что-то вроде « Голоцен , современная геологическая эпоха, ...». Я буду перечислять другие по мере прохождения статьи.

  Спасибо за это, AhmadLX . Я добавил примечание по голоцену. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «В 2017 году Перуанский геофизический институт объявил, что Уайнапутина будет находиться под наблюдением Южной вулканологической обсерватории». Есть какая-нибудь последняя информация по этому поводу? Так сделали или просто сказали и потом забыли;).

  Что ж, это странно. В Google News есть как статья в 2020 году, в которой говорится, что SVO будет готова в феврале 2021 года, так и более ранние статьи, в которых говорится, что она уже существует. Это подразумевает, что он уже существует . Не знаю, как решить эту проблему. Тем не менее, я добавил часть сейсмического мониторинга. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Анды не связаны в первую очередь.

  Разве ведущей ссылки недостаточно? Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

В порядке прекрасно.

• «Уайнапутина находится на высоте около 4850 метров (15 910 футов)». Это расплывчато. Находится ли его основание на этой высоте (как предполагает "ложь")? Или самая высокая точка обода? Или пол амфитеатра? Следует изменить на что-то вроде «Вершина Хуайнапутина находится на высоте около 4850 метров (15 910 футов)».

  Источник не уточняет, и никто из других, что я видел, не обсуждает этот аспект. Я предполагаю, что необычная морфология вулкана затрудняет определение его высоты. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

На нем написано: « Высота на высшем уровне 4850 м (15912 футов)».

Хм. Этот источник не объясняет, как он пришел к такому выводу, и последняя цифра (0) заставляет меня задуматься, являются ли они приблизительными. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Это тот самый источник, который вы использовали в статье, чтобы поддержать идею возвышения.

Да, но, как я уже сказал, у этого вулкана нет «вершины», поэтому я с осторожностью интерпретирую его как таковую. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговорное ) 09:47, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Tephra, Speleothems: краткое описание.

  Добавлен. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Продолжительность извержения четко не ограничена, но, возможно, продолжалась до 12–19 часов. [94] Событие закончилось 6 марта падением пепла»; Что происходило с 20 февраля по 6 марта?

  Добавлено предложение, но я предлагаю предложения о том, как уменьшить два упоминания «пеплопада». Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 08:45, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Может быть, что-то вроде «Событие продолжалось с землетрясениями и пеплопадом более / около двух недель и закончилось 6 марта»?

Да, так лучше; реализовал это. Джо-Джо Эумерус ( разговор ) 09:03, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Это было предложено в качестве маркера начала антропоцена». Важный термин; Краткое описание.

  Я признаю, что источник там не удосужился дать точное определение термина и его важность; это больше похоже на несколько намеков. У вас есть предлагаемое объяснение? Джо-Джо Эумерус ( разговор ) 09:03, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Я думаю, что споры относительно точного начала эпохи здесь неуместны. Мы можем просто кратко сказать, что это период в истории Земли, когда влияние человека на глобальный климат было значительным. Это может быть полезно.

Я согласен с тем, что разногласия не имеют значения, но даже из источника, который используется в настоящее время, не похоже, что все определяют его как «период в истории Земли, когда влияние человека на глобальный климат было значительным». Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Я не думаю, что вам нужны ссылки для сельскохозяйственных культур и домашнего скота.

  Связь отключена. Джо-Джо Эумерус ( разговор ) 09:03, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «... в то время как в Мокегуа, как сообщается, дети бегали, а женщины кричали». Это не имеет ничего общего с «Религиозным ответом».

  Верно, но я не вижу лучшего места для этого, и это вроде как важно. Джо-Джо Эумерус ( разговор ) 09:03, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

ИМО, это совершенно тривиально. Люди кричат ​​при каждой катастрофе. В этом нет ничего необычного, заслуживающего упоминания здесь. Если бы в таком случае люди не кричали и не бегали, это было бы примечательно.

Я собираюсь не согласиться с этим. Я думаю, что это предложение помогает подчеркнуть, что это была настоящая человеческая трагедия, а не статистическая закономерность. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «56,59 млн. Тонн в мире [200]». [200] цитирует Gao et al. 2008 по стоимости. Я не нашел там ничего о Хуайнапутине.

  Нет, но Гао и др. 2008 указывает на эту базу данных, которая имеет значение. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• «Извержение Хуайнапутина [133] уменьшило количество солнечной энергии, достигающей Земли, примерно на 1,9 Вт / м2». Пожалуйста, добавьте% drop.

  В источнике не упоминается процентное соотношение, и я не очень-то стараюсь применять здесь WP: CALC ; Вариации инсоляции пока малы, нетривиальны. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

• Отключите Исландию, Канаду, Тайвань, Калифорнию (я не уверен насчет других штатов США, но этот, безусловно, хорошо известен), Казахстан, Эстонию, Грецию, Испанию, Швейцарию, Англию, Данию, Норвегию, Ирландию, Латвию, Хорватию , Франция, Германия, Италия, Шотландия, Швеция, Финляндия, Польша, Тайвань (снова), Таиланд, Япония, Корея, Непал. AhmadLX - ( Википоста ) 15:49, 24 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

  Сделанный. Джо-Джо Эумер ( разговор ) 20:52, 24 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Лондонский и военный мемориал Северо-Западной железной дороги [ править ]

Номинатор (ы): Г. Дж. Митчелл | Пенни за твои мысли? 21:52, 11 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Еще один военный памятник! Я думаю, что есть что-то захватывающее в кусках камня, которые стояли на одном месте 100 лет. В этом за столетие произошли некоторые изменения, некоторые из которых проиллюстрированы фотографиями в статье. Когда-то часть впечатляющей классической аранжировки, теперь это одна из двух оставшихся следов "старого" Euston; остальное было сметено в 1960-х во имя прогресса. Между тем компания, чьим сотрудникам поминают, была объединена, национализирована, а затем приватизирована.

Я благодарен Кархароту за его вклад в разработку статьи, Тридулфу за его подробные фотографии статуй и рецензентам в обзоре MilHist A-class, которые предоставили очень полезные отзывы. Надеюсь, вы согласны с тем, что это соответствует стандарту, но все отзывы приветствуются! :) Из-за реальной жизни мне может потребоваться пара дней, чтобы ответить на комментарии, но я не игнорирую вас, обещаю! HJ Mitchell | Пенни за твои мысли? 21:52, 11 апреля 2021 г. (UTC) Обзор изображения

• В изображениях отсутствуют замещающие тексты
• Файл: Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: какова дата смерти автора? Никкимария ( разговорное ) 22:07, 11 апреля 2021 (UTC)

  Реджинальд Винн Оуэн умер 15 мая 1950 года. Hawkeye7 (обсудить) 22:15, 11 апреля 2021 года (UTC)

  Добавлен замещающий текст (хотя не уверен, насколько он хорош или полезен; рад советам по улучшениям). Даты RWO добавлены на страницу описания в Commons из-за предосторожности. HJ Mitchell | Пенни за твои мысли? 22:50, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка Я поддержал эту статью на обзоре A-класса, и поддерживаю ее сейчас. Hawkeye7 (обсуждение) 22:15, 11 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо, Соколиный глаз! HJ Mitchell | Пенни за твои мысли? 22:50, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от Thryduulf

Просматривая фотографии в Commons, можно увидеть идентичные надписи на восточном и западном возвышениях: «Помните мужчин и женщин на Лондонской, Мидлендской и Шотландской железной дороге 1939-1945», но вообще нет упоминания о Второй мировой войне. (Я хотел прокомментировать это в обзоре класса A, но так и не дошел до этого). Позже я прочту текст более подробно. Тридуульф ( разговор ) 23:11, 11 апреля 2021 (UTC)

В статье это упоминалось, но я добавил посвящение.

• Поводок кажется довольно длинным. Как много в «Мемориале было необычно, так как на нем был изображен летчик». а последние два абзаца нужны так рано?
  • Честная оценка. Немного подстригли.
• Попробуйте использовать {{ инфляцию }}, чтобы дать текущие значения для последнего абзаца фонового раздела.
  • Я скептически отношусь к ценности этих шаблонов. Я чувствую, они сравнивают яблоки с апельсинами.
• Что можно сказать об истории до открытия, например, о вводе в эксплуатацию?
  • Не то, чтобы это еще не упоминалось. Вы можете видеть по размеру библиографии, что это освещено во многих местах, но ни один из источников (даже официальная история войны LNWR) не дает никаких подробностей о процессе ввода в эксплуатацию. Это не удивительно для частной компании, которая строит памятник на своей земле с помощью собственного архитектора - длинного бумажного следа не будет. Это похоже, например, на Военный мемориал железной дороги Мидленда ; мы знаем так много о Военном мемориале Северо-Восточной железной дороги только из-за разногласий по поводу его местоположения, и даже тогда у нас есть только одна сноска из протокола заседания совета директоров.
• Не нужно говорить и «оставив военный мемориал и два вокзальных домика единственными уцелевшими частями старого комплекса Юстон». и «ложи вместе с военным мемориалом были единственными уцелевшими после перестройки 1960-х годов» в следующих параграфах, особенно когда он уже лидирует. Тридуульф ( разговор ) 19:54, 12 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • Обрезанный. Спасибо за ваши комментарии, Крис , и спасибо за фотографии, использованные в галерее. Просто показывает, что никогда не знаешь, что однажды пригодится! HJ Mitchell | Пенни за твои мысли? 22:50, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Выполняет мой исходный обзор. У меня нет никаких выборочных проверок, но я не вижу для этого серьезных причин на данном этапе - Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 04:20, 14 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

  Спасибо. Как бы то ни было, Соколиный глаз сделал выборочную проверку в ACR; у него есть копии некоторых книг. :) HJ Митчелл | Пенни за твои мысли? 15:42, 14 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Поддержка по Комментарии от Nick-D

Я очарован мемориалами времен Первой мировой войны, воздвигнутыми компаниями по какой-то причине - возможно, потому, что они иллюстрируют травму, нанесенную войной всему обществу, - и мне интересно посетить этот мемориал, когда мир вернется в норму, и в следующий раз я смогу поехать туда. Соединенное Королевство. Я хотел бы сделать следующие незначительные комментарии:

• В первом пункте следует указать количество убитых сотрудников LNWR, учитывая, что это является предметом мемориала.
• Порядок предложений в первых двух параграфах раздела «Предпосылки» кажется немного случайным. Я бы посоветовал начать с того, что такое LNWR, затем с размера компании, затем с количества ее сотрудников, которые сражались, и т. Д. Предложение о компаниях, строящих мемориалы, может лучше всего работать в последнем параграфе этого раздела.
• Можно ли что-нибудь сказать о том, как собирались пожертвования от сотрудников компании? (например, были ли эти усилия предприняты руководством или их возглавляли рабочие и / или их профсоюзы?) Ник-Д ( выступление ) 07:59, 18 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Привет, Ник , спасибо за комментарии! Я согласен, что в военных мемориалах компании есть что-то захватывающее. Думаю, они показывают, что война затронула все сферы жизни. Хотя почему-то я не думаю, что современные компании захотели бы строить памятники, если бы что-то подобное случилось сегодня. Дайте мне знать, когда вы планируете поездку в Великобританию, и я постараюсь приехать в Лондон, чтобы мы могли посетить его вместе. Думаю, я рассмотрел ваши первые два комментария. Что касается вашего третьего, то об этом в источниках ничего нет; Похоже, подразумевается, что существовала какая-то договоренность о том, что компания покроет большую часть затрат, возможно, в качестве объединяющего жеста после забастовки 1919 года. Интересно, что это контрастирует с NER, построившим большой мемориал полностью за счет компании.HJ Митчелл| Пенни за твои мысли? 15:34, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Большое спасибо, я рада поддержать номинацию сейчас. При достаточной удаче (и ускорении программы вакцинации Австралии) я надеюсь посетить Европу в конце следующего года. Я бы не был шокирован, если это невозможно! Nick-D ( разговор ) 04:35, 23 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Комментарии Sturmvogel_66 [ править ]

• Помните, что lede - это краткое изложение всей статьи. Не называйте там точных цифр по рабочей силе или деньгам; оставьте их для основного корпуса.
• То же самое с его высотой, подробным описанием мемориала, именами видных участников, датой открытия и т. Д.
• Поместите цитаты над библиографией - Sturmvogel 66 ( обсуждение ) 19:36, 22 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии от 👨x🐱 [ править ]

Привет, HJ Митчелл . Я видел вас на других обсуждениях FA, поэтому подумал, что остановлюсь, чтобы просмотреть это. Как американец, который является пустышкой в ​​истории, я буду идеальным пользователем, чтобы прокомментировать этот XD.

• Изображение инфобокса не имеет альтернативного описания.
• Есть ли причина, по которой некоторые изображения начинаются со строчной буквы?
• Есть некоторая история и скульптура WP: JARGON во главе, которую я не получил при первом прочтении (эй, это рифмуется), поэтому это должно быть связано или объяснено. «Обелиск» «постамент» «бронзовый венок» «в натуральную величину» «артиллерист», «пехотинец», «матрос», «летчик»
• Больше того же в корпусе, что вводный читатель может не получить в первый раз: «частный сектор», «артиллерийские снаряды», «боеприпасы», «призывник», «гранитная табличка», «контрфорсы», «западный фронт» . Проверить для других
• Ведущий: «Большая часть инфраструктуры компании была передана в ведение войны». Тело: «Во время Первой мировой войны (1914–1918) она передала большую часть своего главного инженерного предприятия Crewe Works военным». Свинец подразумевает, что большая часть инфраструктуры всех объектов компании ушла в Первую мировую войну, но это противоречит корпусу.
• «квалифицированные сотрудники» WP: VAGUE . Почему мы называем сотрудников «квалифицированными»? Разве не требуются навыки для выполнения какой-либо работы, или эти сотрудники обладали элитными навыками, которых не было у других?
• «введение воинской повинности» Почему не просто призыв?
• «чтобы почтить память своих сотрудников, погибших на войне». Я считаю, что это Пух . Думаю, для начинающих читателей очевидно, что такое военные мемориалы.
• «Оуэн также разработал военный мемориал » Прочтите MOS: LINKCLARITY, чтобы увидеть здесь проблему.
• Почему "Р.Л. Бултон и сыновья". не считается лидером строительства статуи?
• Почему в первых двух абзацах «Дизайн» все ссылки сгруппированы в конце абзаца? Почему не цитировать определенные предложения? Я не думаю, что все эти цитаты содержат каждую деталь в этом абзаце.
• «На табличках написано:« Вспомните мужчин и женщин лондонской Мидленда и Шотландской железной дороги 1939–1945 гг. »». Означает ли это, что на всех более поздних табличках был этот текст?
• Свинец: «рельефный крест». Тело: «каменный крест, выступающий из самого тела». Я нашел облегчение более простым описанием со ссылкой на статью о облегчении.
• «Обелиски по своей сути не связаны с христианством, хотя Винн Оуэн» -> «Хотя обелиски по своей сути не связаны с христианством, Винн Оуэн»
• «он намеревался добавить кресты» Постойте, эти кресты «добавили»? Я думал, что они изначально были построены вместе с остальной скульптурой, которая мне не кажется «добавленной». Добавление будет означать, что кресты были созданы намного позже, чем скульптура.
• Согласно MOS: FAMILYNAME , вы должны указать полное имя человека при его первом упоминании в статье, а затем ссылаться на него по его фамилии. Есть ли причина, по которой "Винн Оуэн" повторяется вместо просто Оуэна? 👨x🐱 ( разговорное ) 19:36, 26 апреля 2021 (UTC)
• «Архиепископ Кентерберийский Рэндалл Дэвидсон дал посвящение». Нечеткий. Что за преданность?
• Поскольку вы используете инициализм «Крест Виктории» в конце статьи и вводите полную фразу в разделе фона, «Крест Виктории» -> «Крест Виктории (ВК)»
• «крупнейший военный мемориал железнодорожной компании». За все время? До тех пор, пока не случится еще один военный мемориал позже в истории?
• Было ли это «официальным повествованием о войне»? Что такое «спецпоезда»?
• Поскольку больше половины раздела «История» посвящено мемориалу, я бы разделил его на два раздела. Один будет посвящен мемориалу, другой - присутствию статуи в более поздние годы.
• «Компания также выпустила Почетный список, копию которого вручили ближайшему живому родственнику каждого из погибших». Был ли «Список почета»? Я предполагаю, что это бумага или книга или что-то в этом роде. Единственное используемое слово описания - это «объем», но я не знаю, что это такое.

Хорошая статья в целом. Проза интересная и профессиональная, но требует некоторых пояснений или ссылок. Я полагаю, что мемориалы не получают особого внимания, кроме тех, что упоминаются в книгах по истории и наградах, хотя я их нашел . У меня нет с собой исходных текстов книг, или я могу получить к ним доступ, поэтому я бы попросил еще один обзор, чтобы проверить источники .. 👨x🐱 ( обсуждение ) 19:36, 26 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Чемпионат мира по снукеру 1987 года [ править ]

Номинаторы: С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 19:00, 10 апреля 2021 г. (UTC) и BennyOnTheLoose

Эта статья о чемпионате мира по снукеру 1987 года . Проиграв в финале обоих предыдущих двух турниров, Стив Дэвис, наконец, завоевал свой четвертый титул. Это событие было забронировано Джо Джонсоном, который выиграл в прошлом году, едва выиграв матч за весь сезон, но все же попав в финал. Это также ознаменовало финальное выступление шестикратного чемпиона Рэя Рирдона .

Мы с Бенни довольно много поработали над этим и продвигали все три предыдущих мероприятия (плюс некоторые более новые). Пожалуйста, сообщите нам свое мнение. С наилучшими пожеланиями, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 19:00, 10 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• В файле: Len_Ganley.jpg отсутствует обоснование добросовестного использования этой статьи. Никкимария ( разговор ) 20:09, 10 апреля 2021 (UTC)
  • удаленный. Я думал, что это обычное изображение. Наилучшие пожелания, Ли Виленски ^{( обсуждение • вклад )} 20:13, 10 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

HF [ править ]

Я вижу, что этому не было уделено особого внимания, поэтому я прочитаю его. Может претендовать на 5 очков в WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 29 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Битва при Дупплин-Мур [ править ]

Номинатор (и): Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 16:42, 10 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

В 1332 году претендент на шотландский престол Эдвард Баллиол высадился на северном берегу залива Ферт-оф-Форт с 1500, в основном английскими авантюристами. Поразительно, но в течение недели они победили шотландскую армию - по крайней мере в десять раз сильнее, а, возможно, и более чем в 25 раз - с огромной резней. Баллиол был коронован королем Шотландии, и началась Вторая война за независимость Шотландии. Это отчет об этой битве. Я считаю, что существует достаточно современных отчетов о битве и современных ученых, комментирующих их, чтобы поддержать вес FA, и я ограбил их до последней степени. Любая конструктивная критика приветствуется. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 16:42, 10 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Обзор изображений

• Что означает красный квадрат против синего круга на карте? Легенда была бы полезна

Сделанный.

• Что касается гербов, советуем взглянуть на Wikipedia_talk: Manual_of_Style / Icons # Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole . Если они сохранены, несколько источников будут отсутствовать.

Они были удалены.

• Файл: Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: ссылка автора ведет на страницу мазка - какая из них предназначена?

Фиксированный. ( Джеймс Грант (1822–1887) )

Никкимария ( разговорное ) 20:05, 10 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Спасибо, Никкимария , все твои предложения приняты. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 19:01, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Проверка источника - пройти

Нужна ли цитата в разделе «Местоположение»? ( t · c ) buidhe 20:05, 11 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Что ж, на мой взгляд, да, несмотря на то, что я часто цитирую WP: QUOTE, чтобы сократить использование цитат, я считаю, что в этом случае информация передается хорошо и лаконично, и ее перефразирование не принесет никакой пользы. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 20:53, 11 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Привет, Буиде , ответ выше. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 19:01, 17 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Привет, Буиде , был бы я прав, предполагая, что это еще не все? Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 19:25, 25 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Извини за это. Доберемся до этого позже сегодня. ( t · c ) buidhe 20:09, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• Николсон 1961
  • «кого Эдуард I свергнул в 1296 году» - точные слова, скопированные из источника. Следует перефразировать.

Перефразировал. Цитата изменилась на Sumption 1990.

• • «Почти сразу». Похоже, это не подтверждается источником, который, по всей видимости, говорит, что это произошло 2 месяца спустя.

Меньше двух месяцев - это почти сразу по средневековью. (17 октября 1346 г. Давид II был схвачен Эдуардом III. Его переговоры о выкупе прервались, и он был освобожден в октябре 1357 г.) Изменено на «В течение двух месяцев Баллиол предоставил ...»

• • Николсон 1961, стр. 126. - В источнике нет страницы 126.

Извинения. Хорошо подмечено. Спасибо. Неправильная работа Николсона. Надо было сослаться на 1974 год. Фиксированный.

• Вебстер 2004
  • «Вторая война за независимость Шотландии, начавшаяся вторжением Баллиола, окончательно закончилась в 1357 году». Я не могу подтвердить это в источнике, в котором никогда не упоминается «война за независимость Шотландии».

Грр! Я использовал это, чтобы показать, когда война закончилась, уже указав ее название в более раннем предложении, которое я удалил вместе с цитатой в редактировании копии! Теперь прибил на каждом углу. ( Могу я процитировать название книги? )

( t · c ) buidhe 21:30, 25 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Спасибо за это, Буиде , ваши комментарии были рассмотрены выше. Гог Мягкий ( разговор ) 21:25, 28 апреля 2021 (UTC)

Хорошо ( t · c ) buidhe 21:41, 28 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Комментарии Джима [ править ]

Я вставил явно пропущенный глагол, другие комментарии следуют за Jimfbleak - поговорить со мной? 13:22, 12 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

Ой. Спасибо.

• между более чем 15 000 и 40 000 мужчин - мне не нравится больше чем , просто "между", я бы подумал?

Источник говорит не совсем об этом. Я переписал, чтобы он был немного длиннее, но избегаю нежелательной фразеологии. Моя вина, так как я был непоследователен и не совсем верен первоисточнику в основном тексте - сейчас приведен в порядок.

• Линк Файф, Бервик, Данфермлин

Сделанный.

• Баллиол был коронован королем Шотландии. - Кэп Кинг?

Не согласно MOS: JOBTITLES . Многие люди были королями Шотландии; Баллиол был лишь одним из них.

Это не должность; это дворянский титул - Штурмфогель 66 ( разговор ) 17:14, 21 апреля 2021 г. (UTC)

• из портов Йоркшира 31 июля 1332 г. - какие порты?

Источники не говорят. Sumption имеет «три порта Йоркшира»; Николсон "Хамбер"; другие либо «порты Йоркшира», либо силы Баллиола собираются в Йоркшире и отплывают в Шотландию, явно не заявляя, что они ушли через порты Йоркшира. (Я мог бы сделать хорошее предположение на основе этого, но это было бы ИЛИ. Я предполагаю, что в какой-то хронике перечислены порты - может быть, а может и нет веская причина, почему источники не называют их.)

• Да, не так много реалистичных вариантов, но если не сказать ...

Те шотландцы , которые не были убиты или захвачены в плен бежали -Возможно тех шотландцев , которые не были убиты ...

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)

Battle of Saseno[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Part of an ongoing effort dedicated to Venetian naval history, this article is about the destruction of a Venetian trade convoy by the Genoese, via a clever ruse, during the War of Saint Sabas. It passed GA and the MILHIST ACR last year, and I feel confident that it is quite complete and ready for its FA star. Constantine ✍ 12:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• "The cost of the convoy's loss to Venice was estimated at 100,000 Genoese pounds.". The text gives this as the value of the captured materials and ships - not the total loss
• Be consistent in how citations to notes are formatted
• Many of the sources cited are quite old - what sort of searching has been done for more recent scholarship? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR and suspect that you may be correct about its readiness. Let's see what I can find to nit pick at.

• All entries in info boxes should start with an upper case letter.
• Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should use Lang templates, not just italics.
• "near Saseno island off the coast of Albania". Why the lower case i?
• "With its victories in the Battle of Acre in 1258 and in the Battle of Settepozzi in 1263". Delete the second "in".
• "commerce raiding against the Venetian merchant convoys." I think this would read better if you deleted "the".
• Can we have some in line background on that quote. Who was Camillo Manfroni and when was it written for example.
• What is the copy right status of that quote?
• "since the fall of the Latin Empire in 1261". A little more explanation perhaps? That is going to mean little to most readers.
• "the spring trade convoy to the Levant now represented Venice's "main overseas trading enterprise". MOS:QUOTE states "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (emphasis in the original), which this would seem to be.
• "In spring 1264, "in order to crush the Venetian enemies and to ensure the well-being and defend the Genoese sailing in different parts of the world" ". As immediately above.
• "and had been built by public funds". I think you mean something like 'and their construction had been funded by public subscription".
• "Grillo was forced to move to Porto Venere, at the southernmost extremity of Genoese territory, and there wait until the fleet was made ready; and he was also assigned four experienced sailors as councillors, with the added task of keeping an eye on his conduct, among them Ogerio Scoto and Pietro di Camilla." Recommend replacing the semi colon with a full stop.
• "Coupled with news of extensive recruitment of mercenaries in Lombardy, this news worried the Venetian authorities". Is it possible to avoid using "news" twice?
• "the usual sea lanes". I am not sure what you mean by this. Is it the same as 'trade routes'?
• "Grillo quickly became aware of the Venetian fleet's moves". I think that some of the speculation on this could usefully be moved into the main article. It is not exactly tangential stuff. For example, I don't understand how news can have reached him of "the Venetian fleet's moves" faster than the fleet itself was moving. And what does "quickly" mean in this context?
• I have got to the end of "Grillo deceives Barozzi" and have counted seven quotes in 1,200 words of prose - including the quotes. This seems to me to be pushing "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text ..." past breaking point. It is normal to paraphrase sources into Wikipedia's voice.
• "appears to have sailed slowly". Why would he do that? Regardless of his perception of threat.
• Why do the Venetians have "armed soldiers" while the Genoese have "marines"?
• Why were large ships with 40 armed men on board "on match" for other ships with 50? I assume the answer is in their being "swift and agile", but how did this translate into a combat advantage?
• "valued at more than 100,000 Genoese pounds, an enormous sum for the period". Anything to put it into context? Maybe as a proportion of one state's annual income or something?
• "altogether of all". One of these is redundant.
• "the Venetians were deprived altogether of all commerce with the east for that year"; "to escort the previous year's returning convoy back to Venice". There seems to be a contradiction here.
• "it was not finally ratified". What does "finally" add?
• "coerced both to sign a five-year-truce". What happened at the end of the five years?
• "the Genoese admiral may simply have availed himself of a network of agents along the coasts of Sicily". How would these hypothetical agents obtain intelligence on a fleet which never got within 500 km of them?

An interesting story, nicely told. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Constantine maybe you missed these comments? (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

• Nice artwork, will have a look soon. At first glance, Guelph appears to be a duplink of Ghibelline. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 April 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)

Older nominations[edit]

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, [6] , 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.

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • "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 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 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.
• (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)

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 [7].

• 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 [8] 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)

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)

Project Emily[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the deployment of American-built Thor intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) in the United Kingdom between 1959 and 1963, which were operated by the Royal Air Force Bomber Command as part of the British nuclear deterrent. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good. Many of the source links are now dead but it would be surprising if any of these were not genuine US government photos. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've done a pass over them, and they all should be good now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

References

On first impressions, cites are well-formatted, though I don't know why any of the publisher and work names aren't linked to their respective articles.

Lead

• I find lead pretty lackluster given the several details and sections in the body; not even its preservation gets a sentence.

Background

• I've noticed this sentence suffers from long sentences and a lack of varying lengths to keep it interesting, and the sentences are the same overly-long length.
• Most of the jargon is linked and elaborated, but there's a couple that still needs elaboration or linked to introductory readers. What is a "manned bomber"? What is a "production model atomic bomb" and how does it differ from a regular atomic bomb? What are nautical miles?
• Why is the first atomic bomb landing specified by an operation name and a full date, yet the first production model atomic bomb launch is present with only the location, month, and year without a day or operation name? Is it because of the reliable sources not revealing it? Just want to know, that's all.
• "Britain's nuclear weapons armament was initially based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force, but the possibility of the manned bomber becoming obsolete by the late 1960s was foreseen"
  • (1) What does it mean for the nuclear weapons to be "based on" a type of bomb? Did their designs take influence from them?
  • (2) Like I asked, what is a manned bomber?
  • (3) What is the message of this sentence, and how do the two clauses connect to each other?
• "In parallel to the ICBM programme, the United States developed three separate intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) systems." Even though they're named later in the paragraph, I would still follow this sentence with a list of the three names of the IRBMs for ease of navigability.
• "The United States National Security Council gave the ICBM and IRBM projects the highest national priority.[16]" How?

Negotations

• "Implicit in Wilson's decision to develop an IRBM was that it would be based overseas." It may be I'm not the biggest history expert, but I find the use of "based" confusing? The following sentences seem to indicate this sentence means that he want IRBMs to "launch" overseas, not that they were "based" (or as I read it, located) overseas.

I'll stop here for now. So far, the prose is generally well-done and understandable (though as an American I can't tell if it keeps true to British English) but could use the fixes I mentioned above. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

To address your points:

• A "production model" of something is a mass-produced version as opposed to a prototype. Bombs used in nuclear tests were normally prototypes, although occasionally a production model was used.
• Nuclear tests invariably have code names, but the delivery of production ordnance rarely does. Sources only give the month; my practice is to make dates as specific as possible, to make life easier for the people trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia.
  1. By "based on free-fall bombs delivered by the V bomber force" I meant as opposed to missiles
  2. The term "manned bomber" is a bit of a tautology, as bombers invariably have crews. Linked "bomber" and removed "manned" per MOS:GNL.
  3. The point is to emphasise the distinction been aircraft and missiles.
• The NSC simply declared that the projects had the highest national priority. In practice this meant that they had priority for human, financial and materiel resources, over other uses.
• The missiles had to be based overseas. Deploying them at the last minute was not an option.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This is coming up to the three week mark with no general supports. If it hits that mark without at least some indication beginning to form of a consensus to promote, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 25 April 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)

Delaware Tercentenary half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... another of the 1936 crop of commemorative coins, which was the largest in US history due to the boom (and subsequent bust) in their values that year. This one wasn't struck until 1937, and escaped the scandals and recriminations for some of them, since the goal was worthy and the profits went to a legitimate cause. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review—provisional pass

• File:Delaware swedish tercentenary half dollar commemorative obverse.jpg File:Delaware swedish tercentenary half dollar commemorative reverse.jpg coins are 3-d, need license for the photograph as well.

Both replaced with two that are OTRS pending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• File:Kalmar Nyckel by Jacob Hägg cropped.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This proves publication not later than March 1924 (page 59).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Provisional pass with the understanding that this article should not be promoted until the OTRS is confirmed. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Buidhe, OTRS has come through.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Looks interesting, will review. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be something wrong with note a. I don't think starting off with "In addition to the Bridgeport piece," was meant for this article; it looks like you want "In addition to the Delaware piece,"
• Why did the Treasury Department oppose the bill?
• "The original coin holder in which up to five Delaware half dollars were sent to purchasers are worth from $75 to $125," holder --> are; tense mismatch
• Some infobox stuff not directly cited - mass, diameter, thickness, composition, amount of silver
• While someone familiar with US coins from this time period (I'm reasonably familiar) would be aware that a US silver coin at this time would be reeded, and that the Philadelphia Mint didn't place a mint mark on coins at this time (with the exception of those wartime silver-content nickels), I would recommend citing reeding and lack of mint mark in the infobox as well, since those aren't going to be common knowledge for everyone.

Interesting article, anticipating supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gotten those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability; did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

• Could first successful European settlement in Delaware be linked to an appropriate article?
• Is there any other viable lede photo? The white plastic tabs (NGC I assume?) detract from the images imo.
• "A first attempt" to "The first attempt". First seems to suggest multiple "first attempts". Bit of a nitpick.
• "The bill was signed despite the fact that the Treasury Department and prepared a draft veto message" Missing something.
• Change "make things easy" to something like "embolden" or "aid".
• "who more usually picked an artist by other means." What means?
• I would link Kalmar Nyckel in the image caption.
• "The design of this coin is effective and simple. The legends are particularly clear, and the coin as a whole is very tastefully wrought". Should the period be before the quotation mark? Don't know myself.
• Source/referencing looks good.

That's all I got. Terrific work. ~ HAL333 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

All done. The two images are OTRS pending, so I will post again when that's done..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

• destroyed by the Native Americans.—very vague, do we know what tribe?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• acting though its president

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The edge is ridged.—is that what we would call milled, with ridges across the edge, or does it mean the edgs of each face is raised? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarified. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• No spot checks of the sourcing were made
• Cites #4, 21, 33 need to be put in title case
• The Congressional reports also need to be put in title case
• Spot checks on ISBNs and OCLC #s verified
• The Commons link should not be the only entry in external links section. Move it to another section like sources or references and delete the external links section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A country, if one can call it that, which existed for little more than 6 weeks in the spring of 1918, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was formed out of desperation. A union of Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians, it was not likely to have lasted even if it wasn't facing an imminent invasion. I've slowly worked on this for the past while, and got it up to GA recently, and now think it is ready here. I will note a couple things: the dates used are a mix of Julian and Gregorian, a consequence of the era; and while this is nominally a "country" article, the fact that the TDFR spent nearly its entire existence trying to defend itself militarily means that there are not much that can be said about more conventional topics for country articles. Scholarship on the state as a whole is also limited, though a regional journal did publish some relevant articles in 2020 (which are being released in book form in 2021) that have proven quite useful. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding here, just getting caught up in things. Should have it all addressed by the weekend. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Image and source reviews[edit]

• I'm satisfied with image licensing (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• "As the TDFR lasted only a month, it did not leave much of a legacy." This sounds like an opinion based statement, it may make sense to attribute to a source or else delete it. (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that giving non-English names of entities which are not the subject of this article and have their own articles is helpful, since this info is or should be in the dedicated articles. (t · c) buidhe 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. For you other two points: I'll take a look at the sources, see if I can support the statement; otherwise I'll remove it. And for your third point, I'm a little uncertain what you mean. Can you clarify for me? Kaiser matias (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, "Council of People's Commissars (known by its Russian acronym, Sovnarkom" with a footnote "Russian: Совнарком; short for Совет народных комиссаров, Sovet narodnykh kommissarov". I do not think the footnote is helpful. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks. I had that as I felt it appropriate to include the Russian version, but I'm certainly not married to the idea and if it's felt to be unnecessary can certainly remove it. Also will note I modified the "Legacy" introduction to be more neutral. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hovannisian 1967, p. 75 Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed that (had the wrong year at first). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Overall it seems like the more recent sources could be used to a greater extent. (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Source checks

• Forestier-Peyrat 2016, p. 166 — problematic as the cited page does not mention the treaty of B-L
• Zolyan 2020—mostly supports the content, I do not have access to the other source cited
• Brisku 2020, p. 32—looks OK (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what I did regarding Forestier-Peyrat, and get that cleaned up. I also have PDF copies of most sources here, and am happy to supply if need be. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

LouisAragon[edit]

Claiming my spot. Will review over the following days. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• LouisAragon? (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Buidhe.

• "The Commissariat initiated peace talks with the Ottoman Empire in March 1918, but that broke down quickly as the Ottoman refused to accept the authority of the Commissariat. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended Russia's involvement in the First World War, conceded parts of the Transcaucasus to the Ottoman Empire, who continued their invasion of the region in order to take control of the territory." -- Why did the Commissariat iniate peace talks with the Ottoman Empire? What was happening at the time in the region? IMO this part needs further clarification.
• "The South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century, with the last annexations taking place in 1828" -- The Treaty of Adrianople hadn't been signed yet in 1828. Kars and Batum were taken through the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878). Do you mean the bulk of the South Caucasus? If you're referring to that, I suggest changing it to:

- "The bulk of the South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century through wars with Qajar Iran." OR:

- "Most of the South Caucasus had been conquered by the Russian Empire in the first half of the nineteenth century."

• "Much like in Petrograd, a dual power system was established (...)" -- suggest changing to "Much like in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), a dual power system..."

Most of these points are the same as the ones I posted earlier on the talk page of this article. Once they are addressed, I will have another look and give my support for promotion. Its a well written article. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

• Some nicely obscure history, will have a look soonish. Though my girlfriend is actually from one of the included countries, she had never heard of this state! FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• At first glance, I wonder if O.S. has to be linked at every mention?
• Still some names and terms that could be linked in image captions.
• "the only other city of significance was Baku" State what country this is in today, as with Georgia?
• There are also many terms after the intro that could need links at first mention in the article body.
• "would continue to follow the Ottoman Sultan" Link to who it was at the time?
• Mention (and link) the main ethnic groups of the region in the background section? You now list them in parenthesis under Transcaucasian Commissariat, but I think they could maybe all need some kind of more specific presentation.
• "However they were concerned that the local population, who were mostly Muslims" is/was the Caucasus really majority Muslim?
• "The South Caucasus was overwhelmingly rural: aside from Tiflis the only other city of significance was Baku,[8] which grew in the late nineteenth century as the region began exporting oil and became a major economic hub.[9]" Single sentence paragraphs are discouraged, could this be rolled into one of the adjacent paragraphs?
• "and as it had acted at like a state when" The "at" doesn't seem to fit in?
• "on their arrival an Ottoman official to quipped that" Seems like the "to" doesn't fit either?
• "course of action; majority of the delegates" The or a majority?
• It is a bit confusing that you seem to use Armenian/Dashnaks and Azerbaijani/Musavats interchangeably in places. Is it possible to somehow make this more consistent?
• "The new republic, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR)" and "The Ottoman Empire recognized the new republic, the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic (TDFR)", do you need to spell it out and abbreviate it twice in succession? First time should be enough?
• "Halil argued that as the two states are in conflict, the Ottoman would no longer recognize" A bit odd that this starts in present tense.
• "bring the entire Armenia" Entirety of Armenia?
• "as the Ottoman forcese" Forces?
• "suggested that the real reason was to allow them a means to reach Baku." For what purpose?
• "the Halil Bey" Any reason for the definite article here and not elsewhere?
• The "German intervention" section doesn't really seem to imply much if any actual intervention? Maybe somethig more passive like "German position/opinion" or similar would reflect the content better?
• Perhaps worth mentioning that the included states later had various armed conflicts with each other? Which would also underline the statement "seemed both to the actors at the time and to later scholars of the region to be unique, contingent, and certainly unrepeatable."
• "dissolved in 1917 February Revolution" In the?
• "While the three successor states would be reunited within the Soviet Union as the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, this would only exist between 1922 and 1936 before being broken up again into three union republics." Perhaps briefly state how this happened? Voluntarily or by force?
• "as the Ottoman refused" Ottomans?
• "the Armenians and Azerbaijanis each declared themselves independent" It seems a bit odd that you link these ethnicities here to their states instead of ethnicities, instead of linking the ethnicities at their first mention in the intro "three major groups (Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Georgians". I also think you can spell out the full names of their republics at the end of the intro, as you did with the Georgian one.

Coordinator comment[edit]

• Not much sign of a consensus to promote building for this article. So this is a heads up that if it hits the three week mark without a fair bit of further activity, then I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll reach out to some projects and users, see if I can't get someone to take a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias:, can I remind you of "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly." It would be helpful if you could respond to Buidhe's, Louis's and Funk's comments before the end of the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Berlin to Kitchener name change[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about how a small German-Canadian city in Ontario, Canada went from being named Berlin to Kitchener and the context surrounding that change. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass, see talk. (t · c) buidhe 17:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Too many quoteboxes. These give excessive weight to certain quotes or opinions above others, and should usually be minimized. Try instead, axing or integrating into the main text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I see you have removed one – do you think any others ought to be removed? Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• I removed the diary entry as that seemed to give undue emphasis to a single person. The remaining two quoteboxes are quoting historians. Tkbrett (✉) 17:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Too many notes. Work on axing and/or integrating some of them into the text. (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cut some and worked others in, as you suggested. Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why so much further reading? If they are not a unique resource on the article's topic, they should not be there (possibly moved to another article where they are more relevant); if they do give unique info on this article's topic, they should probably be cited. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Most of the further reading deals with the the event tangentially and only accent the information provided in the article, so I've gone ahead and cut most of it. Tkbrett (✉) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

In general, it looks good. I'm slightly concerned however by some phrasings that look a bit odd to me, which may be ENGVAR.

• "Sergeant-Major Blood" Do we have a link or a first name? Or is this the same as the Sergeant Blood arrested later on in the article?

• They are indeed the same person (Sergeant-Major Granville Blood). Unfortunately there's no page and my sources have no information on his life besides the mentions in this article. I've fixed the naming so they are both the same. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• The blockquote by Lt Dacey seems to be missing an internal close quotation mark.

• My mistake. Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned in the streets of Berlin, harassing men who had not signed up for service.[45] " Is campaigned the proper term here?

• Good point. There are really two thoughts being teased in this sentence – the unsuccessful recruiting campaign and the harsh tactics the recruiters pivoted towards. I've split the sentence and expanded each to further explain. It now reads: "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned for new recruits but – like most battalions in Canada – found little success. Recruiters resorted to harassing men in the streets who had not signed up for service and forcing them into the recruiting office.[59]" Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• " The result of the vote elicited celebrations in the streets from supporters." Elicited seems a bit of an odd word here.

• Changed to "The result of the vote prompted supporters to celebrate in the streets." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In early 1916, Canada's Militia Minister Sam Hughes made a speech in the House of Commons" Shouldn't there by commas surrounding "Sam Hughes"?

• Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Tappert was threatened to leave the country by 1 March.[64]" This reads oddly.

• Changed to "Tappert ignored threats to leave the country by 1 March; ..." Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• You have "Ontario's legislature", "the Legislature" and "the Ontario Legislature" within a short passage, and you link later to Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

• Standardized across the page. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dnllnd[edit]

Overall the page is a huge improvement from earlier versions and I appreciate how much you've accomplished - well done. I have a few general comments to offer:

• Several paragraphs are way too long, impacting how browsable the page is despite the use of subheadings. One aspect of a topic doesn't need to be completely covered in one paragraph. The information the longer paragraphs contain is interesting and useful but they'd benefit from being broken up, where appropriate.

• That's fair. I've split several. Let me know if you think it is needed anywhere else. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks and reads a lot better! I made a few additional splits.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I rejoined one where the information is better served as one paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• The reaction and aftermath section doesn't address more recent media coverage about changing the name as it relates to discussion of anti-racism. There doesn't need to be extensive coverage about this, but acknowledging that aspect of things would add some additional depth to the page with regards to the 'why' the name was changed and what the long-term impact of that decision has been.

• This was an area I was unsure about including. John Allemang's piece from 2016 is flowery in prose but light on substance regarding any push for renaming the city Berlin. If you look up more recent articles regarding this you find there were several in the immediate aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, mostly popping up in June 2020. The city council shrugged it off and things don't seem to have gone anywhere. The petition had fewer than 400 signatures when mentioned in the Record, so I don't think the movement is especially notable or relevant to this page. I worry that mentioning it would veer into editorializing by placing undue emphasis on it. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't editorializing more of a concern if recent questioniong of the name is omitted? You're right, council did generally dismiss the 2020 calls to revisit the name but in doing so they also said the following: “We acknowledge that the legacy of our namesake, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a decorated British Earl who established concentration camps during the Boer War, is not one to be celebrated,” [9]. That's relevant to the topic. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Appealing to WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, it would be inappropriate to include the 2020 story (or any others, like the 2016 piece) given that no notable movement to change the name back to Berlin has materialized since 1919. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If it wasn't notable why did the city respond to it? And why is there more than one news item, across multiple years, about it? This isn't breaking news or an idea I pulled out the air. It's been repeatedly documented in the news and engaged with by city officials. Since you've pointed to specific guideline as reasons not to include relevant info I'll use the same guidelines to explain why it should be included:

• WP:NOTADVOCACY point #2 sates: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.

• WP:NOTNEWS point #1 states: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.

• WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Acknowledging the more recent criticism in a sentence or two doesn't given it undue attention and aligns with this guideline.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

To move this discussion forward I added in a short paragraph to the bottom of the Reaction and aftermath section. It seems more productive to discuss actual text than debate hypotheticals. The text I've added focuses on the facts and is relevant to the discussion. Feel free to edit the text as needed. Thanks again for your work on the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

These are fair points. I have added two sentences mentioning the issues raised by Outhit's Record article to the end of the Reaction and aftermath section. (I overrode the edits you made there accidentally b/c we were making edits at the same time) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd personally like to see a sentence or two acknowledging how awful Herbert Kitchener was. The quote about him being a war martyr doesn't really cut it. He was a scorched earth-er who relied on concentration camps - that's pretty relevant to the decision to have his name on the change ballot and to the current discussions about racism in the Region.

• No doubt that when judged by the standards of today Lord Kitchener was awful, but I think this may be a bit outside the scope of this page and going beyond WP:NPOV. All of the sources I've used mention that he was well known but don't go much further than that. Moyer calls him "the famous British General" who "won fame during the Boer War in Africa and in the early years of the Great War." Crerar calls him an "English field marshal" who "was lost in the North Sea just prior to the vote". McLaughlin & Jaeger call him "the recently deceased British secretary of state for war". Wilson calls him, "the popular British Secretary of War". English & McLaughlin don't say much of anything about him. My phrasing is closest to Hayes, who mentions that he was the British Secretary of State for War and that the name became popular among the business community despite the Stratford Herald' complaints. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not up for debating if there was ever a time concentration camps were good based on the standards of any era - I'm an archivist and I'm well versed in the questionable (to me) logic of that discussion. That said, thank you for explaining why you approached mention of Kitchener the way that you did. The unsavory side of his legacy can be reasonably be addressed in the reaction and aftermath section with regards to more recent calls for a reconsideration of the name. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The changing reception of his legacy would be better placed on the Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener page. Including it here would contravene WP:SOAPBOX given that none of the sources discuss it. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a more robust discussion about Kitchener belongs on his page. The sources you're pointing to as not mentioning criticism about his legacy, however, were written in 1979 (Moyer), 1983 (English), 2006 (McLaughlin), and so on, making the suggestion that adding a sentence about the recent push back about the city's name as soapboxing confusing. You appear to be treating WP guidelines like rules. Each of the WP references you've pointed to, here and in responses to other comments, are intentionally open for interpretation. I left comments in good faith with the goal of making the page as complete and accurate as possible. I pointed to specific examples of how the guidelines can be interpreted as supporting a mention of the criticism about the name as it related to Kitchener's legacy above. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(This point addressed above) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of info being cited mid-sentence and try to phrase things so that it's not necessary. I recognize this is a personal preference. Not sure if there's a way to minimize instances of it or if anyone other than me is concerned about it.

• WP:CITEDENSE talks about this a little bit and doesn't say to avoid it. I agree that it can sometimes be unsightly so I merged some into single citations. Others – like the opening sentence of the body – have a lot of information already packed into both citations. I worry about packing too much information into a single one at the end of a sentence lest it becomes difficult to verify what information is coming from where. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• WP:INTEGRITY is more important than looks :) (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me! Thanks again for all the hard work you've put into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Glad to see this topic get the page quality it deserves! --Dnllnd (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• FN103: if you're going to cite the updated article, then you should credit the update author; also the encyclopedia title should be italicized

• Fixed both. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Where are the Bassler stats from?

• Lawson, quoting Bassler, doesn't say the origin. I'll get back to you on this one. I have to go get Bassler back from the library and they're not open until Tuesday (they're closed for Easter weekend.) Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't feel like waiting until Tuesday; looking at Avery (2005), he indicates there were 393,320 people of German origin listed in the 1911 census. Lawson says "By 1911, almost half a million people of German ancestry were disperssed across Canada." I've updated it with the more precise figure from Avery. Tkbrett (✉) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• What makes Leibbrandt a high-quality reliable source? Moyer? Lefcourt?

• Here's what English & McLaughlin have to say about Leibbrandt: "A recent and unusual work deserve special mention: Dr. Gottlieb Leibbrandt has written a valuable history of the Germans of Waterloo County. Trained as a scholar, Dr. Leibbrandt reveals a thorough command of his sources and a sensitive appreciation of the experience of his own ethnic group in this area" (p. 229).
• English & McLaughlin describe Moyer's earlier work as "folksy and interesting popular histories", adding that Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited "follows the style and level of research in Moyer's other publications" (p. 229). They cite him throughout their endnotes.
• The German Quarterly included Lefcourt in a recommended reading list. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• That seems to be a bibliography rather than specifically a recommended reading list - anything more on that source? Regarding Moyer, I'm not convinced that being a "folksy and interesting popular histor[y]" recommends a source as being high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• These are fair points. I have removed Moyer and Lefcourt as sources and used others in their place. Nothing much was lost as both were mostly corroborated in other sources. I think the only notable loss of content are the names of the two women who suggested "Kitchener" and "Brock"; Lefcourt got that claim from a March 1963 article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It's difficult to get into archives during the pandemic but I've reached out to the Kitchener Public Library to see if I can get a copy of the article. I don't plan on citing it, I'm just curious if it indicates where the claim originates. Tkbrett (✉) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• I managed to get a hold of the column Lefcourt cited ("City's Name Story Contradicted," Kitchener-Waterloo Record, March 23, 1963. p. 3). As the title suggests, local stories are somewhat contradictory as to who suggested the name, which is perhaps why none of the other sources I have mention it. Given the silence on the issue from reliable sources, I think I'll just avoid mentioning it in the article. Also, re:Bassler numbers, it was the 1911 census, just as Avery 2005 mentions. I also see the same numbers used in Granatstein 2005 and McKegney 1991. The page has been updated to reflect this. Tkbrett (✉) 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Date ranges should use endashes, including in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'm vaguely aware of the name change debate, but here's what I have to add:

• Have you considered adding the date the name Berlin was adopted to the lead? Not necessary of course, but I think it may be worth including it in the clause about where the name comes from: "Berlin adopted the name in 1833, after the capital of the German Empire..." or something like that.

• Good idea. (further address on next point below). I've also included the official switch date of 1 September 1916 in a sentence added to the second paragraph since that seems another important date. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• On the same sentence; it notes the name came from the capital of the German Empire, but if the name was adopted in 1833 then that isn't true, as the Empire wasn't established until 1871. It would be more accurate to either say the capital of Prussia, or even future capital of the Empire. I see this is actually noted later in the article (via a letter to the Berlin News Record and a couple other mentions as well).

• Good points. I've changed the sentence to the following: "Named in 1833 after the capital of Prussia and later the German Empire, ..." Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "In early 1916 business and community leaders began pushing for Berlin to either seek a new name or amalgamate with Waterloo." I think adding a reference to Waterloo being close ("amalgamate with neighbouring Waterloo", for example) would be useful, as people aren't going to know the cities are effectively twinned.

• Waterloo is mentioned as neighbouring Berlin in the first sentence of that paragraph so I didn't want to repeat it unnecessarily. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Towns across the English speaking world..." Should be "English-speaking", no?

• Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "In the months following the outbreak of the war, Berlin's Board of Education voted to end the use of German in schools." Does this mean German was the language of instruction, or one of the topics taught?

• The former. I'm not sure how to phrase it better since "German instruction" or "instruction in German" would seem to imply the opposite. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir Robert Borden are noted without the honorific; is that a deliberate omission?

• Whoops! Not intentional. I've fixed the instances when they're first mentioned. Do I have to use it when not using their full name? For example, I initially write "On 24 November 1917, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden visited Kitchener ...". When I next mention him I simply say, " ... a group of disgruntled citizens heckled Borden." Is this sufficient? Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Young German men were harassed in the street if they had not signed up for military service." This was not exclusive to German-Canadians; were they targeted even more so than others?

• That's certainly true. I suppose it's more that most of the men expected to enlist were German. McKegney clarifies: "Many of the young men who were expected to enlist in the 118th Battalion had studied the German language and literature in Berlin and Waterloo schools, the majority of them were members of German-language churches that were either neutral or opposed to war with Germany, and most of them were Canadian rather than British born." (McKegney p. 169). I've changed it to, "Young men, many of them German, were harassed ..." Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Tappert became a controversial figure locally after several of his actions, including his continued use of German in religious services, telling his children to avoid saluting the Union Jack and to not sing "God Save the King", his refusal to contribute to the Patriotic Fund and his public doubting of anti-German propaganda." This needs to be fixed grammatically: the "after several of his actions" implies something is coming after the list there, but it doesn't. Instead go with something like "Tappert became a controversial figure locally for several controversial actions, including..." It has a more definitive result that way.

• Much better. Fixed per suggestion. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ironic that one of the two soldiers who assaulted Tappert was named Schaefer, a decidedly German name. Have to wonder if that influenced his actions.

• I looked through my sources and didn't find anything regarding Schaefer's German heritage, but I did stumble upon a very interesting nugget. "Blood and Schaefer, let off with suspended sentences, were warned by Magistrate Weir that he remembered Schaefer, who had been connected in 1914 with throwing the bust of Kaiser Wilhelm I in the park lake ..." (McKegney p. 160). That's too interesting a factoid to leave out. It's also all I can really find about Schaefer. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Did L. J. Breithaupt elaborate on why he opposed the name change? If so it would be good to have that, but I understand if that's not available.

• Yes! He opposed the resolution because he thought the name change would have no effect on British success in the war and that any change should be voted on by the entire city, not simply the 12 alderman council. I've added this to the article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Use Adam Crerar's full name on his first mention in the article (at the start of the "Voting and results" section).

• Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Solid article overall. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support

Thank you! I'm especially happy to have someone named Kaiser reviewing this article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad to review it, and happy to offer my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 12 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)

Comments 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)

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?

Looks good. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• No problem. Willbb234, thanks for the review. You aren't wrong, it's mostly people putting links into the prose and me not catching they have first names as well. I have answered all of the above. I think the only thing I didn't implement is the "bookmaker" suggestion, which if you have alternate wording I'm sure we could deal with. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're happy with how it is, then I don't have anymore suggestions. I'll hold back on a support or oppose for the moment as I'd like to see what others have to say, especially regarding a source review. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Forthcoming, reserving a spot here. Epicgenius (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi mate, I know it's only been three days, just wanted to check this one hadn't slipped your mind. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Sorry about that. It did indeed slip my mind, since I recently had a midterm, but since I'm done with that now, I can take a look in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• Two players, world number one Judd Trump and Jack Lisowski, withdrew from the event after testing positive for COVID-19. - I think COVID-19 could be linked, at least for the future when that isn't as widely known.

Sure, but there is a link just above this for the pandemic in the UK. Happy to add, but I'd rather we linked it the other way around -> COVID-19 -> Pandemic. If we linked COVID below, it's almost as if we had already defined it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see that. Whoops. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• (also referred to as the 2021 Betfred Masters for sponsorship purposes) ... The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. - I suggest moving these closer to each other.

The top bit is WP:LEADALT, we could omit the "due to sponsorship", if you wanted but we should list official names in the lede. Having the sponsor higher in the lede would give it too much WP:WEIGHT in my opinion Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You're right. I guess the current wording works in that case.

• Yan completed a 10–8 victory to win his first Triple Crown tournament. - For some reason, it seems redundant to say "completed a ... victory".

The alternative is Yan won 10-8 to win... Which isn't better. "Completed a victory" is better wording, but if you have anything better let me know. I always assumed it was a WP:LIMITED dealio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to leave this alone for now. I would consider something such as "Yan won his first Triple Crown tournament with a 10-8 victory". Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Overview

• However, the event was moved to the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes, and played without spectators, to comply with stricter regulations against COVID-19 - Out of interest, how long before the actual event was it relocated?
  • A couple weeks, IIRC. I had tickets. :( Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Oof, that sucks. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• As defending champion Bingham was seeded first,[15] with the next seven players in the world rankings seeded and allocated fixed positions in the draw, where they met the remaining eight participants who were drawn randomly.[16] - I think you can just remove "as", because otherwise, the sentence reads like a run-on.

Hm, I was clarifying that because he was defending champion, he was seeded first (which is how it works). It used to be that the world champion would be seeded second, and then the world rankings, but that changed a few years back (O'Sullivan is second in the world, seeded third but is the world champion). I have split this into two sentences to avoid run-on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

That works for me. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• which was sponsored for the first time by sports betting company Betfred, who replaced previous sponsors Dafabet - this is definitely a run-on clause, but you can change the semicolon immediately before this (after "organised the event") to a comma.

No problem. Done. I'm not a punctuation wizard I'm afraid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

First round

• Two former winners Shaun Murphy and Mark Williams met in the fourth first round match. - It may be a case of ENGVAR, but I would hyphenate "first-round" and put commas right after "former winners" and "Mark Williams", just to be clear.
  • "First round" is kind of like the name of the round, but I've added the commas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• while the 1997 world champion, Ken Doherty - Similarly, I would put a comma after this phrase.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Higgins lead 5–3, but Allen won the next two frames. - Here, I believe "lead" would be either present tense or plural present tense, but "led" is past tense and may be more appropriate here. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Typo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Quarter-finals

• Murphy won the first two frames before Bingham won the next two with a break of 133 recovering from 0–58 points behind - Not a content issue but that is pretty impressive.
  • I don't think it should be, because those were seperate frames! I've reworded. winning 133-58 would be close to the highest scoring frame of all time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Ah OK, I thought it was in the same frame. I should've read the tables below, but alas, I did not. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yan Bingtao playing in his first Masters event - Should this be mentioned in the First round section? Or is it more relevant in this section?
  • Well, he wasn't the only debutant, him being 20 is quite important which is why I did it that way around. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Alright, sounds good. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• O'Sullivan won the opening frame with a break of 97, but Higgins responded with a 110 and 145—the highest of the tournament – to lead 3–1 - There is an unspaced m-dash (—) in the beginning and a spaced n-dash ( – ) in the end. It should be consistent.
  • Agreed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• whilst O'Sullivan backed Higgins to win the tournament after this performance - To me, it seems like "whilst" being repeated in consecutive sentences is somewhat awkward. Maybe an alternative like "though" would work
  • As is what I've used, as they are both saying how well Higgins played. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• No issues here.

Final

• Higgins had not appeared in the final of the event since he last won the Masters in 2006.[60] Yan Bingtao was appearing in his first Triple Crown final. - Would this be better as one sentence, or is it more appropriate keeping it as two sentences?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• since O'Sullivan, twenty-six years earlier, in 1995, - If you write this as "since O'Sullivan in 1995, twenty-six years earlier," you can eliminate the first comma.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: That's it for prose. It looks pretty good to me, and it seems at the level of quality for an FA. On a related note, I was pretty surprised to hear Yan won the Masters at his age, on his debut. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a BIG deal! He's unlike the other Chinese players, who are very attacking players, he's much more of a tactician. It looks more and more likely he'll be the first Chinese world champion, but he lost to Murphy at the worlds this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, now I'm actually interested to see where his career path takes him, since Yan is only a little bit younger than me. I'm happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

TRM[edit]

• You use WPBSA in the infobox and refs but it's not explained.
• "event alongside" comma after event.
• "been the first event" you mean in the UK snooker calendar I assume?
• "best-of-11 frames until the final" in a single session?
• Why not relink Eurosport in the main body?
• "In all other territories" I would remove "all" because are you sure all other territories had access?
• "match, Eurosport pundit" ah, you relink it here. Do it first time round.
• ""The match was of high quality" Wikipedia probably shouldn't say this, did anyone else?
• "making a plant,[64]" overlinked.
• Perhaps link "odds" for "The odds were 50–1".
• Here's a pain for you: suggested (reasonably) today that scorelines should {{nowrap}}. Fancy that?
• "twenty-six years" -> 26
• Why are the century/half-century breaks in italics in the table?
• Ref 9 has no website/work/publisher.
• Clive Everton can be linked as a ref author.
• If you're linking all publishers/websites first time round, do so consistently, e.g. Radio Times, Sporting Life etc.
• Ref 32 has Eurosport non-italicised.
• Ref 66 suddenly Eurosport UK?

That's all I have. Whoever did the GA review did a remarkable job... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Shoom[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Seminal late 1980s Acid House nightclub in London that almost single-handedly introduced Chicago house and Detroit techno music to the UK mainstream, creating an explosion of interest in electronic music and repetitive beats that culminated in the Second Summer of Love and still reverberates in contemporary European dance music culture. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Alts now added. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Support:I have issued, now resolved, comments on the talk page. I'm satisfied that this article is comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced—although a separate source review is still absolutely necessary. DMT biscuit (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for support, talk page suggestions, and copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder by The Ultimate Boss[edit]

I'll be leaving some comments in a few hours after I get some sleep -_-. ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• User:The Ultimate Boss? (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

• Three weeks in and only one general support. Just a heads up that if there is not a fair bit of further activity over the next three or four days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Commenting at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Shoom/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas[edit]

Support. Everything seems to be in order. I have no problem supporting this for a FA. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Appreciate this considering all the work you have done here on electronic music. Ceoil (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

TRM[edit]

Source review – Pending[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• Link National Institute on Drug Abuse in ref 2
• Ref 68 seems to be in a different template
• The Guardian should be italicized in Snaped
• Are we sure "Positive Energy of Madness" is the publisher for Sedazzari?
• You have "Shoom.london" here but have it lowercased in Notes; either is fine, of course, just needs to be one or the other
• Should be The New York Times I believe
• A minor quibble, a bit confused on your linking of publishers/works. I was guessing you're linking non-book sources in their first mention, but i-D is linked twice, as is mixmag.

Reliability

• Looks good from what I can see

Verifiability

• Page number for ref 79 (Hook 2009)?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• page number for ref 18 (BrewsterBroughton 2014)?

• Removed Ceoil (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks v much Aza. All sorted, except the NYT is often here minus the "the", and I bought both Hook and Brewster & Broughton as an e-book; hence no page number. Not sure how linking to a kindle "area" works, though the format makes it none the less valid. ps Sedazzar now removed. Anyways, thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 08:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ceoil on specifying a section where you have no page number, see dementia with Lewy bodies#References and use of | loc = SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also this is a change in citation style that is not required (and has introduced harv ref errors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, this has been fixed again. Ceoil (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ceoil, we're still missing a page number for Hook 2009 and BrewsterBroughton 2014 (now refs 17 and 78)—a chapter would do too, I would think Aza24 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now...tweaking as I go.....queries below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• At the end of the first para you have In the club's first months, Danny and Jenni Rampling would greet each patron as they arrived, and say goodnight to them as they left., which has been mentioned in the preceding section - should be merged and placed in one spot or the other. Actually I'd probably move para 2 of Formation onto para 1 of early nights TBH.

• Does Rampling or anyone else recall how many turned up on the first night?

• Within months of opening, the queue grew from a few hundred into over a thousand, leading to a move in March 1988 to Thursday nights at Raw - should this be "attendance"?

• The club's popularity began when it was praised... - I'd probably say, "The club's popularity grew after it was praised..." (more natural and chronological)

Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Shoom's interior design tended towards minimalism architecture, mirrored walls and smiley face logos - "minimalist"?

Done Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I guess...what happened to the Ramplings afterwards...how did it change their lives?

  Good point - will add. Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks okay otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this and for the edits Ceoil (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fort Concho[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This article, Fort Concho, is a former US Army installation located almost literally in the middle of Texas. It is in fact the best-preserved 19th century US Army installation anywhere in the country, let alone Texas. For that reason, it has the distinction of being a National Historic Landmark. Just as with my previous FA, this is the labor of two years, which I hope to just need one FAC for this time. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Fort Concho/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Was gonna comment this at the PR, but you closed. There's pretty heavy reliance on Matthews and the NPS. Have you drawn on sources like [10], ISBN 9781574414875 and ISBN 9780585464138, or a reason to avoid them? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To be totally honest, I had no idea these existed. I've since looked at each, and confirmed their credibility. Though I am loathe to use Haley, having been exposed to plenty of antiquated, racist prose I've read thus far in the linked work of his. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I have read more of Mr. Haley's work, and find his racism and conservativism unacceptable. The other works shared by Eddie have been handy, however. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note by nominator: I have looked at all three of the books Eddie891 linked, and worked two of them, as well as spent some time on JSTOR. I believe I am now (more) ready to proceed with FAC, and will make enquiries. Especially from Hog Farm, over in the Trans-Mississippi in almost the same time period. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Since this note, I have added this photo. It is PD by virtue of its being a work of the US government. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Looked at this during the peer review, so I may not find a whole bunch of new stuff. Will try to review this here over the next couple days. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, and thank you. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning that there are plans, approval, and funding to reconstruct some more buildings?
  • It is, but no progress has been made on that work. It was in the article when it passed GAN, but I took it out because without that progress, the reader, like Eddie when he reviewed the article, would ask, "Well, what's happened since then?". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The source linked above does have an update as of mid-December 2020, so I guess you could give the most recent update. But there seems to have very little progress on that front, so it's not significant to leave it out. Will read through the article again tomorrow; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh shoot. Alright, I've added that source, along with some content I cut out from the GAN. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889, and in that time the fort housed elements of fifteen US Cavalry and Infantry regiments" - Not finding the sum of 15 in the body
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry" - Phrasing of the first part of the implies that it was the principal base of the 10th Cavalry. Not explicitly stated in the article body, although the presence of 5 companies there in 1880 would imply that it was, as that would have been a big chunk of the unit.
  • Mackenzie did move the unit's headquarters to the fort in 1871, so I've revised the sentence to say "headquarters". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "At its greatest extent in the 1870s, Fort Concho consisted of forty buildings on 40 acres (16 ha) of land leased by the US Army. - 40 acres is stated to be the current size of the fort, but I'm not seeing where it's directly specified to have been the greatest extent.
  • I couldn't figure out how to phrase that; trimmed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "and the federal government abandoned its Texas forts to the Confederate States of America" - Is abandoned or surrendered a better word? Because David E. Twiggs did technically surrender the forts, but it was not a standard surrender, as the US Army kinda just got to leave. So I can see that going either way.
  • Changed "abandoned" to "ceded" for a middle of the road approach. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Confederate Texas was unable to secure its territories and was defeated by the Comanche and Kiowa at the First Battle of Adobe Walls," - Wasn't First Adobe Walls a USA cavalry regiment under Kit Carson? Not aware of CSA participation there
  • First Adobe Walls was indeed a Union affair; I've axed mentions of both battles and combined . –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "In the first seven months of Fort Concho, its garrison – numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas – occupied by its plodding construction" - I think you're missing a word in here
  • Sure enough. Whoops. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• " Captain Napoleon B. McLaughlen set out with two companies of the 4th Cavalry and one of the 11th Infantry and confirmed Wilson's report" - Was the 11th Infantry company from Fort Richardson or Concho?
  • I honestly do not know. My source does not say, and Google searching turned up nothing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Stationed at Forts Concho, Stockton, Fort Davis, Quitman, and Clark, the 4th Cavalry was tasked with patrolling the frontier, escorting wagons and settlers, and mounting expeditions" - You surely mean the 10th Cavalry, right?
  • Now, that is an embarrassing slip up. Corrected now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The fort's chaplains were some of the first preachers and educators in the town and its medical staff, chiefly surgeon William Notson also treated civilians" - Should there be a comma after Notson, as "chiefly surgeon William Notson" seems to be an appositive?
  • Yes; added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Additional buildings, were built in around the fort,[62] including what is now Fort Concho Elementary," - Drop the first comma I think and should it be "in and around the fort"?
  • Done. Think those errors were edit scars. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• "National Register of Historic Places October 15, 1966" - missing an "on" I think
  • Dagnabbit. Fixed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Exact date of 1-1-1986 for TSAL listing in the infobox isn't fully cited, as only 1986 is cited in the body
  • Added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• the Forts of Texas see also link is not needed per MOS:SEEALSO, as it is linked in the article body
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I caught some stuff this time I missed in the PR. Hog Farm _Talk 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have also added and moved things around since the PR. Good catches, I've addressed them all. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support of WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability. Did not check others. Hog Farm _Talk 23:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Here are some of my initial comments.

Lead:

• It was established in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail. The US Army operated the fort for twenty-two years, from November 1867 to June 1889 - Is there any way to combine these, as I assume the Army operated the fort immediately from its establishment. How about something like "The US Army established the fort in November 1867 at the confluence of the Concho Rivers, situated on the Butterfield Overland Mail Route and Goodnight–Loving Trail, and operated it until June 1889"?
  • Done. I've simplified things. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Initially, Fort Concho was the principal base of the 4th Cavalry and then between 1875 and 1882, the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry. - Did the fort serve as base of the 4th and 10th cavalries at the same time, or was it the 4th and then the 10th?
  • No; clarified now with another date range. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• The fort was abandoned in June 1889 and passed into civilian hands. - In the first paragraph, it is already mentioned that the fort operated till June 1889.
  • Clipped from the first paragraph. I've also combined the first sentences of the second paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• on July 4, 1961 - add a comma after "1961"
  • Added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• 40 acres (16 ha) grounds - This should be "40-acre (16 ha) grounds". You can add |adj=on to {{convert}}.
  • Ahah, that's what I was I reaching for there. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• As of August 2019, the fort was visited annually by around 55,000 people. - I would use active voice, e.g. "As of August 2019, around 55,000 people visited the fort annually".
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Operation by the US military:

• But in 1849, American colonists began crossing West Texas in large numbers to reach California, where gold had been discovered - It seems weird to begin a sentence with "But". Usually you can drop it or replace it with "However".
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• and among those avenues was the Butterfield Overland Mail route, established in 1858 to bring mail from St. Louis to San Francisco - I would move this to the next sentence, which is On its way through Texas, the route passed through Fort Chadbourne...
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• But after the end of the war in 1865 - Same as above.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• But later that year, the US Army was ordered to reoccupy its pre-war Texas billets early in 1867 - Same, but "but later that year" may be a little redundant, and you can just say "shortly afterward".
  • Redundancy squashed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• identified the junction of the Concho Rivers as an ideal site because of the abundance of water - I also think this is better fit for the next sentence (The site was also desirable for its proximity to the routes it was to guard and for the abundance of nearby grazing land).
  • Done. Works really well now, thanks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Construction:

• Construction of Fort Concho was assigned on December 10, 1867, to Captain David W. Porter, assistant quartermaster of the Department of Texas. - I would suggest either recasting this in active voice, or rephrasing this so that the date is first (e.g. "On December 10, 1867, the construction contract was assigned to Captain David W. Porter...")
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Progress was slow - How slow? Is it like "100-year construction project" slow, or just your standard delays?
  • I've moved things around in the paragraph for more immediate clarification. Can't recall, or fathom, why this order didn't occur to me before. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• In March - In March 1868, I presume.
  • Yup. Added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• They were followed over the next year by two more officer's residences, another barracks were built, and a permanent guardhouse and stables - You can probably drop "was built".
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• a quartermaster's corral, and a wagon shed - The comma's also unnecessary here, as this is not an ordered list.
• Construction was again slowed in February 1872 with the discharging of most of the civilian workforce following budget cuts to the US War Department - this phrasing is awkward. I would use active voice for at least part of the sentence, e.g. "Construction was again slowed in February 1872 when most of the civilian workforce was discharged following budget cuts to the US War Department"
  • Rewritten. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• By 1879, the fort was garrisoned by eight companies of regular soldiers billeted in entirely limestone-built structures,[26] of which there were 39 by April 1889 - 39 limestone structures or 39 soldiers per company? Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the back end of that paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Base of the 4th Cavalry

• numbering 129 in the 1869 reports of the War Department, out of a force of 3,672 in Texas - This is awkward; I would place the "1869 reports of the War Department" at either the beginning or the end of this fragment.
  • Moved to the end. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comanche and Kiowa raids increased in number over the rest of 1871 - Became more frequent?
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• by August,[39] Sheridan, now commanding the Military Division of the Missouri,[11] ordered five expeditionary forces of more than 3,000 soldiers each into the South Plains. - I suggest this can be a new sentence.
• Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Base of the 10th Cavalry

• In July 1877, Captain Nicholas M. Nolan led an ill-fated expedition out of Fort Concho that achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A - The detail that the expedition "achieved nothing and killed four soldiers from the 10th Cavalry's Company A" is very interesting. In light of that, though, "ill-fated" may be redundant, but that's just my opinion.
• Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠
• The disarmament was delayed until April 16 because of rains, and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arms. - As another editor once said, What helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. (E.g. is "and resulted in failure when the Mescalero Apache escaped with most of their arm" a complete sentence? It's not, so either the comma should be removed, or you should reword the fragment after the comma to "and it resulted in failure".)
  • Comma removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• The 10th Cavalry transferred permanently to Fort Davis, farther to the west, in July 1882. - do we know why?
  • No. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-Texas Indian Wars and deactivation

• By the mid-1880s, the ranches that now enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing reduced the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, to patrolling roads. - This sentence is also awkward, largely because "enclosed" is used as a passive verb instead of an active verb. Additionally, there are two thoughts here: the ranches were enclosed with barbed-wire fencing, and the soldiers were forced to patrol roads. I suggest something like this: "By the mid-1880s, ranches enclosed the surrounding plains with barbed-wire fencing; the soldiers, barred by law from cutting the wire, were reduced to patrolling roads."
  • I've dropped your suggested sentences into the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• In early 1888, the 8th Cavalry gathered at Fort Concho from around Texas, and then left in June for Fort Meade, South Dakota. - Same issue as above, regarding the comma after "Texas".
  • Removed comma. –07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• On June 20, 1889, the men of K Company lowered the flag over the fort for the final time, and left the next morning - Same issue with the comma after "time". Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Relationship with San Angelo, Texas

• By 1875, San Angelo was a collection of saloons and brothels and had a reputation befitting that - the second part of the sentence seems redundant. How about something like "By 1875, San Angelo was known for its collection of saloons and brothels"?
  • Axed the back half of that sentence. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• This was the state of affairs - Same here, I'd just say "This continued..."
• Combined with the preceding sentence. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• traders and settlers, and allowed - This comma is unnecessary.
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Preservation

• As early as 1905, however, influential locals tried to conserve the fort. J. L. Millspaugh, one of the sutlers contracted to supply the fort, suggested without success that the city buy the fort - It may just be me but I think "fort" is repeated quite excessively here.
  • Fixed, hopefully. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• A decade later in 1924 - How about just "Eleven years later"?
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• When the museum began expanding into other rooms of the courthouse, Carson moved the museum into Fort Concho's headquarters building on August 8, 1930 - The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the museum was relocated while it was expanding. I would therefore replace "When" with "After" or something similar.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• The Great Depression and World War II imposed financial difficulties on the museum - I would say directly that the museum didn't have too much funding.
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• The museum was made a department of the city of San Angelo in 1955, but there was only property purchased in that decade - How many properties? Or did the museum just buy property and do nothing else?
  • Oops. It was only one property. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• The second half of the 20th century was to see a change in the Fort Concho Museum's fortunes. - In my view, "change in fortunes" is a little eupheimstic.
  • Sentence obliterated. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District,[71] and placed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966,[72] by the National Park Service (NPS). - I would standardize the date placement in this sentence structure. E.g. "On July 4, 1961, Fort Concho was named a National Historic Landmark District, and on October 15, 1966, the National Park Service (NPS) placed it on the National Register of Historic Places."
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• and advised both times the expansion of the museum staff. - I would also rephrase this. Either drop "and" (i.e. "...both times advising the expansion of the museum staff") or move "both times" after "staff".
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Fort Concho Museum and Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations - This is strange because the firm's name is "Bell, Klein and Hoffman", but the sentence structure may indicate "Fort Concho Museum and" is part of the name. I would rephrase this to clarify the distinction between the two entities, e.g. "Fort Concho Museum, along with Bell, Klein and Hoffman, an Austin-based architecture firm specializing in restorations" (though this sentence already has many commas).
  • Done, and without any additional commas. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• On January 1, 1986 - needs a comma after this
  • Added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• and announced in 2017 that it would use the donated money and other proceeds to expand its visitors center and rebuild Barracks 3 and 4 over 2018. - The way the sentence is set up, it sounds like the donor from 2015 made this announcement. However, I think the museum made the announcement, so that should be clarified.
  • Clarified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in the YFZ ranch raid

• This seems like it is a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things. Is it possible to merge this into the previous section somehow, condensing this into one or two sentences?
  • It doesn't really fit in anywhere else, though. It would be odd to put it under "Preservation", as it has nothing to do with the preservation of the fort. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I see. In that case, I think it can be left as it is. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll finish this off later. Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Grounds and architecture

• The material used in the fort's construction was not produced locally - Would it be easier to say "produced elsewhere", "sourced externally", or something similar instead of "not produced locally"?
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• a ventilator and a single chimney each - One ventilator and one chimney?
  • Yes. Clarified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Barracks 1 had two dining halls to Barracks 2's two, - If they both had two, this can be condensed.
  • This was a typo; Barracks 2 has one dining hall. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Barracks 3 and 4 were identical to Barracks 5 and 6. The latter buildings were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt. - This should probably be rephrased. Based on grammar, here "the latter" refers to Barracks 5 and 6, but based on context, I assume it refers to Barracks 3 and 4. Maybe something like "Barracks 3 and 4, while identical to Barracks 5 and 6, were demolished after the fort was abandoned and have not been rebuilt."
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• About 50 feet (15 m) of the headquarters building is the former residence of Oscar Ruffini,[96] San Angelo's first civic architect. - 50 feet frontage?
  • Nope, typo. Fixed now.
• The post hospital was built from 1868 to 1870. - This seems to be a different building than the reconstructed hospital today. I would suggest "The original post hospital..."
  • Added. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• The houses generally follow an L-shaped plan with a primary residential building and kitchen, connected by veranda - One veranda per house or one veranda total?
  • Per house. Clarified now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Officer's Quarters 8 and 9 were built to the same plan as Officer's Quarters 1, and were also completed in 1872. - This comma is not necessary here.
  • Removed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is it "Officers' Quarters" (plural) or "Officer's Quarters" (singular)? Or does each quarters have a different plural?
  • "Officers' Quarters" (plural)
• The buildings form a duplex stand to the same height and have two fireplaces each. - Should there be a comma after "duplex", or is "stand" an adjective?
  • There was a missing "and" there. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vami IV: That's it for me. Looks pretty good from my view. Epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, happy to support this nomination. I will note that I am claiming the above review for WikiCup points. Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 27 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

• I had to look up "confluence", whilst I'm sure its a suitable word, I can't imagine its a super normal one... could we say it a bit simpler? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• about 55,000 people visited the fort annually. - present tense "visit".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oops. Fixed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• l Philip H. Sheridan - our article is at Philip SheridanBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Similarly John P. Hatch is at John Porter Hatch.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is the massive image at the bottom really suitable?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I suppose not. Panoramas at the end of an article are a flourish of mine, but this one isn't really that interesting. Removed.

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)} 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hope you are well Vami, didn't realise you had something up, so I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Doing pretty well, thanks. And again, for the comments. Godspeed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Happy to support. Good work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ring ouzel[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This, the fourth thrush article I've brought to FAC, is a bit shorter than its predecessors. As one of the earlier migrants, it's a sign that spring is on the way, but its wild mountain breeding habitat means that the ring ouzel has failed to acquire the cultural and literary associations of its lowland cousins. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 13:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • However, there are better quality pics in Commons:Category:Turdus torquatus such as File:Turdus torquatus, Spain 1.jpg, File:2015-04-20 Turdus torquatus torquatus Cairngorm 1.jpg, File:Ringtrast, Trosa, Sörmland, Februari 2018 (41253422442).jpg, or File:Turdus torquatus, Spain 5.jpg which could be subbed for some of the lower resolution images of T. torquatus used. (t · c) buidhe 08:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, an ip editor has kindly switched some of the images and added a sound file. There appear to be no significantly better images of the Alpine or Caucasian sunbspecies, so we are stuck with those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

Oppose. As someone who isn't an animal expert, I can't speak of how reliable the animal literature cited here is or how complete this article. However, what makes me lean oppose is the prose problems starting in the lead.

• Animal jargon such as "breast band," "pale crescent," "northernmost part of its range" is either not linked or not explained for the casual reader to understand.

• HumanxAnthro I'm not clear which of the six words above (excluding "of" and "its", and presumably "part") you consider not to be standard English. To me, linking common words like "pale" and "crescent" seems to be overlinking. Do I really need to say where the breast is, or what a crescent looks like? I've inserted "geographical" before "range" thoughJimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with HA, I'm totally lost as to what does it mean for a bird to have a pale crescent? What is a breast band on a bird? This needs de-jargoning. (t · c) buidhe 13:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've rejigged, including linking crescent and breast, although I suspect that someone who doesn't know where the breast of a bird is might find the link unhelpfulJimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps add links to the bird glossary? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also, the sentence "Its habitat is open uplands with some trees or shrubs including heather, conifers, beech, Rhododendron hirsutum or juniper" sounds awkward. At least the types of places are linked, but is there more terminology I'm not understanding?

• Again, I wouldn't think "habitat" was technical, but I've linked it and inserted an "often" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• I've removed "habitat", and rejigged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I just noticed most of the second paragraph spoils a majority of the "Diet section." The lead is meant to be a simple summary of most of the article's sections, not giving extremely unfair weight to one section or another.

• Removed most items Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• The long description sentences in "Subspecies" are difficult to read comfortably, as they feel random in structure. I also see zero need to bullet-point list only three items.

• Removed bullet points in the "Subspecies" section and made sentences shorter. I've done the same in the next section too, although you haven't suggested that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "Voice" has more jargon not linked or explained.

• I've linked contact call and perch, although I don't think that the latter is particularly obscure. All the other words are standard English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "(5,900–7,200 ft)1800–2200|m}}" I think this is an imcompletely-programmed template.

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

The article needs a copyedit. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• "In the Alps, breeding densities can reach 60–80 pairs/km², but are generally much lower with 37 pairs/km² in Haute-Savoie, 22 pairs/km² in the Jura Mountains, and 8 pairs/km² in more open habitats in Britain" Use convert template, rather than a note (it may be necessary to rephrase, i.e. "the density of pairs can reach 60–80 per km2 ..." (t · c) buidhe 07:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• buidhe, thanks for your tweaks to the text. I've added the population estimate date and followed your suggestion for the the convert template the density of breeding pairs can reach... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hi HumanxAnthro, have the changes to date been sufficient to effect your oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello, there, and great work on the prose changes. I just noticed "genus" isn't linked or described, but otherwise it's going towards the right direction in regards of that. I reason I can't make a definitive Support or Oppose comment here is because I am no bird expert, plus I have some other things on my plate and can't determine how fully researched this article is since I'm not to researching sources about animals. I can notice when something is understandable or not, however, and the article is getting better on that regard. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• HumanxAnthro, thanks for that, I've linked genus now, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

• spell out IUCN in lead

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• About 65 species of medium to large thrushes are in the genus Turdus - there are now 85 species in the genus Turdus (see IOC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• the ring ouzel is descended from thrush populations that had colonised the Caribbean islands from Africa, and subsequently reached Europe from there. This is probably not the case. A large molecular phylogenetic study (using ultra-conserved elements) by Batista et al was published in 2020. The results are compatible with a simpler model in which thrushes only crossed the Atlantic once.
• The reference: Batista, Romina; Olsson, Urban; Andermann, Tobias; Aleixo, Alexandre; Ribas, Camila Cherem; Antonelli, Alexandre (2020). "Phylogenomics and biogeography of the world's thrushes (Aves, Turdus): new evidence for a more parsimonious evolutionary history". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 287 (1919): 20192400. doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2400.

The results of this study are complicated - and unsatisfactory. Some of the importatnt nodes in the phylogeny are poorly supported which makes the interpretation difficult. I've looked at the supplementary material but I don't understand enough to make any judgment. Clearly more DNA sequence data are required before a solid phylogeny can be calculated. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've rewritten and simplified taxonomy in the light of Batista Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• A 2007 mitochondrial cytochrome b gene analysis - out of date?

• Dumped Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Details of the study suggests that the ring ouzel ... - Batista et al confirm that the ring ouzel is sister to a clade containing the closely related dusky and Naumann's thrushes.

• Re-sourced to Batista Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Breeding

• Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) and ranges may overlap - words missing? "Territories may be strung out along streams, 160–200 metres (520–660 ft) apart and the ranges may overlap."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• and built on the ground or in a small tree or scrub, at an average height of 3.5 metres (11 ft). - perhaps worth mentioning that the nest is very rarely in a tree in the west of the range (see Clement and Hathway p.349). Flegg and Glue, 1975 here of 297 sites in BTO study only 2% were in trees. Not the case elsewhere (not recommending that you use the ref but see here).

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mention that the nest is built by the female. See Clement and Hathway p.349 and BWP/Cramp (vol 5 published 1988) p. 947

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Incubation is by both parents - as per BTO source - but probably better to state "mostly by the female". BWP p. 947 has either "mostly by female" or "by female only". p 943 has "Both sexes recorded brooding and caring for young but female usually performs most." p 944 has "When female off nest, male often sat on rim but did not incubate" Clement and Hathway p. 349 have "mostly by the female but also apparently sometimes by the male".

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• average lifespan is two years, although nine years has been recorded. - I cannot see this in the cited source - hbw/bow - but the numbers are on the BTO page.

• Added ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Appears to be philopatric - birds return to very near the birth location to breed - but I cannot see this explicitly stated in the sources. (In one study by Sim et al used coloured rings and recorded breeding attempts in consecutive years - see here)

• Done, and mentioned triple brooding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Ref 16: Bacht et al 2013 - needs doi-access=free

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 23: Sim et al 2013 - a subscription is needed for the url provided. (but pdf is available from researchgate)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz I think it's the other way around, the url goes to the pdf, and the doi, taken from the researchgate page, goes to the abstract. I don't know how to fix it, we are required to give the doi, and sooner or later someone will remove the url on the basis that we don't need both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, Buidhe has removed the urls as a copyright violation, which makes sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz, thanks for comments. Some unexpected RL means it's going to be a bit stop-start over the next fe days, but I'll respond when I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz, all above done, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• and weighing 90–138 grams (3.2–4.9 oz) - perhaps "and weighs ..."

• Fine, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• They are incubated by both parents... - usually by the female

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Description

• Adult ring ouzels undergo complete moult... missing article - "undergo a complete moult."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• In the n the west of the range ... - this whole sentence is garbled

• , actually under Breeding, but still a mess. I promise I hadn't been drinking }: Fixed now, I hope Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• An observation: Drawing the distribution map must have been a challenge - I've looked at 5 maps and no two agree. Svensson (Collins) doesn't indicate any areas in France where the birds are resident.

- Aa77zz (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I think the key words is "approximate"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Support - the changes all look good. Well done. -Aa77zz (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Aa77zz, many thanks, as always for your help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Aa77zz, this article is awaiting a source review for reliability and formatting, do you think you might be able to undertake that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose I'll do the source review tomorrow. - Aa77zz (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• Add alt text to the images per MOS:ACCIM/WP:CAPTION.
• A caption to infobox mp3 would help as I don't know what the sound specifically depicts. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Both done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

• Marking my spot until I get more time for a proper review. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• To solve some of the issues mentioned above, perhaps link to the bird glossary instead of unrelated articles?

• Most have been resolved, but added a couple of glossary links. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• The right side of the article is a bit of a wall of images now. Perhaps group some of the related ones in double images, such as the male and female of one subspecies?

• The only female we have is of T. t. torquatus, which would have to join the male of the nominate ssp in the infobox. However, I can't work out how to do that without losing the sound file there, making that image3 doesn't seem to work. In the meantime, I've shrunk the female image with the upright parameter Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added the female to the speciesbox and cropped both images to make them more similar. Please revert if you think this is a mistake. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks to Aa77zz Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "The ring ouzel was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae under its current scientific name." Shouldn't this be first in the taxonomy section then?

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are some geographical duplinks.

• Crept in since I last ran the script, done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Link Francis Willughby somewhere? I think you could spell out his name under taxonomy, even if it's mentioned earlier in a book title.

• I don't know how I missed that considering I wrote his FA! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Link thrush in the article body.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• I'm not sure how to solve this, but it seems there's duplication between the subspecies and habitat sections.

• I think that the subspecies section has to spell out where they occur, the distribution just summaries the overall picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are many very short paragraphs under description (and other places), I think there's a MOS guideline against this...

• I thought it made sense to give each ssp a separate para, but I've rolled them together, plus a couple of other places where there may not be a clear change of topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• "form a distinctive formed whitish panel" Double form?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• "through Scandinavia to northwest Russia, and in mountains across and central southern Europe from the Pyrenees through the Alps" Comma after across? A bit difficult to follow now.

• A stray "and" seemed to have crept in on last revision to that para, removed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• "with unimproved short grass" What does unimproved mean?

• Now "unsown wild grass", which is what it means Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Anything on how the subspecies are interrelated? Has there been any attempts to merge them into a single species, or split them into distinct species?

• I guess you mean merge them into a single subspecies. They differ significantly in appearance, and it's hard to see any basis for making them a single subspecies. Similarly, they are all obviously variants of ring ouzel, even Willughby accepted that alpestris and torquatus were different forms of the same species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, usually there are a lot of strange historical revisions, but might just not be the case here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• "There may be two broods, especially in the south of the range." Is stated twice in the breeding section.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• "is 3–6 pale blue or greenish-blue eggs" What determines whether they're pale blue or greenish? Area? Subspecies? Or is this just different ways of describing the same colour?

• As far as I can ascertain, it's just natural variation. There may be environmental or genetic factors, but I can't find anything on these. The eggs in the image are so alike, however, I'd guess that they come from the same clutch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are some subspecies more threatened than others?

• Again, we are largely dependent on where recent studies have been done, but there doesn't appear to be any thing obvious Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The images used are a bit samey. How about this[11] image that shows alpestris with bugs instead of the one used (could be cropped)?

• Good find, replaced as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looking very nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help with this and the support. I actually saw two male ring ouzels this morning, a good bird for Leicestershire since they are just passing through on their way to the uplands further north Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen one, appears they mainly visit Jutland, whereas I live on Zealand... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Placeholder for later. Looking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

....an extensive geographical range and a large population... - in lead, is "geographical" redundant here?

• Removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The survival rate for juveniles in their first year is 36%, and the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females. - bit repetitive, why not "Around 36% of juveniles survive their first year, while the annual survival rate for adults is 47% for males and 37% for females." or somesuch

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Cas, any more? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry -was AFK for most of weekend. Will look properly in a few hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Bleh, was gonna list some quibbles but ended up just doing them meself...looks fine comprehensiveness and prosewise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Cas, many thanks, beyond the call of duty to do the ce as well! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

I can review this soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are signs of decline in several countries, suspected causes including climate change, human disturbance, hunting and outdoor leisure activities. perhaps a semi-colon in exchange for the first comma here

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Ring Ouzel" was first used by John Ray in his 1674 Collection of English words not generally used should "Collection of English words not generally used" be title case while The Ornithology of Francis Willughby of Middleton in the County of Warwick is?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• When I click ref 18 it doesn't go down to the reference.

• fixed, incomplete ref name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The plumage of the male of the nominate race can you explain what "nominate race" means in parenthesis?

• It is linked, but I've added a gloss too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Males of T. t. alpestris have broader white scalloping can you link "scalloping" somewhere?

• There isn't really an appropriate link, scalloping doesn't help, so I've glossed instead. As is often the case, the images are abetter demonstration than words can convey Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The species is migratory, with birds leaving the breeding areas in September and October.Birds of the nominate subspecies space

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• In the Atlantic, it is regular winter visitor missing an "a", I believe.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The eggs are 30 x 22 mm convert

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• You're missing spaces in several of the page references, compare refs 2, 3, 4 to ref 5. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Duh... spacing and full stops in this type of short ref is normally one of the first things I check, fixed ref 8 too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Therapyisgood, thanks for comments, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Therapyisgood, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support. Looks good. Just a few things.

• "The ring ouzel was first described by Carl Linnaeus in his 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae under its current scientific name" I might move the final five words of the sentence to after "Linnaeus".
• Why is hairy alpenrose given its Latin name on second mention?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, thanks for comments and support, both fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Ian Rose This is the review that I agreed to undertake yesterday - see above. The cited sources are consistently formatted and they are all suitably reliable. I haven't systematically checked whether the sources support the text. I have a few comments:

• Ref. 5. Ray 1674: A link to the Google scan may be more reliable in this instance: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=njdWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT8
• Ref 9. Harvie-Brown & Cordeaux 1880: the final page in range should be 204
• Ref. 14. Reilly 2018 pp 221-225: cited to support they are characterised by rounded heads, longish, pointed wings, and usually melodious songs. I cannot see a mention of heads and wings within this page range. (but it is possible that I missed it)

You have retained the same reference but removed the mention of the head. I cannot see support for they are characterised by longish, pointed wings and why do you cite 6 pages for this simple statement? - Aa77zz (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Found it. On p.36 of Clement and Hathway (2000). "with rounded heads, medium or long, pointed wings..." - Aa77zz (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Aa77zz Thanks for that, I've now moved Clement and Hathway to cited texts, and re-reffed that bit to p. 36 thereof Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ref. 16. Brehm 1831: page range 377-378
• Ref. 17. Hartert 1923: page range 663-664
• Ref. 19. Mullarney et al 1999: The isbn is for the hardback 2nd edition published in 2010. The isbn for the 1st edition is 9780002197281 or 9780007113323. I have the paperback 2nd edition and the ring ouzel is on the cited page (p. 296). For the 2nd edition the first author is Lars Svensson.
• (Ref. 21. Leverton 1993: I was walking on the South Downs yesterday but didn't see a ring ouzel)
• Ref. 22. Snow and Perrins 1998: This is in Volume 2 Passerines.
• Ref. 28. Sim et al 2013: The doi links to the journal and is open access but the title links to BioOne and requires a subscription. I suggest that the url is changed to the journal https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01798.x

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Aa77zz, many thanks, all changes made as suggested. My Collins is second edition hardback for which data is, I think, correct now Svennson is lead author. Sorry Leverton let you down, there is still time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources look good. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

^Aa77zz: Is that a support/pass on the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - A pass for the source review. I'm sorry that this was unclear. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz, no worries; thank you for doing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Flash back to 15 years ago, Taylor Swift was a nobody until she released her self-titled debut album, a somewhat starry-eyed yet ambitious country music hopeful. Although sonically burdened by fillers, the album showcases the early talents of Ms. Swift as a confessional songwriter with a knack of crafting the biggest pop hooks. Listen to "Our Song", and you will understand.

The article had passed GAN in March 2010, but I noticed it has since been filled with a considerable amount of original research and unreliable sources. I rewrote the whole article, and had it peer-reviewed. Fresh off the peer review, I now believe this article satisfies the criteria for a featured article. Any comment on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Best, HĐ (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Taylor Swift (album)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro[edit]

• Ref 16 is missing a date. I know that's because it's another one of those sources that decided "[insert number] years ago" is a valid enough credit of the date, but there is the "view-source" feature on your browser for you to find the publishing date. In this citation, it's June 3, 2010. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Added date. Thanks for pointing that out! HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will say that the prose is interesting, engaging, and understandable, but I do have a comment about its organization.
• There are sentences throughout that discuss Swift's role in the country scene as a teenager, some of which seem to be equivalent and should be merged in some way. For example:
  • "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously because of her young age: "Basically [they] all went, 'Ah, how cute ... Go home and come back when you're 18.' "[6]" and "According to Borchetta, industry peers initially disapproved of his signing a sixteen-year-old singer-songwriter.[9] The Associated Press reported that a Nashville senior talent manager said: "Tell her to get back in school and come back and see me when she's 18, and bring her parents," which received local press coverage.[33]"
  • "She was rejected because record labels believed the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl, which Swift firmly disbelieved.[5][6]" and "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity.[33][45] However, industry experts did not expect a teenage artist to replicate the success of LeAnn Rimes in the 1990s, and country radio focused on female artists over 30 for advertising reasons.[34]"
    • I trimmed down the "Legacy" section so that it would not repeat what has been said in the previous sections. Let me know what you think. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... I see where you're going, but I don't think removing the AP quote entirely from the article is the solution. Like I said, I think merging it with a similar quote in the background section about Swift being instructed to wait until she was 18 would be better while at the same time not leaving out a part of the literature on the album
      • However, I'm noticing a bigger issue with the Legacy section. It doesn't feel so much like a Legacy section but rather an analysis of parts in the music industry at the time. While interesting, it doesn't scream "later years" to me as "Legacy" would suggest. Only the last sentences suggest anything of a legacy on Swift's career: "The autobiographical narratives on Taylor Swift defined Swift's songwriting over the next decade,[28][29] which Billboard noted to inspire a new generation of aspiring singer-songwriters who compose their own songs.[102] The album's pop crossover sound laid the groundwork to Swift's country-pop discography, whose chart success straddled the perceived boundary between the two genres.[103][106][107]" 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I wrote the "Legacy" section to assess public reception of the album that could not fit in other sections (per WP:MOSALBUM#Controversy or legacy sections). I renamed this section to "Impact and legacy", however, for readers to have a clearer image of what this section intends to do. HĐ (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Additionally, "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston from Pitchfork described the album as an honest record about teenage perspectives, as opposed to the manufactured albums that "weighed down former teen sensations"."" This seems to make showcase another differentiation in Swift's role in the industry, in addition to being a teen in the country scene, and sounds like it should be in the legacy section instead of a reception section that shows opinions of the album quality itself.
  • In that sense, should all retrospective reviews be moved to the "Impact and legacy" section, given that they all regarded this album in the context of the industry at the time? Alas, I think relating this album's success to Swift's difference in the industry is somewhat fine for critical reviews, given that contemporaneous reviews from Country Weekly or PopMatters commented on Swift's pop crossover and how it made Swift stand out from previous country singers. HĐ (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• ""Our Song" and "Should've Said No" reached number one on the Hot Country Songs.[65] With "Our Song", Swift became the youngest person to single-handedly write and singe a number-one country single.[68]" Since the previous sentences already use the format of "This song went to number this, this song peaked at number that," I would get varied with the prose and write the two songs" "topped the Hot Country Songs chart, making Swift the youngest artist to single-handedly write and sing a number-one country single."

• Wouldn't it confuse readers with which single Swift achieved the feat though? HĐ (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ehhh.. OK, point taken. I keep my commenting about making sure prose isn't too repetitive, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Also, what's up with that "e" at the end of sing?

• Removed. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Although "Music" is interesting and well-organized and easy to navigate, are we sure there's more than just one academic to represent here? I know Taylor Swift is one of the most notable artists of all of history, so I would imagine even her first album, while maybe not as-reviewed as her later works contemporaneously, has a ton of retrospective analysis that goes beyond what's currently cited here. I'll reserve judgement since I haven't done in-depth research on the topic, plus, since the album is self-titled after the artist, it would be a major nightmare to try to look for sources given that just searching up "Taylor Swift" brings up mostly results about the artist instead of the self-titled album.

• There are retrospective reviews, but they mostly focus on the lyrics. It's hard to find one that focuses on the music. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, in Reception, are we sure those were the only contemporaneous reviews for the album? Are we especially sure those are the only retrospective opinions on the album?

• Thus far, they are the retrospective opinions I could find. I wouldn't say they are the only reviews, but they come from reputable music sources and are representative enough of the overall critical consensus of this album. HĐ (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reception section could be a little less quotefarm-ish too

• I reorganized the section a bit. HĐ (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• A bit of a cite formatting inconsistency? The CMT source in ref 3 has its publisher name as just "CMT," with "News," in the title field, yet in all other CMT cites the publisher is presented as "CMT News" with no "News" in the title.

HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Changed all to "CMT News" for consistency. HĐ (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Overall, prose quality appears to be good if requiring some fixes, and the sources appear to be all reliable, but I am a bit skeptical about its completeness given my comments above. I could be wrong, though. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand your concern over the limited number of critical reviews, but it appears that this album did not receive much professional rating--it does attract retrospective mentions, but they are often mentioned to relate to the relevance of Swift's following albums, rather than this album per-se (like how the NYTimes briefly mentioned this album, but I don't think it counts as a full review). After another round of source review, I am pretty confident that all appropriate sources for "Critical reception" have been included. HĐ (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Hi HumanxAnthro just checking to see if you feel able to support or oppose. Obviously there is no obligation to do either. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh crap! I was in the midst of reviewing this? My apologies, the writing and editing other film articles and reviewing of other articles got me carried me away, and I memory just... forgets things, you know. Well, now you know why there are to-do lists. Just trying to keep myself active, that's all. Anyway, here's a second read-through

Lead

• "She signed with Sony/ATV Tree publishing house, and signed with" "Signed" is used twice in the same sentence
• "The album was produced by Orall and Nathan Chapman, the latter of whom has sole production credits on all but one track, "The Outside"." While I understood this easily, how this is formatted feels weird. I would write it like this: "Most of the album was soley produced by Orall, the only other producer being Nathan Chapman on "The Outside""
  • Eh... it was Chapman who produced most of the album. But I see that it could be seen as convoluted, so I trimmed it down.

Otherwise, lead gets the job done very well

Background

• Watch out for instances repeated words in the same clause or sentence throughout the body. For example, "record labels for a record deal."
• "would not listen music" I thinking a "to" is missing here
• A couple details don't seem to be needed: "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion," "Swift's love for country music alienated her from her peers." I don't know how these details impacted the journey to get a record deal to make the album. It seems the only important details here was that she returned home to learn to play guitar, that her US Open performance got her noticed to get a deal, and that her family had to relocate to write and record the album.
  • "who had fixed her family's computer on one occasion"--I think this highlighted how unusual for a musician to take lessons from non-professionals; "love for country music alienated her from her peers"--this is later discussed in the following section where one of the album's songs, "The Outside", was inspired by the event. I think these details, while miniscule on surface, do add something to understand Ms. Swift's burgeoning career from such a young age. HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup comments. Please let me know if the article needs more work. Best, HĐ (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi HumanxAnthro, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, was switching between doing other articles and reviews. Anyway...

More comments

Background

• "job position" Redundant. these two words mean the same thing

Development and production

• "described as her first impression of country music" "Described" seems like an odd word choice. I would use describe for statements analyzing other things, but we're stating a fact here, not an analysis.
• I'd recommend this for looking at the entire article. Watch out for fluffiness. I haven't seen it prominently so far, but I found a fluffy area in this part: "practice writing with experienced Music Row songwriters.[17] Among those whom Swift worked with, Liz Rose". I would shorten this to "Among those was Liz Rose, who became" Little more concise, and its established just the sentence before she's one of the Music Row songwriters, so it works.

👨x🐱 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Swift had productive sessions with Rose because she respected her vision and did not want to put her in the "Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold"." This might get a little high-level, but hey, that's featured articles for ya. The source does say the sessions were productive due to Liz Rose letting her do what she wanted, which is in the article. However, I not seeing how Liz Rose's desire to not have Swift's be cookie-cutter in her songs affected productivity, in the source or in the article.
  • Quoted: "I tried to make it better and mold it and hone it, and hang on there and write it down; that’s why it worked with us. I really respected and got what she was trying to do and I didn’t want to make her write in the Nashville cookie-cutter songwriting mold."--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• There's another not-in-citation-given scenario. "They met for two-hour writing sessions every Tuesday afternoon after school" Where is this in the Rolling Stone article being cited for this? All I found was Liz Rose talking about two Swift songs not even on this album.
  • Oops... I copied-and-pasted that from Taylor Swift article; was pretty sure it was verifiable given that FA status, but hey, I'll be careful next time. HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• There's another spotcheck fail. "After performing original songs at a RCA Records showcase, Swift was held off an official record deal, as the label was not confident in Swift's self-written material." The NBC cite only mentions RCA twice, in stating they noticed her following vaguely-described "rehearsals", and that they "shelf[ed]" here. It never explains an "RCA Records" showcase or RCA's reason for rejecting her.
  • I interpreted that from "I played them a few songs. And they said that they wanted to sign me to a development deal. ... But at the end of that year, a major letdown. RCA took a pass on Taylor." Probably "showcase" is not the best word choice, so I'll reword that.--HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Also, the EW cite in the same section (Ref 23) states she voluntarily got out of the tale, while the sentence states the deal removed her: "At 13, she signed a development deal with RCA Records, working with that label’s Joe Galante and Renee Bell, a couple of legendary figures in town. But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she’d have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut."
• Wait, there's a sentence that states "She decided to part ways with RCA" (hey, that rhymes).
• Also, the sentence "RCA wanted to wait until Swift turned eighteen," is cited with Ref 23, and I find nothing stating this in that Ref. I did find in the NBC News cite that that RCA wanted to "keep me in development till I was probably about 18" (Swift's word) but it stated nothing about RCA wanting to work with other songwriters.
  • Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others--and in the EW piece it also stated that Swift was strong-headed to record her own material, which was atypical to the common route of popular singers. Does that sound like SYNTH or OR?
    • "Swift did say she feel that RCA wanted her to sing songs by others" in which cite? 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Entertainment Weekly: "But when the deal came up for renewal after a year, she opted out, because she felt she'd have to record outside material if she got to the point of cutting her debut — and at 14, she was already married to the idea of only recording material she had a hand in writing"--HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm noticing these spotcheck errors this quickly into the section, and I don't even have the book source with me to read..... that's not a good sign
  • You can freely access the book on Google Books--there is free preview. I don't think these errors (except for the "every two hours every Tuesday" part) are serious as they do stick to the original wordings, but with slight misinterpretation (like how the writing sessions were from Swift's perspectives). HĐ (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• "She recalled in 2009 on The Daily Telegraph:" --> "She recalled in a 2009 interview"
  • Why? HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Because the date of the interview is the most important, not which source it came from, plus we have the citation for readers to look at if there curious of the publication of the review. Plus, less fluffy review. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• "three-percent stake" Make sure to link or explain WP:JARGON, including when it comes to finance
• More fluffy areas I noticed.
  • "Of the eleven songs that made the cut of the album's standard edition" probably should be "Of the standard edition's eleven songs"
  • "Big Machine presented Swift with potential record producers to record Taylor Swift.[8] After experimenting with different producers," probably should be "After experimenting with potential producers offered by Big Machine,"
    • HumanxAnthro--Resolved all--I hope you could continue with the prose. HĐ (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi HumanxAnthro, as much as I value your comments, could you conduct a full review one-by-one before proceeding with another review? I'll address your comments once you have a full read-through of this article. Best, HĐ (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. I'll add the comments but won't add a signature since that would be annoying, so I'll let you know when it's complete. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

More comments (Side note

can I just say I've been bopping to "Picture to Burn"? That song is a total banger)

• • Agreed! HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Recording took place during a four-month period before 2005 was over" --> "Recording took place during a four-month period near the end of 2005". It's less awkward this way plus isn't as at a risk of being a WP:COPYVIO.
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• "The result is straightforward lyrics, which The Daily Telegraph noted to be "brimmed with an earnest naiveté". Daily Telegraph source does not describe the lyrics as straightforward, and I don't know how naviete leads to straightforwardness, whatever that means, in writing.
  • They described the lyrics as "startling frankness"; HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• "within the extends from high school hallways to rural backroads," Source cited: "its small town setting extends only from high school halls to front porches and rural back roads," I find the article text too close to the source. Again, possible issue of copyvio
  • As long as the copyvio bot does not detect copyvio potentials, then I think it's okay. Plus the wording is rather common--unless it is something more of an opinion, then that's another situation; HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• "which fosters a contemplative nature." I think "contemplative" is a little too vague in comparison to what the Billboard source describes, in that it states Swift views the themes out of a "searching naivety." I think indicating that contemplativeness is done out of naivety would be truer to the source.
  • "Swift claims the power to grasp the excesses of feeling and emotion surging through day-to-day life and settle them within the coherent space of her own thoughts, so as to be re-examined and reinterpreted at quieter, contemplative remove." Reworded. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Swift modified the lyric to "That's fine; You won't mind if I say."" Put period outside of quote for partial quotes.
  • I think it's a full sentence. HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• @HumanxAnthro: Thanks for the comments... but I wonder for how long will this last? HĐ (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am primarily leaving this up as a placeholder. I am having some computer difficulties at the moment so I would likely be able to do a full review sometime next week at the earliest. Apologies for that. I had participated in the peer review. I have noticed the above conversation on coverage and I was curious if you looked through Newspapers.com for contemporary reviews? Here are some clippings of 2006 reviews that I found on Newspapers.com that I believe would be helpful (1, 2, 3) as it would address the above concerns. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47 for the information. I had not been aware of the website Newspapers.com, so it is indeed helpful to learn more about contemporaneous reviews of this album. Will add them into the article shortly. HĐ (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Just realized, does this website require paid subscription? I tried another round of search but it said something about the premium site... HĐ (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Newspapers.com does require a paid subscription, but you can get free access to the site through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. The application process is super simple and I was able to get approved and have an account within a few days. I know that it is a little annoying to do this since I know you are planning on retiring in the near future, but I think it would be helpful for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I submitted my application via the Library Card Platform. Hoping to gain access within the next few days--HĐ (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Best of luck with it and let me know if you have any questions about Newspapers.com. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's also a feature where below each image, you can see the text transfer of the newspaper for free. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@HĐ: I believe that you have added more contemporary sources to the article, but I just wanted to double-check with you about the progress of this. If you are done with this part, then I will continue my review sometimes in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have received my subscription to Newspaper.com, and am trying to retrieve more reviews to make it 10 (which is the maximum number allowed for critical reviews). Although I could retrieve some results, it says "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page". Does this happen to your Wikipedia Library Subscription as well? HĐ (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the update. I have never received that message so I cannot be much help with that. Apologies for that. I am sure you can reach out to an editor who is more familiar with this or send an email to the Newspapers.com support team. Best of luck with it. I will complete my review sometime later this week. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I support the article for promotion. All of my comments were addressed in the peer review stage and I believe that the article is ready for promotion, especially after SNUGGUMS' thorough review below. Great work with the article, which is a major nostalgia trip. I was just starting high school when this album came out and it gives me a minor headache to think about how much time has passed since that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Since getting this page up to FA will most likely be your last major contribution to Wikipedia before retiring, I'll give you a parting gift by assessing it. I'm kicking things off with a media review:

• The file source for File:Taylor Swift - Taylor Swift.png is giving me a 404 error. Either fix the link or insert another URL.
  • Replaced with AllMusic. HĐ (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• While I don't have concerns about copyright with File:Lee Ann Rimes 1999.jpg and can see why you added that, I'm not convinced it's worth including when LeAnn wasn't involved with the album creation (i.e. writing/producing songs or contributing vocals).
  • • • Removed since it does not specifically enhance readers' understanding of the subject. HĐ (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Both File:Taylor Swift - Picture to Burn.ogg and File:TaylorSwift TimMcGraw.ogg appear to meet WP:SAMPLE
• No qualms with File:Taylor Swift.jpg

That portion of the article passes, and I'll be back with more later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

You now have my support following article improvements. Another job very well done! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

• "Tim McGraw" excerpt is missing timed text.
  • I used to favor TimedText for music samples, but after coming across this discussion I am uncertain if adding timed text would be construed as NFCC violation. HĐ (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: do you have any thoughts on this matter? Heartfox (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • As per this discussion TimedText of copyright-protected works is potentially permissible under fair use, as a transformative use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Notes "section" at end of track listing shouldn't use semi-colon for bold (MOS:PSEUDOHEAD). Why not move it to the notes section in references? Heartfox (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

I will add some comments soon. Admittedly, "Style" is my favorite Taylor Swift song. It will be fun to learn about this album as I am not that familiar with it :)--NØ 04:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not seeing the relevance of her birth year. Mentioning the age at which she wrote her first song might be better, knowing Swift I'm sure this information is available somewhere.
  • The article later mentioned that Swift first wrote songs at 14 with "The Outside"--which is included in the album. But given that this paragraph introduced a young Swift, even before she wanted to write songs, I wouldn't include that. Removed birth year however. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "the country music's middle-aged demographic would not listen music by a teenage girl" -- Not sure but removing "the" might read better
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Swift recalled that the record labels did not take her seriously" -- I am unsure about "the" here too
  • I keep "the" because I think "record labels" had been indicated in the previous sentence. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" -- Opt for the year or the age, but I think mentioning both is a bit redundant. "a city close to Nashville, the following year" would work too as the 2003 US open is mentioned in the preceding sentence. Also, MOS:NUMERAL does allow spelling integers greater than nine, but I usually go for numerals. This is optional, of course.
  • I think "the following year" may rather be nuanced, so I like to keep it explicit as "2004". I think "a city close to Nashville" alone may be kind of vague? so it's fair to keep it as Hendersonville imo. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• I wasn't asking to remove Hendersonville. I meant to frame the sentence like this: "To assist Swift's artistic endeavors, her father transferred to a job position in Nashville, and her family relocated to Hendersonville, a city close to Nashville, when she was fourteen years old, in 2004" (the stricken part being removed).--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter; she was the youngest signee in its history" -- I think this would be fine if simplified to "She signed with the Sony/ATV Tree publishing house at age fourteen to become a professional songwriter, the youngest signee in its history"
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Omit "Sony/ATV" from the following sentence as it is obvious. "After being signed, Swift commuted from Hendersonville to Nashville every afternoon. "Established" sounds like an opinion so that word shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Changed to "experienced". HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "She recalled:" -- In what year? Should be mentioned."
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "He has sole production credits all songs but one" -- I am sure the word "on" should be there before "all"
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Teardrops on My Guitar" was about her experience with a classmate whom she had feelings for, but in turn was in love with someone else." -- Was she in love with someone else, or the classmate?
  • Clarified. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• A source should be included directly after every sentence that includes a direct quote
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Still no source after "tractors and hay bales because that's not really the way I grew up"--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Rick Bell from Country Standard Time described the album's sound ... Jon Caramanica from The New York Times described the album's sound" -- Try a wording variation here.
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Another profile on Rolling Stone" -- Not sure that is the right word to use. Maybe "another author", "another article", etc.
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Billboard is not a part of the Hot Country Songs chart's name. I would word this sentence as "the single peaked at number 40 on the Billboard Hot 100 and number six on the magazine's Hot Country Songs chart". Also, I think "the" should only be used if you are including "chart" after its name. Correct: "on the Hot Country Songs chart", "on Hot Country Songs", Incorrect: "on the Hot Country Songs"
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• There's still one instance of "of the Hot Country Songs".--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if including "Pop Songs" in the bracket after Mainstream Top 40 adds much to the reader's understanding. You could pick one of the two titles, whatever it was called at the time.
  • I think it's fair to keep the two, as "Mainstream Top 40" is the chart's official name in press briefings, but "Pop Songs" is a common name as published for public viewing. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, thanks for the explanation.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Critics commented on the album's pop sensibility—Country Weekly and Rolling Stone" -- Shouldn't this be "Neal and Rolling Stone"?
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "A retrospective review by Maura Johnston" -- "Retrospective review" does not need a mention two sentences in a row.
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think readers would be curious at what position it appeared on the Billboard 200 during its highest sales week.
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "Gold", "Platinum", etc have their first letters in capital? Funnily, I only started doing this after reading "Blank Space" lol.
  • You're right. Done. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Platinum is still lowercased in the lead.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• The links to RIAA certifications exclude the word "certified", but it is included in the link to List of music recording certifications. Any particular reason?
  • Can't think of any particular reason... but I don't think this would impact readers' understanding lol. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• "Taylor Swift was released in a time when female country artists were gaining momentum in popularity" -- Does the source mention any by name?
  • Rolling Stone does mention Gretchen Wilson and Carrie Underwood, but would you think name-checking them would be appropriate? HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Probably fine without.--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• "established Swift as one of the few teenage female artists to be equally successful with male counterparts in a format dominated by men" -- Since there is just one source after this, shouldn't it be attributed? Looks like a subjective opinion.
  • Added. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do you think Jim Malec should be named here?--NØ 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• "she also relied on social media to promote her subsequent releases, which brought her a loyal fan base" -- While true, I fail to see how this has much to do with the impact and legacy of Taylor Swift as an album.
  • I think it is fair to mention that here, given that this album was the stepping stone for Swift's future releases up until 2020. HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are all the comments from me.--NØ 07:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. I have responded to them above. Let me know if anything needs further work. Cheers, HĐ (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Done all, I believe :) Thank you for the quick response! HĐ (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I now support.--NØ 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• I don't necessarily doubt its reliability, but is there a better source than a gallery from the New York Daily News? I'm unsure if that format is the best for BLP statements. If you think The Guardian ref suffices then I'd just stick with that
  • The Guardian does not specifically mentioned "performing arts", so I'd keep the NY Daily News. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• What is the reliability of Country Standard Time, MusicBrainz?
  • Country Standard Time seems fishy as it is (I think) a self-published source ([12]). I was pretty confident about MusicBrainz, but since it is user-contributed, I have removed the source. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• fn 77 author-link=Jeff Tamarkin
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• no other immediate issues with other sources' reliability; appropriate for a country album.
• failed verification for fn 46. If you're getting it from The Tennessean then I would just put The Palm Beach Post in italics in the agency parameter, and link to the Newspapers.com clipping, or cite the original review here.
  • Linked the Newspaper.com clip. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I guess it's not required but if you access Newspapers.com then you should probably link to a clipping of the article so anyone can easily access it. For example, fn 80
  • Done. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I did not immediately find any additional reviews on Newspapers.com not already included in the article
• not seeing fn 58 reflect the info cited from it
  • C/e'd. HĐ (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• you can replace fn 59 with fn 1
• didn't really do spotchecks
• fn 134 doesn't work; I suggest archiving the other links as well to prevent future link rot.
• I am seeing additional Japanese releases here and here. Heartfox (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see they are additional/re-stocked releases (the original release dates are from 2008/2009), so I wouldn't add that as a new release in the Release history table. Other than that, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you so much for the ref review! HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Hi Heartfox, I'm just checking on what the current status of this review is. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggested replacing AllMusic ref for "Tim McGraw" release date with fn 1 as I would consider Billboard more reliable than AllMusic; that comment was not replied to let alone addressed, nor was the issue with fn 134, which is now fn 131. I would also suggest adding via=Newspapers.com in citations with links to those clippings to be clear it's not the newspapers' websites being linked to. I do not see any track listings/correct dates in the Barnes & Noble fn 57 link. Maybe it changed, but again there's no archived link. Heartfox (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That's weird for Barnes and Nobles... I changed the link regardless. I think AllMusic is appropriate for music release dates, and I am quite hesitant to recycle one source for multiple accounts. I tried to run the IABot but it is not working... or is it because I don't have the correct link to the tool? If you happen to have access to IABot, could you give me the link here? Best, HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I believe IABot is down so you may have to do it manually.
        • Done. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with using the existing Billboard ref though? You recycled it for two different singles. The AllMusic ref was retrieved in 2010 when the Billboard article hadn't been written yet. If we're going by the "high quality" criteria, are you saying AllMusic is as high quality as Billboard?
        • I think AllMusic is usable for release dates information--I have not seen any complaints regarding its notability or reliability significantly.. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Regarding Barnes & Noble, the length of the tracks are not given, and are these two separate releases or one with both bonus tracks and videos? The source looks like it's one release. It is also not apparent that the last two tracks are videos. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • It is one release. I changed the ref to the album liner notes. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Ok I will say this passes the source review unless others have comments/issues/disagreements. I would not oppose based on the sources. I think IABot is back now so I would suggest using it for the article. Heartfox (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding the accessibility review above, HĐ didn't wanted to add TimedText to the "TimMcGraw" sample because it might be considered a NFCC violation (even though the article passed a media review by SNUGGUMS and Nikkimaria didn't have any outright objections and just linked to a discussion saying it looks be okay), but "Picture to Burn" does have TimedText, so I am confused how it would be okay for one sample but not the other. Heartfox (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I noticed Nikkimaria's response--and while I don't have anything against adding TimedText, I just think that given the two samples' purposes--one to demonstrate the lyrics, and one to demonstrate the melodic qualities--I don't think a TimedText to "Tim McGraw" sample would enhance readers' understanding per NFCC. I hope it makes sense... HĐ (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but I don't understand how the "Picture to Burn" sample is "to demonstrate the lyrics"? The caption "instrumented by plucking banjos, "Picture to Burn" was described by Rolling Stone as a song that "perfectly captures the mindset of a teenage breakup" doesn't have to do with the lyrics, and the prose about the lyrics are not the lyrics included in the sample. Heartfox (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      • • Isn't "the mindset of a teenage breakup" related to the lyrics one way or another? On another note--I was not the one who added TimedText to "Picture to Burn" sample. It was there from the beginning. So it's not like I added the TimedText to one sample to make it look good, and ignored the other. HĐ (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @HĐ: Apologies for interrupting this discussion, but wouldn't it be easier to just delete the "Picture to Burn" TimedText so that both samples are consistent. From my understanding of this discussion (and feel free to correct if I am wrong), that seems to be the issue so the easiest solution to me would seem to be just deleting the TimedText from one of the samples so both do not have any. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Since there is more than one argument for the inclusion of TimedText, I have added for both of the samples used in this article for consistency. Thank you for your comments. HĐ (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't Get You Out of My Head[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... a major hit by Kylie Minogue. They say third time is the charm, so let's see how this goes. Huge thanks to Baffle gab1978 for giving the prose an amazing and fresh look! — Tom(T2ME) 10:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility: Add captions to the tables per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Heartfox, thanks for the review. i added captions. Cheers! — Tom(T2ME) 21:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I will try to get this within the week. Unfortunately, computer issues have been making editing rather difficult lately, but since I had participated in the first FAC and completely missed the second one, I want to try my best to help. That and I love this song. Please ping me if I have not posted any comments in the next week. Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47, thank you! Your feedback is always welcome! :) — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have a quick question. I have done some minor edits to the article while reading through it. Feel free to revert anything that you disagree with. Were there any negative reviews for the song? The article only has positive reviews, and while I believe that most critics responded positively to the song, I would be curious if you saw any negative reviews? Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Aoba47, actually I could not find any negative reviews haha :) except the one by Jude Rogers of The Quietus, who apparently did not like the orchestral reboot of the song. =) Also, thanks for the c/e, I really appreciate it! — Tom(T2ME) 09:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. It seems like even critics who gave mixed or negative reviews of the album still enjoyed this song. I was just curious about this when reading the article. Apologies for the delay with my review. Computer issues are quite annoying lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• I cannot remember if I had asked you this or not so apologies if this is repetitive. In this interview, Minogue briefly talks about the white jumpsuit being inspired by Grace Jones (it is around the 1:30 mark of the video). It is a rather minor detail, but I wanted to raise it to your attention, especially since the jumpsuit is one aspect of the music video that received the most attention (and rightfully so).

I think the article is in incredibly shape. As I had said in an above comment, I had participated in the first FAC and I supported it for promotion at the time. I still support for promotion now as my minor comment/question is not enough to hold me back from doing so. I hope to see more Kylie Minogue songs in the FAC space. I remember being instantly hooked by this song and being so impressed by the music video when I first heard and saw them (but as an American, I think I heard and saw both of them at least five years after their releases lol). Aoba47 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47! I really appreciate your comments and feedback! Hopefully this time we manage to bring the bronze star at the top of the article! PS. I added the information about Grace Jones ;) ! — Tom(T2ME) 17:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I hope that this time is successful as well. You have put a lot of work into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)