From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.
For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

  • Featured article criteria
  • Mentoring for FAC
  • Featured article log
  • Featured article statistics
  • Random featured article
  • Former featured articles
How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  • Analysis
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
Shortcut
  • WP:FACGO

Nominations[edit]

One of the Boys (1989 TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An American primetime television series from 1989 with no article until March 2021?! That's the case with One of the Boys (1989 TV series), which I have created and expanded to hopefully becoming a featured article. It is currently a GA and underwent a beneficial peer review by Aoba47. I welcome any comments and look forward to addressing them. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There's a ref error: "Snyder 1989. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 02:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks for catching that, Heartfox (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • File:One of the Boys 1989 title card.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Given how only one season aired, it wouldn't hurt to include the overall episode count in the lead. I would also expand that to include more production details.
  • "they wed by the fifth episode"..... in the fifth episode
  • Is "unsuccessful" pertaining to critical reception, viewership ratings, or both for I Married Dora?
  • "better" from "could receive better movie roles afterward" is POV
  • When did filming conclude?
  • To avoid WP:SYNTH, I'd try to find a ref to back up the general assessment of "Critics deemed the show unremarkable". Don't make presumptions solely based on reviews already included within Wikipedia pages.
  • Is five reviews all you can find?

While this is rather short compared to many other TV show pages (which I suspect is at least partially because it only lasted for six episodes), it mostly seems comprehensive. Just get through these as well as Buidhe's concern on a reference error. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder from MaranoFan[edit]

I have been waiting for you to nominate something. Given the great quality of your source reviews, I doubt a lot of work will be required but I will give it a look later.--NØ 05:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Greed (game show)[edit]

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

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

Comment from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. If I do not return to post my review by this time next week, please ping me. This article brings back fond memories of watching GSN reruns with my mom when I was in middle school. I just have one quick comment right now. The part about Jerry Springer being a host needs a citation as it is currently not supported by anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Please add ALT text to the infobox image.
  • Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am curious on why citations are used in the infobox rather than putting that information in the article with the citations there? Either way is appropriate, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind this choice.
  • Moved the citations to the production section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like most of the information in the infobox is not supported by a citation. This includes Bob Levy being the director, the Fox Television Center being the location, Floyd Ingram being the editor, and the names of the distributors. This information should be supported by citations.
  • There are a handful of references in the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire article (a GA) that simply cite "End credits lists of appropriate U.S. Millionaire episodes." Would something similar be sufficient here? I'd imagine it would be difficult to find anything else since the Internet was in its infancy in 1999 and most webpages dedicated to the show are long gone... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • From my understanding, it is better to cite this information through other sources rather than using the episodes as primary sources. You only mention webpages above, but have you looked into newspapers, magazines, or books? Newspapers.com is a good source for newspapers. In the past, I have found this kind of production information on past shows in these sources. This show was run on a major television network so I would imagine this information can be found somewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The formally known as bit in the lead reads somewhat awkwardly to me. I think this information may be better represented in a footnote rather than as a parenthetical in the first sentence. That way, you can also include a citation to support this alternate name.
  • Done? Let me know if you want this tweaked further. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This part from the lead, that premiered on Fox on November 4, 1999, and last aired on July 14, 2000, with a total of 44 episodes in one season, seems unnecessarily wordy. I would condense it down to something like the following, that aired on Fox for on season between November 1999 and July 2000. I do not think the amount of episodes or even the exact premiere and finale dates are notable enough to be mentioned here.
  • Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a comment related to this part in the lead, with Mark Thompson serving as primary announcer. I would avoid that kind of sentence construction (i.e. with X verb-ing) as it is normally discouraged in FA writing.
  • Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have two points about the tagline in the lead. The citation seems unnecessary to me. I have rarely seen citations used in the lead of a television article (and in those cases, citations are used to support controversial or contested information or when quotes are absolutely necessary or very beneficial to the reader). If the tagline remains in the lead, I would mention it in the article and cite it there. But that leads into my second point. Is it necessary to have the tagline in the lead at all? I have not really seen taglines used in television article's leads and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy to me.
  • Moved to the production section along with citation. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For this sentence, The series was created by Dick Clark and Bob Boden of Dick Clark Productions in response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., I would put it in an active voice instead (i.e. Dick Clark and Bob Boden of Dick Clark Productions created the series...).
  • Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I would link ratings and timeslot. Most readers will likely be familiar with these things, but I think it is always beneficial to remember readers who may not be that familiar with more television-specific jargon.
  • Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I only have relatively nitpick-y comments for the lead, but I do see some sourcing issues with the infobox that should be sorted out. Thank you to Nikkimaria for doing the image review below. My review will be mostly focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to hearing further suggestions for improvement. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I can help. I will try to post my full review of the rest of the article sometime later this week. I have one more comment. If you are citing resources in foreign languages, I believe it is necessary to provide the English translation of the resource's title. There is a parameter for this in the citation template. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think the "Gameplay" section would be in present tense rather than past tense.
  • It has been a while since I have seen this show so my memory is very hazy at best. I am not really sure what this part means, the contestant with the guess farthest from the correct answer was eliminated How can you be the farthest from the correct answer? I would think you are either right or wrong without any grey area in between?
  • Instead of surviving contestants, I would use remaining contestants as the current wording sounds odd in this context.
  • The word "contestant" is used a lot in the article. I understand why given we are talking about a game show, but I think instances like the first paragraph of the "Qualifying round" cross over into excessive, especially where it is repeated twice in the same sentence.
  • As I said above, I would recommend avoiding the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as seen here, with the contestant who had the closest guess becoming the team's captain. I would look through the article as a whole to find any instances of this and revise it.
  • Again, I have not seen the show in a while, but I vaguely remember the caption sometimes consulting with his or her team about whether or not they should quit or progress to another question. Would that be beneficial to point out (if it is true of course)?
  • This part, he/she was given a guaranteed, reads a little awkwardly as I believe this is the only time you use these kinds of pronouns in the article so it seems to go against the style already established in other areas of the article.
  • I do not think this part, each team member again individually decided to quit with their share of the team's collective, makes sense as the previous sections mentions that the captain can quit not the individual team members. I would also say can decide to quit instead.
  • I am uncertain what this sentence means: When the program became a permanent series, the top prize was changed to a flat $2,000,000. What do you mean by "a permanent series"?
  • I am not sure if the part about who beat Warren's record needs to be a separate paragraph.
  • Please clarify in this sentence, It was considered to be Fox's response to the success of ABC's Who Wants to Be a Millionaire., how is doing the considering. Was it television critics, audiences, people at the network? It is too vague right now.
  • Do we know what day and time this show aired?
  • Was the tagline not used for the show? The way that it is worded right after what the show would have originally been called gives off the impression (at least to me) that the tagline was also not used in the final product.
  • I am uncertain about the short, one-paragraph subsections in the "Production" section as it does make the information rather choppy. My primary concern is more so with the "Set" subsection rather than the "Audition process" one.
  • I have a comment about this part, noted the inspiration from science fiction in his set, specifically from Star Trek and various castle settings in other video games. Given how it ends (i.e. and various castle settings in other video games), I think this could give off the wrong impression to an unfamiliar reader that Star Trek is one of these video games. I would solve this by just saying in video games.
  • I would be careful of how quotes are used in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. Both the Pierce and Millman sentences used long quotes from their sources and I would limit the length of the quotes used and paraphrase more to give a better understanding of what the critics are saying.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception" section (i.e. Favorability for Greed improved over time.) as "over time" implies to me a longer time span than only a few days. For instance, Pierce's review was published on November 10 while two of these "later" reviews were put out on November 17 and November 18. I think a better topic sentence can be used here, particularly one that more clearly represents this part of the lead, others believed Greed to be the more intriguing and dramatic of the two programs.
  • Could you expand on the Caryn James sentence? The "a success for Fox" quote is not particularly helpful so I would remove it and instead expand on how this show was more dramatic.
  • For small quotes like this ("has fared passably well."), the punctuation should be on the outside of the quotes. Punctuation should only be on the inside of the quotes when citing full sentences
  • Does Berman provide an explanation on why he would like the series to be revived? I would think there is more information here since he wrote an entire article about it.

I hope that my comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Also, a friendly reminder that two of my previous points (citations for information represented in the infobox and the translated titles in the citations) need to be addressed too. Have a wonderful rest of your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

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

For the Night[edit]

Nominator(s): ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a song by American rapper Pop Smoke, featuring Lil Baby and DaBaby. This article has received a peer review and has been heavily improved since its last nomination. Any criticism on how to improve the article would be truly appreciated! ShootForTheStars (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • HumanxAnthro not sure if you want to comment but if so, would you say your concerns from the last FAC were adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The Ultimate Boss I'm gonna say this article looks a lot better than I remember. There are a few nitpicks, like how the Background section is one long paragraph and I don't see why we're only mentioning top-5 positions of other countries in the lead when there are top 10 and top 20 positions in other nations like Canada that are just as noteworthy, but I prose looks a lot better than I remember it, citations are perfectly formatted, and it's comprehensive, so Support for those areas. This article has yet to be spotchecked, however, although I don't doubt there will be many issues. I will ask someone else to spotcheck info cited from the Complex feature about the album, because on my computer it's somehow too much for my computer to load on, and my computer has a ton of data and GBs on it! 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro thanks so much. I have changed it to the top-10 in the lead and made the background to paras. ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on prose. I didn't contribute to the original nomination and haven't looked over the feedback there, but the prose isn't working for me. If I had to describe it in a word, it'd be staccato—the prose, to borrow something I saw Sandy say once, "isn't singing". I don't think the prose has to be a work of art, but it doesn't feel like there's any flow; it’s a list of statements that doesn't especially tie together. I don't have the time to do a full review, pointing out all of the issues, but FAC isn't the place to fix this all of this to force through an FA to 'honour' an artist. All of the little issues really do grate me: references are placed after punctuation; there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article; if a source's wording is used, they must also be named; why is the bit about DaBaby in "Writing and composition" instead of critical reception? The article just feels bare. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
ImaginesTigers Because it is talking about DaBaby's honoring Pop Smoke in his lyrics. They are not praising his lyrics, just talking about what he rapped about. And I am pretty sure references are placed after punctuation when it comes to articles. HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues? ShootForTheStars (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
My comment was that references should be placed after punctuation in the article. That isn't currently the case. Is it a small thing? Yes, but in a tiny article, it should have been caught before coming here, and the issues add up. It’s an oppose from me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro can you help me explain to Tigers with these issues?
Thank you for commenting, ImaginesTigers. I don't think the article is in a strong "Oppose" mode. The "little issues" he discusses are either easily fixable or non-issues.
(1) "there's no need to provide initialisms for organisations named in the last sentence of the article" Is this a MOS requirement at all? Because we shouldn't have the fate of FA nominations determined by extremely personal and trivial preferences of one editor that may not violate any guidelines.
(2) "references are placed after punctuation" I'm not sure how this is an issue as we always place citations after periods, commas, semi-colons, and other punctuation. I don't know how this is a problem. Or are you expecting citations after complete sentences, even though quotes, commas, semi-colons, and colons are punctuations too? This is not something to WP:SNOW end a FA nomination over.
(3) I expressed similar concerns about the prose ImaginesTigers is worried about in a previous FA nomination of this article, when it was in a lesser state. Honestly, I'm not finding these kind of "staccato" issues in its current state, as it does vary sentence length to keep it interesting. Even if there are instances where it feels a little bit like a list of details in a sentence, that's either easy to fix (at least in my experience working on articles) or the result of available reliable coverage of most pop songs being plain and overly-non-analytic in their opinions, facts, and interpretations. There are exceptions, of course, like "West Ass P-Word", in that they're so discussed within the sociopolitical landscape they can't help but get depthful coverage, but that is far from what "For the Night" got.
Excuse me for going WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I honestly think the prose is just as good as the recently-nominated-to-FA "Lips are Movin", which has "staccato" prose especially in its reception and "chart performance" section and are still well-written sections with the material it has to work with. What else is there to talk about with worldwide commercial performances besides peaks and certifications when no analysis of commercial performances of those countries exist, for example?
In my honest opinion, in situations like these, the biggest concern would be if the prose was understandable and concise to readers. I still take organization and flow into consideration, don't get me wrong, but I think at its current state its the best it is for the milquetoast coverage it got.
(4) "The article just feels bare." If you're referring the length, please understand that featured articles don't have to be long (although they can't be stub length) to qualify; they just have to be comprehensive, and I can tell you it's comprehensive as that's all that was available in the sources.
(5) "All of the little issues really do grate me" I understand small things can annoy a reader emotionally where noticing all the other good things about it can get impossible, but please make sure your emotions don't affect the objectivity of your comments. I've been guilty of that before, trust me, and I've been metaphorically kicked in the ass for it.
I'd like to get perspectives from this who have reviewed and written pop song articles for featured article promotions. @MaranoFan:, @HĐ:, @SNUGGUMS:, would to like to chime in on this? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
HumanxAnthro, it is definitely a weird move to criticize my article (which you made me rewrite for days and eventually supported for promotion) and then invite me to offer suggestions on how to improve this one. Anyways, I am of the opinion that if something truly represented "some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" then you wouldn't have to use another article as a scapegoat to defend it.--NØ 03:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Wait, I wasn't criticizing your article. I was praising it and supporting as an example of good prose. Huh? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

From a glance, I don't think the prose is so bad. The only thing that stuck out like a sore thumb was not using Hannah Giorgis's first name when first introducing the critic. A couple more minor issues are instances of two consecutive sentences starting with the same word (namely "The" in the last paragraph of "Critical reception" and "Jess Jackson" under "Background"), which feels repetitive. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed the author plus the minor issues brought up 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
1. MoS doesn't supercede common sense. Why include an initialism for it to be never used? 2. Read my clarification -- I was saying that there is a reference not attached to punctuation, which should have been caught in a small article like this. 3. The prose isn't ready to me; this isn't saying that the prose has to be completely stellar, but just because it's better than it was before does not mean it's good. Likewise, article feeling "bare" isn't me saying it is short; it's me saying that the writing does not fill those gaps; the article feels bare because the prose is bare. It isn't about length. I'm not going to comment on other recent successful nominations because I haven't read them. Other stuff does, indeed, exist! 5. Questioning my integrity as a reviewer over emotionality is a bit ridiculous. I gave an honest appraisal, which is that the article's prose grated on me; stuff like "Retrospectively, critics have considered "For the Night" one of 2020's best songs. The Line of Best Fit ranked "For the Night" at number 46 on their list of 2020's best songs". Critical reception is, by my eye, the worst offender. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(1) Actually, I did notice the "retrospectively" thing and thought it was kind of odd, so you're right about that.
(2) Just because I don't want to focus on this anymore, I removed those initialisms
(3) Apart from a couple of small edits I just made in the commercial performance section, there is not punctuation mark issue. Every reference is attached to a punctuation mark. Quote marks are punctuation marks. Commas are punctuation marks. Semi-colons are punctuation marks. I really hope you know this.
(4) I have taken a closer look at Reception and actually, you're right it could be better. Looking at it now 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Look at the first sentence of critical reception. Are we reading the same article? :P That's a disjointed reference — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, now we're reading different articles because I just revised it. If you're talking about the cite after the quote marks, quote marks are punctuation marks. If that's the issue, don't simply say "punctuation mark." Specify to cite after only periods or only commas and periods or only, comma, periods, and semi-colons. Otherwise, you're just throwing us off with vague wording. Like I said, this doesn't sound like a blatant issue to WP:SNOW end a nomination over. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The hyperbole is a bit over the top; one oppose is not "ending a nomination". 🙄 — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion about article content instead of at other editors. As someone who's guilty of being sarcastic here and there, if I misinterpreted something, please bring it up civilly. I actually appreciate some of your comments for making me give a second look at the page, and although I'm not the nominator and prime contributor to the article, I've done some edits with these concerns. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nichols's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • FN14: website isn't needed here
    • Removed.
  • The "Official Records" source credits editors who should be included here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: - Thanks for making me do this. In the process of hunting down the editors, I discovered I had actually been using a 1902 reprint edition, instead of the 1893 original, and have changed the citation as well to reflect that. Hog Farm Talk 21:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

The 1975 (2019 song)[edit]

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

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

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • The song was released on 24 July 2019, - is it fair to say it was released as a single?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Check the footnote on this—"People" is now acknowledged as the lead single (implying that "The 1975" wasn't a single, because of the way it was/wasn't released), though some news reporters at the time of "The 1975"'s release were a bit lazy and threw the word "single" around. It's possible you could call this a promotional single but I looked for sources saying such and in their absence, I think that's original research. Let me know if the footnote placing isn't the best it can be to draw attention to this. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band previously opened each of their albums with an eponymous song featuring the same lyrics; however, the fourth version deviates from this set of lyrics. - I don't know what this means? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I could tell what it means. Unlike the band's other opener of albums that are self-titled, this one is not about oral sex. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It's the "featuring the same lyrics" bit that has poor wording... Same lyrics as what? I realise the answer is "same lyrics as each other", but on first reading this wasn't clear at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yeah I agree it had this ambiguity, but "shared set of lyrics" (and the other changes) hopefully fix this. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So, there are four albums, and all four start with a song called "The 1975", the first three have the same lyrics as each other, but this one was different? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, exactly correct in the latter point here. I've tried to rephrase. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In it - probably worth saying in the 2019 version, as "it" is a bit confusing to me given the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Our House Is on Fire" - caps needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Confusion abounds. In my copy of No One Is Too Small to Make a Difference, the title is capitalised (minus "Is", but our style is to capitalise it), though you can find examples and non-examples of capitalised/uncapitalised speeches on Wikipedia e.g. Ain't I a Woman? vs Never was so much owed by so many to so few. I do think caps is right (it's a title of a work). There's also an italics/quotes question but I think the No One article is just wrong to be using both quotes and italics(!) and it seems like most articles are using quotes. So I'm defaulting to no change but let me know if you feel strongly. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the question is not how it appears on the track, it's the capitalisation of the speech. I'm happy if that is how RS's describe the speech (and not the derivative work). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think that's the case. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning the relationship between Greta and Rebellion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The body mentions that the donation was at Thunberg's request, but though Thunberg and XR are conflated by news commentators, or perhaps part of the same phenomenon, I can't see any formal ties. She's spoken at an XR speech but hundreds of other organisations too—no more relation to XR than she has to the UK parliament. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • by the 1975 - by the band, or we're in super complicated territory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Sure. I realise this is a super difficult topic, due to this sort of thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The band opened their encore with "The 1975" before the COVID-19 pandemic halted their touring. - probably worth mentioning "When touring in 2020, the band opened their encore with the song...." or it's confusing what we are talking about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Does When touring in 2019 and 2020, prior to lockdowns for the COVID-19 pandemic, the band opened their encore with "The 1975". address the issue? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Much better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • We generally like images to have the face pointing towards the text, or on the right. Is there any reason to not right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No particular reason, changed to right-align. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • instead be an "era" of two albums, which were recorded together - this probably needs some explaination.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay how about just On 31 May 2018, the band announced that they were splitting the planned Music for Cars content into two albums.? — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Much better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The 1975" is the opening track on the second of these two albums - this might be a litle confusing, because "The 1975" is also the title of the opening track of the first of these two albums. Perhaps change this around, and say "The second of these two albums opened with a track titled "The 1975". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Greta Thunberg. Thunberg - try to avoid repeating words like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thunberg began skipping school - began to not attend... Skipping is a bit informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Changed to "missing school". — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The "Our house is on fire", maybe this would be suitable as a WP:REDLINK? I'd be surprised if her speech wasn't notable in its own right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • After some shuffling of other redirects (some editions of Scenes from the Heart are called Our House Is on Fire), linked Our House Is on Fire (speech) and created the page as a redirect to the appropriate section of Speeches of Greta Thunberg, marked with {{R with possibilities}} (I think notability is plausible). — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The closing lyrics are: "So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel. - it's not really my favourite to say "these are the lyrics", without making commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The point of this bit is more to explain what the song is about but civil disobedience is mentioned at the start of the paragraph. I've replaced it with She says that the rules in place need to be changed and urges rebellion because it's a fair part of the speech in which she argues that rules in place are insufficient and acting within them is insufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Healy described the song as "quite beautiful superficially", but also "quite sad, quite pretty" and "quite ominous" - do we need to quote here? Couldn't we say "song as superficially beautiful but also sad and ominous." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

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

Appreciate the review, thanks for taking the time. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support now, unless there is a big old issue someone else picks up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

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

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

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

👨x🐱 (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That's (CA)Giacobbe you have to thank for the other articles, by the way, didn't mean to claim credit for the GT nom so I've adjusted the wording. Replies to these comments coming now. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Replied, let me know what you think. — Bilorv (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • ""The 1975" is a protest song, where Thunberg delivers a spoken word performance" Neither CNN or The Guardian cites categorize the song as these two genres. Speaking of CNN, the cite as well as ref 3 (BBC) categorizes it as ambient music track. I would suggest using that alongside the PopMatters cite to further confirm its genre as ambient. The Guardian also categorizes it as "minimal" which I don't see in the article.
    • Telegraph source was originally there for "protest song" but got lost in a reshuffle—fixed. Insider added as "spoken word" as you suggest below. Ambient music mentioned and on its next mention we now say "minimal" with the Guardian ref. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting, and unique criticism of the song in ref 3 that I don't see in Reception: "The essay is direct in its message but short on actual practical measures which she thinks should be put in place." That same cite also attacks the 1975 for flying on airplanes for touring which I think strongly relates the subject matter of this song: "The 1975 are currently on a world tour, and will play gigs in Italy, Korea, Romania, Singapore, Ukraine, Dubai and Australia in the coming weeks. It is likely they will fly to many of those countries, despite air travel being a significant contributor to climate change."
    • Now mentioned the plane thing just before the measures they announced they were taking to reduce negative environmental impact. Added a sentence to Reception: A writer for the BBC viewed the song as light on concrete suggestions, but direct on messaging. I don't think it's clear that it is criticism specifically, as the BBC haven't marked it under a byline and they have at least the claimed position of not making value judgements in the organisation's own voice ("impartiality", as they call it). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • AllMusic is not a work and its name should not be formatted as such in the citation template and prose.
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I just found the Insider album review categorizes the song as spoken word. Use that cite for the categorization.
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

👨x🐱 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me know if any of these issues haven't been resolved sufficiently or if there's anything more. I think the article is looking better from these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@HumanxAnthro: anything outstanding or any more comments coming, or are you happy to "support"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would avoid one-word quotes like "failing" and "heartfelt" as I do not think they are particularly beneficial to the reader and it may detract from other quotes. I have received this note in a past FAC so I just wanted to raise this to your attention as well.
    • Before I do this, just to clarify: is the suggestion here to say the words but without quotation marks, or to use a near-synonym/paraphrase/rephrase to avoid the quote? — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think that either option would be appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Alright, done a mixture in the end depending on what I think worked best. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that is the best way to address this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the "Background and recording" section, the 1975 should be linked on the first instance. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately so the band should be linked on the first instances in both.
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a note, but the FAC instructions discourage the use of the done graphic as it could "slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives". Aoba47 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a super nitpick-y note, but for this part, a perceived convention of guest appearances in music being, I would say their perceived convention to more so emphasize that this was coming from them (if I am reading this part correctly).
    • Correct interpretation, Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is probably a very dumb question, but I will ask it anyway. I am uncertain about this part, The song was produced by the label Dirty Hit. How can a song be produced by a record label? I have mostly seen the word "produced" associated with the song's producers and not the label.
    • Not a dumb question at all. After some thought I think "produced under the label Dirty Hit" might solve your issue with this. Daniel and Healy are the credited producers, but (at least if it's anything like the normal music production process) they're utilising the label's resources and working with them at the various tasks that make up production. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think "produced under" sounds better so that works with me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article repeats that this song is the first on the album (Notes on a Conditional Form opened with a track titled "The 1975". and "The 1975" is the first song on the 22-track Notes on a Conditional Form.) and it comes across as unnecessarily repetitive rather than helpful. I would only say this information once. I would recommend keeping it where you think it is the most relevant.
    • Alright, fair enough, kept in "Background" only. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the link in the part, more explicitly political messages, as I believe it comes across as an Easter egg. I do not think that it is immediately clear that the "political" link would lead to the article on music and politics. If you want to keep the link, I think more clarification in the prose would be necessary.
    • Removed (I think someone else added this as I also find these quite EASTER-y). — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For this part, the Conservative politician Theresa Villiers, please link Conservative as it would be helpful for unfamiliar readers, particularly those living outside the UK.
    • Done — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the note, the four citations seem like an example of citation overkill and I would recommend bundling the citations to avoid this.
    • I think bundling loses the link with the original reference, so that I have to make a copy (undesirable as changing one won't change the other and you then can't see all of the source's usages from the reference "^ a b c"s, right?). So not ideal for references used elsewhere. I've just named the publications and given the references after the name mention. Or maybe I could take one out and leave us with three citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The separation of the citations behind each of the publications solves this problem for me at least so I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your citations to avoid link rot and link death.
    • IABot was down when I tried this last, but now done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • IABot can be quite temperamental at times so I understand that lol. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but has there been any scholarly articles written about this song? It looks like most of this citations are online sources, which is understandable since this song is relatively recent. I was just curious about the scholarly coverage as this seems like the type of thing that would invite that kind of attention and study.
    • No, I did search for this but I couldn't find anything with a non-trivial mention. I think you're right about it maybe being too recent. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Yep, absolutely they're helpful. One clarification requested and the rest I've made an attempt at addressing. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for address everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, enjoy your weekend too. :) — Bilorv (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note--I replaced the graphics with plain text, cue FAC advice: "Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." HĐ (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, HĐ. I have read that before but it's a habit from GA and I completely forgot. — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
      • No worries. Good luck with the nomination! HĐ (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie[edit]

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Peer review/William Lyon Mackenzie/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Watchlisting with an eye towards supporting; please ping me when independent reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • File:Second market in York (Toronto).jpg, File:MrsMackenzie.jpg when was it first published? (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Second market image: work produced in 1888. MrsMackenzie: work produced in 1850. I updated the copyright tags on both images at Commons to reflect that. Let me know if you need more information. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Date of production is not necessarily the same as publication. AFAIK the former work was not free in Canada on the URAA date based on author's death date, so it would need pre-1926 publication to be PD in US. The second doesn't have author information so it's not clear when its Canadian copyright expired, although if it was made in 1850 I assume it's old enough. (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I posted my followup on this FAC's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments 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
Prose
Additional comments

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

HF[edit]

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

  • @Z1720: - Ping me when Johannes Schade is done, and I'll review. I'd rather wait to review, because I don't want to work at cross-purposes. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Johannes Schade[edit]

I am here because I contributed in an Peer Review of the article and was invited by the nominator to participate here again. This is my first as a FA reviewer and have no FA article to my credit. I am not so sure of the rules of the game and the criteria. Please call me to order for any faux-pas immediately. Seen my lack of experience, I feel I should not vote (neither support nor oppose) but I hope some of my comments might be useful.

General Remarks[edit]

I have reread the article, read the GA review and some WP articles about Canadian History. I agree with the GA reviewer, the user "Go Phightins!", that the article is generally well-written, informative, well researched and verified with many citations, but that the doings of the subject, William Lyon Mackenzie (WLM), remain difficult to understand because of a lack of suitable (but concise) background information. This essential lines of this background seem to me that Canada had an old-fashioned relatively authoritarian government on the British model that did not compare well with the more democratic structures of the neighbouring United States. The Parliament was bicameral with an lower house elected by the land-owning class and an upper house whose members were appointed for life. The country was ruled by the lieutenant-governor, appointed by the king, who had a right of veto. The Anglican church got priority-treatment while Catholics, Presbyterians etc. were side-lined. WLM wanted Upper Canada to become a Republic on the American model and took up arms for this purpose. Papineau did the same in Lower Canada. Both failed the article should try to explain why WLM failed in this endeavour. However, his struggle seems to have brought improvements the new structures of the Act of Union (1840) for united Province of Canada were a bit more democratic.

Prose[edit]
Lede

Generalities: The first two paragraphs follow the chronology of his life but the third paragraph is a miscellany containing many elements that do not belong in a lede and elements that should go elsewhere. Perhaps the lede should have 3 paragraphs that describe his life before, during, and after the revolt. The revolt, its reasons and consequences should be described in more detail than what is there now. Remarks per paragraph and sentence below.

  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I would move the Efn from after the lifespan parenthesis to immediately after his name.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. As the lede should give less detail than the body, I propose to leave the exact dates of the lifespan to the body and give only the years in the lede "(1795–1861)".
    • MOS:OPENPARABIO says to give the "Dates of birth and death" and later talks about what to do if only years are specified. Recently promoted biographies also have the full birthdate in the lede, so I am hesitant to change this. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. I suggest to be more precise with the tenses: "Growing up in Dundee" -> "Having grown up in Dundee"
    • Changed to, "He grew up in Dundee, Scotland and emigrated to York, Upper Canada, (later known as Toronto) in 1820."
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "immigrated to York, Upper Canada". I had never heard of York or Upper Canada and I believe few readers would have. Toronto however is widely known. I suggest to help the reader by introducing Toronto right here, e.g. "immigrated to Toronto, then York, Upper Canada" or "immigrated to York, Upper Canada, now called Toronto."
    • Added "(later known as Toronto)" Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. "publisher" is not a well-known profession. I would have called him a "journalist", or perhaps "journalist and publisher".
    • I have added information about his newspapers as part of expanding the biographical aspects of the lede, per "Generalities" above. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The how-maniest parliament of Upper Canada this was is unnecessary detail at the level of the lede. Hide the "10th" in "10th Parliament of Upper Canada"; "Parliament of Upper Canada" should be good enough but keep the original link. However, as Upper Canada had a bicameral system it would be necessary to specify that he sat in the lower House or House of Assembly.
    • Changed to "He was elected a legislator from York to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada" Legislative Assembly was the name the lower house of Upper Canada Parliament. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. I found "elected ... as a legislator from York" confusing. Aren't all MPs legislators? -> "elected to represent York in the lower house of the parliament" I find all this talk about legislators and legislature is confusing unless the term is first defined as the article does not oppose the legislature to the executive and the judicial. What were the MPs really called at the time?
    • As far as I know, people elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada did not have official titles like "MP" or "MLA". The sources refer to the position as a "legislator" or a "Parliamentarian"; for consistency's sake, I kept with legislator. I don't think I need to define what a legislator is because it is a common enough word. Also, the executive council (the equivalent of today's Canadian Senate) did not legislate that much, as their role was more of an advisory board to the lieutenant-general at the time (and the council consisted of around 7-10 men). Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The two parts of the sentence are quite unrelated. Perhaps split.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "investigated" I would propose "investigated corruption" or "researched corruption" or "researched corruption and abuse".
    • Done.
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. The word "aristocratic" is misleading. Ver few members the Family Compact were noble. It seems that most of them were members of the parliament's upper house (the legislative Council) which was not elected but appointed (by whom?).
    • Changed "aristocratic" to "elite". Most of the members were not appointed to the executive council, so we can't use that as a moniker. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "he called", he was not the only one and did not invent the term, perhaps use passive voice "was called".
    • Mackenzie did not invent the term, but he did popularise it. He produced the first list in 1833 of Family Compact members that historians use to identify members of this group. I want to avoid the passive voice in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled many times" A quick look at the text of the body seems to suggest it was five times.
    • After reformatting the lede, I decided to remove this sentence. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "expelled after" -> "expelled for"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "which caused" -> "causing"
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. I find "chosen as its first mayor" a bit vague. I suppose he was elected. You do not seem to say until when he stayed mayor.
    • Added: " but was not reelected the following year." Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "and became" seems to link two quite unrelated events. I hope it was not the loss of his seat that pushed him to revolt. I suggest to split. More details should be given here. The revolt is quite essential in the article and in his life. The five first sentences of the 2nd paragraph are all of the structure A and B. It is often recommended that two sentences that follow each other should differ in structure so that they do not echo each other but vary.
    • The loss of his seat was a major factor in Mackenzie leading a revolt. I have added information about the revolt per the "Generalities" statement above. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "getting disillusioned" seems not entirely right. He did not seem to harbour many illusions since quite a while and this is not enough to explain his drastic reaction.
    • Before his 1836 election loss Mackenzie thought he could enact change within the government structure. After his 1836 election loss, he thought change to the government structure was only possible with a revolt. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. "He was imprisoned" -> "In the United States he was imprisoned".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "After becoming" there seems to be no logical relation between having become an American citizen and being pardoned in Canada. I suggest two separate sentences.
    • Removed info about becoming an American citizen.
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "amnesty from the Canadian legislature" -> "amnesty from the parliament of the Province of Canada, which had been formed by the union of upper and lower Canada in 1841" or something like this. I am not an expert on Canadian history but the jump from "Upper Canada" to "Canada" is confusing and needs to be shortly explained. Especially since the new constitution brought some improvements for which WLM had fought.
    • Added. However, the union of Upper and Lower Canada was not something Mackenzie wanted or fought for. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 6th sentence. I suppose he was elected again.
    • Technically, yes, but in the 1830s Mackenzie represented a constituency in York in the Upper Canadian legislature, while in the 1850s he represented Haldimand County in the Province of Canada legislature. The differences are so varied that I am hesitant to use the word "again". Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. I think we do not need to know from when on his health deteriorated and do not need to be told he died, at least not in the lede. Simply omit.
    • I think his death is an important part of his biography and gives a good transition to the obituary stuff in the newly formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph. 1st sentence. Obituaries should be discussed in the body only.
    • In a previous review, an editor liked this addition because it gave information on Mackenzie's reputation while he was alive (and shortly after his death). Obituaries were written by various newspapers independently of Mackenzie and his family, were not necessarily kind in describing his reputation and provide a great snapshot of his reputation and legacy. I think it should stay in the new lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • After re-reading the lede this morning, I have decided to cut out the obituary and legacy sentences. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. He seems to have been sometimes independent and sometimes aligned with the Reform movement (Upper Canada) (link). Perhaps I do not understand. Could it be clarified?
    • You are correct: He always claimed he was independent but often aligned with the Reform movement. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. legislator" -> "politician" or "MP"
    • Changed to "politician"
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "misguided patriotism" is a label stuck on him that should be explained. I suppose one might also argue Hitler acted by misguided patriotism.
    • Removed
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "sought to remove corruption from government institutions" -> "fought corruption"
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. The problem of being independent and aligned at the same time also applies to his newspapers.
    • I think this is solved in the new lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "opposed any special status and benefits for religious institutions, particularly acres of land " -> "opposed religious discrimination, especially advantages granted by the government to the Anglican church such as land ".
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. "monopolies" -> "economic monopolies". Monopolies and buying land are unrelated and should not appear in the same sentence. Split the sentence.
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. Why "land parcels" rather than just "land"? or should it be "agricultural land" or "farms" or is it the land one needed to own to become a voter"?
    • This was removed in the newly-formatted lede. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 7th sentence. Omit the fireboat and the use of his name in a much later election are not needed in the lede.
    • Removed.

-- to be continued -- Johannes Schade (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Johannes Schade comments and replies are given above. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Background, early years in Scotland, and education
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "née Chalmers". You are mistaken here. His mother was widow Chalmers, née Mackenzie, when she married his father.
    • Fixed. Added that Elizabeth was a widow before her marriage to Daniel.
  • 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. Please add something after Alyth like "NW of Dundee" so that the reader must not look up Alyth to learn it is nearby, not in New Zealand.
    • Added "Alyth, Scotland"
  • 3rd paragraph, 5th sentence. Perhaps add "moved to southern England." The end of the sentence seems to preempt what is described in the next section. Avoid repetition.
    • Added. I removed the sentence about abstaining upon his move to Upper Canada.
Early years in Canada
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Perhaps drop the end of the sentence about the drug. It is confusing as it is written now and would probably take up too much space if explained properly.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "Dundas, Ontario" -> "Dundas, Upper Canada"; "branch manager" -> "manager"
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "immigrated" -> "joined him in" or "joined him by immigrating"
    • Done I also reworded the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Creation of the Colonial Advocate
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "Queenston"-> "Queenston, near the Niagara Falls,". Whenever introducing a new place name whose location is not self-evident add a short location description. Briefly explain Brock "hero of the British–American War of 1812" or similar. Make it clear that Mackenzie did not build the monument but somewhat sneakishly profited from the occasion.
    • Done. Mackenzie didn't profit from the construction of the memorial and his motives are only speculated at in the sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Shortly introduce Macaulay. "Somebody linked to the Family Compact?
    • Done
Types riot
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "into the bay". No bay has been mentioned so far; either explain or change to "Lake Ontario" or similar.
    • The sources continuously state the type was thrown into the bay that was across the street from Mackenzie's home/office. I can't verify if the bay was Lake Ontario.
Election to the Legislative Assembly
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. Since you call it the legislative assembly, perhaps we should use "Members of the Legislative Assembly" or MLA for short. That would be better than legislator. The members of the upper house are also legislators. According to the articles 10th Parliament of Upper Canada and 11th Parliament of Upper Canada, there were two constituencies with York in their name: "York" (or York County) and "York (town)" (or Your Town). His was York County. Please make sure there is no confusion. I feel never say just York when you mean the county seat. Clarify this also in the lede where you say just "York". At the times of the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada, the 1st Parliament of the Province of Canada, and the 2nd Parliament of the Province of Canada, we find four constituencies called York numbered 1 to 4. Mackenzie sat for "2nd York" in the 12th parliament but lost his seat in the election held for the 13th. This is cumbersome but the article has to be exact.
    • I can't verify that they were called MLAs. Sources use various generalised terms to describe elected officials in Upper Canada at this time. I changed "York" to "York County" in the lede. Added info about 2nd Riding of York, Mackenzie's new electoral district. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "York" -> "York County".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "legislator" -> MLA or whatever you prefer.
    • Gonna keep it as legislator as that is how sources described him.
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Explain "Executive council" or just say "government".
    • Reworded the sentence to explain what the executive council is.
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "lost their majority". This is a major change that merits a break and an explanation Why? Probably even start a new paragraph. I think the reason was that a new Lieutenant-governor had come into office.
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "an agricultural society" "St. Andrew's Presbyterial". Two unrelated issues thrown together in one sentence: split. The 1st is not understandable at all. For the second the reader must interrupt and read another article, but your article should be readable and understandable without interruption. Either expand or delete.
    • Deleted
  • 4th paragraph, 1st sentence. Did he meet one of the better known reform leaders of Lower Canada? If yes, give a name and a link. Profit from Wikipedia's special abilities.
    • Sources don't specify who he met with. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Expulsions, re-elections, and appeal to the Colonial Office
  • 4th paragraph, penultimate sentence. "by acclamation" sounds very odd. Is it what you called "by voice" before?
    • It means without opposition. No one ran against him in that election. I removed it because it would take too long to explain and it's not important. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 4th paragraph, last sentence. "not permitted" If he had been elected, how can he be not permitted. Not understandable.
    • Changed to, "The legislature barred him from sitting as an elected representative until after the 1836 legislative election." Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Municipal politics
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. "delayed collecting" and "equitable assessment". Not understandable. What has his salary to do with equitable assessment laws and what are the latter? Or if it applies: do not throw unrelated issues together in one sentence.
    • Another editor was confused by this, and the source doesn't explain what equitable assessment laws Mackenzie was protesting, so I have removed the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Provincial politics
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. I have lost count of the elections and which ones he won and which ones he lost. I would say it would be easier for the reader if you would each time link to the article about the election. Of course you have to explain that the two constituencies York town and York Country have been reorganised into 4 constituencies.
    • Since there are no wikilinks for each election, I linked to the Parliament that Mackenzie was running in. I added info about the split constituencies. Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "first corresponding secretary". What is that? Is it a secretary who handles correspondence? Perhaps drop the title (if it is one) and just say he collaborated in this Alliance or similar. Besides, Gates just says "corresponding secretary" without the "first".
    • Done
  • 3rd paragraph. Why did he lose the election?
    • Added, "Bond Head's campaigning was successful and Reformers across the province lost their elections,"
Planning

General remarks - Head was of course appointed by the British government, but he was supported by the parliament. The reformers had lost the election. How could WLM justify a rebellion against a democratically elected government? Or was it not democratic? –because only landowners voted (which percentage of the population?) or because of electoral fraud? Probably some more discussion needs to be added to this section to make us understand. Insert a sentence indicating when serious fighting first broke out in Lower Canada.

  • Head wasn't "supported by Parliament" the way a Lieutenant-Governor or Governor-General is supported by the Canadian Parliament today. The Canadian Parliament was not consulted before an LG was appointed and the LG could only be removed by the British government. The legislature had many fights with the LG both before and during Head's appointment. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I added information about British government's rejection of political reforms in the colony. There's already information about Mackenzie calling Bond Head corrupt in the planning section. I added Mackenzie's promotion of self-government in Upper Canada. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I added info about Lower Canada Rebellion, citing them as a reason why Upper Canada troops were not in the colony during the rebellion.
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "organised a meeting with reformers dubbed the Committee of Vigilance" -> "met reformers organised in organised in" (?)
    • I don't know what you mean by this. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. "Lower Canada": perhaps help the reader by adding "roughly today's southern Quebec" or similar? The (perhaps not very reliable) biography at https://biography.yourdictionary.com/william-lyon-mackenzie maintains that he met Louis-Joseph Papineau. If this can be substantiated, mention and link.
    • Biograhpy.com is not a high-quality reliable source so I can't use it in this article. Although Mackenzie corresponded with Papineau, he was also met with and corresponded with lots of Patriotes. It's not an important detail in Mackenzie's biography as nothing really came from it. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "asking Mackenzie" -> "asking him". The citation refers to a part of Kilbourn's book that is not part of the preview. If you have the book, could you give a quotation? Does it say who sent the message? Could a reason be given?
    • Here's an archive.com link to the book. It's the first two paragraphs of the chapter: [1] Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. Introduce John Rolph, perhaps calling him "moderate reformer"; disambiguate John Rolph -> John Rolph (politician); similar with Thomas David Morrison
    • Source doesn't support that Rolph is a moderate reformer on that page, so I just called both Rolph and Morrison "two other reform leaders". Rolph's wikilink already points to "John Rolph (politician)" Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph,3rd sentence. Garbled.
    • I rephrased the paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Rebellion and retreat to the United States

General remarks - in 1838 WLM's supporters Samuel Lount and Peter Mathews were hanged for the rebellion. I think that is worthwhile mentioning.

  • Mackenzie was in America during the trial and execution and thus was not part of these events. I don't think I can include it here without going off-topic.
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "troops" -> "men" I think they did not really have an army. We also need an approximate number 10s 100s 1000s of men?
    • Sources don't say how many men arrived. Changed troops to men.
  • 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence Anderson's "murder" is not understandable. It is better explained in John Powell. Expand with text from there.
    • I reworded the sentence. I don't want to get into a long explanation of the scouting expedition because the article is already very long. I think the new text sums up the important information by saying, "Later that night the leader of the rebellion, Anthony Anderson, was killed by John Powell during a scouting expedition."
  • 3rd paragraph,
Attempted invasion from the United States
  • 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. Link Van Rensselaer. Explain that it is a very rich and influential family.
    • Added info about Van Rensselaer. To avoid overlinking I did not include a wikilink to the family's name. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence "coordinate a resistance with the patriots" not understandable; "together with"? "from Lower Canada"?
    • Sentence removed, it's not important. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. "defeated in mainland America" by whom?
    • Clarified
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. Probably worthwhile briefly mention Caroline here as it is referred to further down.
    • Added a sentence
Support for Patriots and Mackenzie's Gazette
  • 1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "May 12" -> "May 12, 1838"
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. Link Rochester, New York. I did not know where is was.
    • Done
  • 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "land speculators" does this refer to the Rensselaers? not understandable for the general reader.
    • No. Removed info about land speculators
  • 1st paragraph, last sentence. Was Mackenzie's Gazette a success? - more to come Johannes Schade (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • More info on the Gazette is given later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality law trial

1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "stating that Upper Canada in a civil war" -> "stating that Upper Canada was in a civil war"(?) I'am not so sure what you mean.

  • I expanded that section. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Imprisonment

2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. John Montgomery (tavern-keeper) should be introduced before, probably when his tavern is first mentioned.

  • Although he owned the tavern, Montgomery had a very limited involvement in the Rebellion. I don't think I can introduce him without going off-topic. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. An odd list of two towns and two states "in Rochester, Albany, Michigan, and Ohio" -> "in northern New York State (Rochester and Albany), Michigan, and Ohio"

  • Changed to "in New York State, Michigan, and Ohio" Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

2nd paragraph, 9th sentence. "Democrats informed him" -> "fellow Democrats pointed out to him".

  • I reworded this section after consulting sources. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
After the pardon

Too many actions, events and people are mentioned and most is not explained.

  • I removed miscellaneous information that hopefully reduces the events in this section. In other cases, I added mini-explanations on who people are. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "all invasions" -> "all invasions into Canada"(?) what is meant? did he abandon and regret what he had done?

  • Yes, it's invasions into Canada. Sources don't say why he changed his mind. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Amnesty and return to Canada

This does not explain in an understandable way why the Canada government gave an amnesty, nor do I understand what the Irish problem was. The late 1840's were the time of the Irish Famine that provoked a massive emigration from Ireland to the United states. It was also the time of Daniel O'Connell's Catholic emancipation. But I do not see how the Irish situation would have caused the amnesty in Canada. I think the amnesty was part of a British liberal Whig policy implementing the recommendations of the Durham Report and introduction of a responsible government after the 1840 constitution of the Act of Union 1840. Responsible government was of course one of the things the reformers like WLM had asked for.

  • I added more information on why Lord Elgin wanted to grant amnesty. Sources do not support that Mackenzie received amnesty because of responsible government or the Durham Report. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1st & only paragraph, 1st sentence. The report was written in 1839. "After the Upper Canada Rebellion British colonial officials sent" -> "After the Upper-Canada Rebellion British colonial officials had sent"

  • "Had sent" would be redundant. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Return to the Legislature

1st paragraph, 2nd sentence. It is not necessary to say "to replace Thompson". You already said that Thompson was dead. We would be more interested to hear who was the candidate he defeated and how he could achieve this. What was the policy he advocated?

  • Removed. He didn't really advocate a policy, rather he claimed his opponent, George Brown, would be beholden to the government. This is added to the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add something about the progress made in Canada during his absence in democratisation of the government by introducing responsible government

  • This would be off-topic; Mackenzie did not influence the rise of responsible government in Canada as he was in the United States at the time. Z1720 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

-more to come - Johannes Schade (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Sure, yes, not directly, but indirectly as the Durham report was commissioned in reaction to the uprising he led. Also the advent of responsible government impacted on him. So I think some content about the Durham report and the introduction of responsible government would not be off-topic.
      • I added a wikilink to the Durham Report. Unfortunately, the article is already quite long so I'm hesitant to include information that does not immediately pertain to Mackenzie's biography. Also, the advent of responsible government (and historians debate if responsible government was enacted at this time) didn't really impact Mackenzie. Mackenzie's version of responsible government wasn't enacted so he kept ranting against the government, which is outlined later. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 4th sentence. Should "Reformers"? be upper-cased? I am quite confused about recent trends in English to use upper case less frequently. Was there a "Tory Party" in Canada in 1851?

  • Yes, because Reformers is a proper noun in this sentence. There weren't political parties in the 1800s like we have today and it is usually more accurate to call them "political factions." Nevertheless, there was never an official "Tory Party" or "Tory faction" but members of the Conservative Party were/are colloquially referred to as a "Tory" or "Tories". Sources continuously refer to this group/faction as the Tories (and rarely as Conservatives) so I tried to use "Tory" in this article. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 5th sentence. "legislature" -> "assembly", legislature includes the upper house. I think this was happened in the lower house only. The "Mackenzie proposed an investigation of the Court of Chancery" comes in a bit sudden. Perhaps prepend "He suspected corruption inn the Court of Chancery and proposed ... " to introduce this a bit.

  • First part: done. I added information about why Mackenzie opposed the court (it was expensive, written testimony instead of verbal.) I don't think understanding the court's function is important to understanding Mackenzie's opposition, and Mackenzie's biographers don't explain what the court is, either. I don't want to give undue weight to something Mackenzie's biographers don't think is important. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

1st paragraph, 6th sentence. "Baldwin resigned from the ministry" no ministry has been mentioned before. I am not sure what office Baldwin held at the time, perhaps simply "government". First mention of "Canada West". I would add "the new name of the old Upper Canada".

  • Done

1st paragraph, 7th sentence. 2nd paragraph - no remarks 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "5th parliament". It would be nice to give the year (1854) here in addition.

  • The previous paragraph talks about the 1854 election, so I think the reader would assume his session of Parliament is for the people elected in 1854. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

4th paragraph, last sentence "for each colony" confusing as as there was now one one colony called Canada consisting of Canada-West and Canada-East.

  • Replaced with "each colony" with "Canada East (formerly known as Lower Canada) and Canada West." Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

5th paragraph - no remarks.

Later life and death

1st paragraph - no remarks. 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "buried ... with a twelve-foot " split in two sentences.

  • Split

2nd paragraph, last sentence. "a woman who married a descendant of Mackenzie named Wanda Gzowski". A lesbian marriage? -> "a woman named Wanda Gzowski who married a descendant of Mackenzie". However, what is her relevance?

  • No, not a lesbian marriage. I removed this as another editor suggested removing it. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Writing style

1st paragraph, 1st sentence. "The topics of Mackenzie's articles were not consistent or linked between issues." Should they have been? Do you mean he changed his opinion too often? Is this a matter of writing style? Anyway, the sentence does not work well as the first sentence of a section, where the reader would expect some kind of an introduction to the subject. Perhaps "improvised" "unstructured" "unorganised" might be helpful.

  • Typically an author's columns would write about a theme and follow-up on previous articles, but Mackenzie's articles jumped around from topic to topic. Yes, he changed his opinion often, as described later in the article. I removed the sentence. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Political philosophy

1st-3rd paragraph - no comments 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence. "elected lawmakers" -> "made its own laws" (?)

  • Changed to "if the province could enact policies independently from Britain" after consulting the source. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Religious views
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph; 1st sentence. "sects" sounds very negative. Propose "denominations".
    • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "Indigenous" -> "indigenous". No reason for upper-casing the word.
  • Done
  • 2nd paragraph, 4th sentence. "State of Upper Canada constitution", first mention. Should have been mentioned somewhere before probably when he wrote the declaration of independence.
  • Added info in the "Attempted invasion from the United States" section about Mackenzie's draft constitution. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Economic policies
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence. "a requirement for three-fourths of Parliament" -> "a requirement for a three-fourths majority in the assembly" (?)
    • Changed to "three-fourths of members in Parliament"
Historical reputation
  • 2nd paragraph, last sentence. "his previous biography" Lindsey's?
    • Yes. Clarified
Depictions and in memoriam
  • 1st paragraph - no comments
  • 2nd paragraph - no comments

Johannes Schade (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade I replied on to your points above. I look forward to your additional comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

Dear Z1720, in general you are to be congratulated on the attention you paid to the referencing, which you give in plenty and present in a neat and consistent form. But please note the following:

  • The Dictionary of Canadian Biography should be cited with "Sfn" and "Cite encyclopedia" just like most other such sources are handled, not as <ref name="Biographi">{{Cite web ... }}</ref>. This website does not give page numbers, which are helpful when citing. Therefore please use Sfn and the following entry in the source list: Armstrong, Frederick H.; Stagg, Ronald J. (1976). "Mackenzie". In Brown, George W.; Hayne, David M.; Halfpenny, Francess G. (eds.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 9. Toronto: Toronto University Press. pp. 496–510. ISBN 0-8020-3319-9. (please check it, it is a mouthful). Johannes Schade (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Done

Johannes Schade Comments above have been addressed, ready for more when you are! Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Z1720, please cite The Firebrand at Internet Archive rather than at Google Books, as Google gives a preview, which is incomplete and notably excludes some of the cited pages, whereas Archive allows you to read the whole book. Therefore:

  • Kilbourn, William (1956). The Firebrand: William Lyon Mackenzie and the Rebellion in Upper Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company.
    • Internet Archive's edition of the book is a different from the one I used and the page numbers are different. Internet Archive's edition also does not include a preamble which I cited in the article. This changeover would take a tremendous amount of time and I want to avoid this. I am happy to find passages for people conducting a spot-check. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That might be it for me. Johannes Schade (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Z1720. Indeed, you cite Kilbourn's Firebrand 66 times. However, I feel that at the level of FA, you should not refuse to implement a possible improvement because it would be too much work. I would be afraid that the voting reviewers would throw in an "Oppose" just for such an attitude. They always stress FAs are the best of Wikipedia. Please cite the Firebrand's Google Books digitisation. I went through these 66 citations and I failed to find any that refer to what you call the Preamble (I think you mean Stagg's General Introduction, pages 9–16 of the Google digitisation). I feel going through your text like this might induce you to revise and improve it and would help Nikkimaria for her spot checks.

I assume when you say above, "Please cite the Firebrand's Google Books digitisation." That you mean "Please cite the archive.org digitisation." Archive.org is now the link that the citations point to. Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Z1720. You are right, my mistake. I meant. If you do not have the time, please tell me and I will do it for you directly on the article. Please accept my apology, I got a bit too excited about this. I lack experience in reviewing. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I accept your apology: I am excited to get this article to FA status! I already completed this: Kilbourn's citations now link to archive.org. Also, when you posted the above comment I think it deleted my responses below, as seen in this diff: [2] Do you need me to restore them? Z1720 (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Some remarks about the revised lede:

  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. "first newspaper 1824 called Colonial Advocate and wrote" -> "first newspaper, the Colonial Advocate, in 1824 and wrote".
  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "He was elected a legislator from York County to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada and" -> "He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada by the York County constituency and". I still find this word "legislator" disturbing for the modern reader.
  • Lede, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence. "and other elite members of Upper Canada, which he called the Family Compact" -> "and by the so-called Family Compact, a clique of influential citizens".
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence. "He lost his reelection for the Legislative Assembly in 1836". This is a critical point in his life and (in my opinion) a weak point in this article that should probably be more researched and better explained in the lede just like in the body of the text.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "could only happen after a rebellion" -> "could only be obtained by a revolution". When you lose, you are a rebel, but when you win you are a revolutionary. He believed he could win. He lived in a time of revolutions. There was the 1830 July Revolution in France, the Revolutions of 1848 in many European countries.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "farmers in town" is awkward as farmers are usually found in the countryside.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, 7th sentence. "He organised American troops to invade" -> "He organised American support to invade". American troops is misleading the naïve reader who might believe the American army intervened in Canada.
  • Lede, 2nd paragraph, penultimate sentence. "Mackenzie was arrested for violating this law and sentenced" -> "Mackenzie was arrested and sentenced".
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence. "ventures failed due to a lack of subscribers." -> "ventures failed.". This "due to ..." does not really explain anything.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence. "During his work at the New York custom house, he copied ..." The sentence states undigested facts that do not help to understand WLM's life and relevance. Please, think about it and reformulate.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence. "While Mackenzie was living in the United States, the Province of Canada was created from the merger of Upper and Lower Canada." This is an easy fact to state, but the merger is less important than the steps taken towards a responsible government, which brought in the much more liberal Baldwin-Lafontaine government and made the amnesty possible.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. I feel we need a year for the Amnesty Act or for his return to Canada.
  • Lede, 3rd paragraph, last sentence. "His health deteriorated in 1861 and he died on August 28." I still feel a better final sentence should be found. We definitely do not need to be told in the lede when his health deteriorated, but we need some kind of a one-sentence-conclusion stressing his legacy as a hero of the Canadians' fight for democracy and decolonisation. The precise date of his death is already given in his lifespan.

- more to come - Johannes Schade (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)





Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, that the post-pardon papers failed due to lack of subscribers
    • Added info in the body. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Still issues here - for example the lead claims he "discovered" documents outlining financial transactions, but the body says only that he "copied" them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I cross-referenced the lede and the body to fix this. It's ready for another check. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example, the role of Alexander Macdonell
    • Removed the ones that would be off-topic to explain, added info for the ones that were not described. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Explanatory notes should generally be in a different section to references
    • Done
  • FN262: if you're going to cite the updated version, this should also credit the author who did the update
    • Added
  • FN263: page? Ditto FN265, check for others
    • Added. The other articles are accessed with online editions of the sources and a link is provided. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Works cited?
    • They should be oldest-first, but the Gates sources were in the wrong order. I fixed it. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Archive link for Armstrong 1971 is non-functional
    • I removed the archive link. I think it broke because it couldn't archive the Proquest website. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Was the print version of DCB the one consulted, or the online version?
    • Although I used the online version originally, Johannes Schade said I should reference the print version instead. During the changeover, I verified the information (as I had to find the page numbers) and the information is now cited to the book. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Volume statements generally shouldn't be part of the title
    • I assume you are referring to Dent. Fixed. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    • Done
  • Hamil is missing publisher
    • Fixed
  • What makes Hoar a high-quality reliable source?
    • A review of his book was conducted in the The Canadian Historical Review, an academic journal: [3]. It was republished by McGill-Queen's University Press [4] and Carleton University Press [5] Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Dundurn Press or just Dundurn? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • WorldCat and Google say Dundurn, so I changed Gates's reference to Dundurn. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Royal Calcutta Turf Club[edit]

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

Re-nominating the article, as I couldn't complete it last time due to COVID-19. I have tried to solve the issues mentioned last time (except 1-2 things which I am currently doing).  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Raiders of the Lost Ark[edit]

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

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

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

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

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

Comments from 👨x🐱[edit]

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

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

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

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

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

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

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

  • Yes, I might be cutting it close but I'd like to get it there for its anniversary. I didn't anticipate Die Hard's FA taking so long (thanks for your help with that). I have enough 80s films setup now that I'm set for 40th anniversaries to appear on the front page until 2024 if I can get this one done (Got to get Ghostbusters up to FA). Too late for The Empire Strikes Back sadly but of the ones I've done it's the one I'm least interested in so I put it off until last.
  • I've replaced the Karen Allen one with one with a clearer author. I assume if its on Wikimedia it's already been verified but this doesn't appear to be the case very often in reality.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Raiders March file. It was already in the article but I admit I wasn't in a rush to remove it because these 80s film scores are boss and I love listening to them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see your point on the trailer but I just thought it was an interesting aspect to see HOW the trailer was marketed to people at the time. It's 40 years old so I don't think it's too promotional, but I feel it's justified. Normally I'd include an image of the theater it premiered in but it doesn't appear to have had a standard big time premiere anywhere notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Indiana Jones Spectacular image is attributed to Cybjorg, and doing a reverse image search it only seems to come up at Fan Wikias that have sourced it from here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna stick up for the Sean Connery image as similar to the Jeremy Irons image in Die Hard, in that he is mentioned in the text accompanying the section and it's relevant to that, even if its 60% decorative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, also Indiana Jones character is linked in the plot section, that's why it's not in the Cast. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough on the linking. File:Karen Allen (8707577445).jpg is definitely a better choice for Allen since I could verify its copyright status. As for the "Indiana Jones Stunt Spectacular" pic, it's too bad Cybjorg hasn't edited since 2018 or we could ask that user for clarification. You're better off replacing it with something else or having no pic of it at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • Starting two consecutive sentences with "it" like you've done in the lead's third paragraph feels repetitive
  • "that includes three more films"..... are you only saying this instead of "four" because the fifth film hasn't been released yet?
  • The use of "affair" (both in "Plot" and "Casting") makes it sound like Indy and/or Marion were unfaithful to other partners during their first entanglement (which I don't recall being the case but maybe I'm forgetting something here when it's been a long time since I last watched the movie). You could simply say "relationship" instead.
  • "An imam deciphers the medallion for Jones; one side bears a warning against disturbing the Ark, the other the correct measurements for the "staff of Ra", an item used to locate the Ark" is quite a mouthful! I'd split it into separate sentences by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • The plot's last paragraph is rather short with only two sentences. Super tiny paragraphs like that are discouraged because they make the flow of text feel choppy.
  • From "Conception", "Development and pre-production", "Post-production", and "Special effects", I'd avoid having two sentences in a row begin with "Lucas", and there's a similar issue with "Spielberg" under "Writing"
  • Within "Casting", remove the colon from "Those considered for the role included"
  • The use of "Ironically" from "Ironically, the actors' strike of 1980" is inappropriate editorializing
  • Not sure what you mean by "hold their own" from "who could hold their own against their male counterparts"
  • "after his wife's grandmother"..... grandmother-in-law
  • "because the pay was better"..... it offered more money
  • For "Filming", I think you can guess my thoughts on opening two straight sentences with "the", and its last paragraph should be merged to expanded to avoid looking so stubby
  • "Post-production lasted a few months"..... can you be more precise on whether this was 3, 4, or 5?
  • Three consecutive sentences starting with "he" under "Music" is even worse than the prior concerns of two in a row.
  • From "Stunts", the term "several" is an ambiguous word that's best avoided whenever more specific descriptions can be used, its first paragraph should be expanded/merged, and too many sentences from its second paragraph start with "the"
  • "Allen was reportedly so scared"..... any confirmation or denial on this?
  • It should be obvious by now what I'd do with the fourth paragraph's use of "the" to begin sentences in "Stunts"
  • "Visuals and sound" has a bit of repetition with "Slocombe" openers
  • Expectations on Superman II don't seem very relevant here, and neither do the other 1981 films predicted to earn the most money that year
  • Wanna guess what's wrong with the first paragraph of "Critical response"?
  • "Several reviewers noted the film's PG rating"..... I'd use "asserted" or "believed" instead of "noted", and see my previous comments on "several"
  • Spell out Videocassette recorder for "Home media". Don't just assume all readers will know what "VCR" stands for, though it's fine include that abbreviation right next to it in parantheticals.
  • Link the first instance of VHS, and it looks like you forgot a comma after its mention within "Like the VHS it was a success".
  • Another misuse of a colon for the overly short first paragraph of "Other media", and almost every sentence of its second paragraph starts with "The" or "A".
  • "There is irony in the Nazis attempting to use a Jewish artifact to subjugate the world"..... see my prior comments on using "ironically"
  • Wanna guess how the third paragraph from "Cinematic homage and nostalgia" could be improved?
  • Under "Legacy", it feels like puffery to say "significant and lasting impact" when you could simply say "lasting impact" or "major impact"
  • Don't italicize Rotten Tomatoes from "Modern reception", and try not to have back-to-back "In *year*" sentences (this is how literally each one from the fourth paragraph starts!)
  • "Several publications have ranked it as one of the greatest films of all time, including:"..... do I have to spell it out again?
  • "A 2013 episode"..... "A 2014 essay"..... see where I'm going? You could at least mention the Esquire writer by name.
  • The last paragraph from "Prequel, sequels and adaptations" could use some elaboration
  • Remove the italics from "Creative Bloq", "Cinephelia & Beyond", "Syfy", and "Collider"
  • How trustworthy are "Moviefone", "Screen Rant", "SuperHeroHype", "TravelPulse", and "The Ringer"?
  • "Slashfilm" → "/Film'
  • Ref#194 has a stray comma in its title
  • Capitialize the W for Wired (magazine)

While this definitely needs some work to become FA-material, instinct tells me you can spruce it up enough within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

OK I think I've hit all your points. As for the website reliability, can I just say how much I hate Infinite Scroll stopping you getting to the bottom of a webpage. MovieFone has an About Us page and it's a long standing company, it's been around forever and reliability is the foundation it was built on. TravelPulse is owned by a big company as well and has a named page of editors and senior staff. ScreenRant has robust pages about About Us, Press Kit, and Fact Checking Policy. It does allow for contributors but you have to link to previously published works. The Ringer is another major website owned by Spotify, and they are currently hiring a new Fact Checker. SuperHeroHype is owned by Mandatory (formerly CraveOnline) which in turn is owned by Evolve Media. It's a big fish but the site itself doesn't have much in the way of policy. Given the thing it is sourced, I can easily replace this one if necessary. RE: The Superman and other films stuff, it's context for the year and what Jones is competing with. I used it to similar effect on Ghostbusters II to show how it was expected to beat those films and didn't. Here it's showing Superman II et al. were expected to do well and Jones wasn't, which is relevant later in the BO section when we get into discussing Raiders's phenomenal success, and Superman II is also brought up in the themes section, so I think for the size of the content, it provides much needed context and setup for later references. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
This is looking better. I did a bit of copyediting myself here, and have no qualms with File:Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular! (8187488890).jpg. Getting into the last section, it wouldn't hurt to add some bits on how novels, comic books, and video games expand on stories of Dr. Jones et al. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
OK I will take a look tonight/tomorrow, feeling pretty wrecked today. Thanks for your input Snuggums it's much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi SNUGGUMS, I've added an expanded segment on this touching on the notable legendary items and quests he is involved in in novel/comic/game form. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Huaynaputina[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • Making a placeholder for myself. Won't say much for now beyond smoothing the language in the early sentence: "Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andean Volcanic Belt, it is the product of the subduction of the oceanic Nazca tectonic plate beneath the continental part of the South American tectonic plate." Why so cumbersome? Why not something like:
  • "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it was formed when the oceanic Nazca Plate subducted under the continental South American Plate and its molten contents were forced up?"
  • Notes: this is the lead. Its language should be accessible and explain the science easily. "Central Volcanic Zone" redirects to a section of the AVB, so no need to repeat. No need to explain either that the SA plate might have an oceanic half, but some clue should be given of its birth (without going into the convection in the mantle). More later. Good to see this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is better, but the past tense is problematic (subduction is still occurring and Huaynaputina still exists and still could erupt again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Would something like, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate and by the former's molten contents being forced up" be better? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like I missed one other issue ... " and by the former's molten contents being forced up" isn't really how the process works. The article does not discuss this but the main process is the release of fluids by the downgoing slab into the overlying mantle, which causes the latter to melt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, then how about, "Lying in the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, it has been formed by the subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate under the continental South American Plate whose mantle in molten form has been forced up."? (i.e. without going into the finer details of the process at this stage, but then adding a sentence or two in an appropriate later section.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's in, minus the last sentence which isn't supported by the rest of the article (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Second paragraph, lead
  • During the Holocene,
  • "During" has the meaning of "throughout," or "in the time of" and is more commonly applied to a time that has ended.
  • Better in my view: "In the Holecene ..."
  • Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa,
  • Arequipa was established in 1540, and after 60 years, it was most likely still a colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view: the "town of" or "the settlement of" (later on we say "Arequipa Metropolitan Area" so people will know soon enough that it is a city now.)
I think that by contemporary definition it would be considered a "city". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • this eruption measured 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index
  • This index was not around then and is quite likely based on historical reconstructions
  • Better in my view: this eruption has been computed to measure 6 on ..."
  • infrastructure a
  • "infrastructure" is a modern word (ca. 1920s or 30s), with its meaning these days including power-plants, highways, airports, ports, dams, railroad tracks and whatnot.
  • Better in view: "the foundations of buildings" (if that is what is meant; if not, perhaps you can explain a little more what is)
  • It's a bit more the modern meaning, not simply architecture. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • economic resources
  • This too is vague in the context of a relatively new colonial settlement.
  • Better in my view to mention the most salient resources by name.
  • I don't think it's that much specified beyond "agriculture". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.
  • There are some coherence issues here: "millions of tons of acid," whose origin and effect are unexplained, appear in the middle of climate. Social upheavals appear between cold waves and the Little Ice Age.
  • Better in my view: The eruption had a significant impact on Earth's climate: temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased; cold waves affected places in Europe, Asia and the Americas; and the climate disruption may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age. Floods, famines, and social upheavals resulted.
  • (Note semi-colons are allowed in lists, especially ones with internal commas.) If the eruption really did have such an impact, then it is likely that floods, famines, and social upheavals were more widespread than in a few countries we are able to list. Also, this was a violent physical event; it is a situation for which we can–without stylistic worries–use the word "impact" in its figurative meaning.
  • That is probably a better formulation, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Third paragraph, lead
  • Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina.
  • Probably better if second Huaynaputina ---> "this volcano." and "This volcano" in the following sentence ---> Huaynaputina
  • lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity.
  • Better in my view to make the clause restrictive: i.e. "lies in a remote region in which there is little human activity."
  • Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area.
  • "Even so" is probably more precise than "still," or "Although H. lies in a remote region, there are ..." (but this is not a biggie; I use "still")
  • "Surrounding area" can mean "immediately surrounding area," which can be confusing; better in my view: there are about 30,000 people living in its proximity, and another 1 million ..."
  • That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption.
  • occurred--> were to occur
  • likely--> quite likely. (Your last volcano article was written in British/Commonwealth English which shuns the adverb "likely," a relatively recent Americanism, preferring "very likely." In this instance, the more modest "quite likely" is probably better. (Note: I tend to use only "likely" myself, though usually in informal situations.)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Source review[edit]

  • Text-source integrety okay per previous FAC. I did noticed two more citations with improper name formatting. In FN 151, van den is part of the surname. In FN176 there is a double surname again formatted as a non-Spanish surname. Check if that is consistent throughout. FN160 seems dead. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Femkemilene:Corrected, with the catch that I don't know much about the formatting of Spanish (sur)names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

London and North Western Railway War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Image review

  • Images are missing alt texts
  • File:Drawing_of_London_and_North_Western_Railway_War_Memorial_in_The_Builder.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Reginald Wynn Owen died on 15 May 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Alt text added (not sure how good or useful it is, though; happy to take advice on improvements). RWO's dates added to the description page on Commons out of an abundance of caution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

SupportI supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Thryduulf

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.
  • The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
    • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
  • Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
    • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
  • Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
    • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
  • Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Trimmed. Thanks for your comments, Chris, and thank you for taking the photos used in the gallery. Just goes to show that you never know what will be useful one day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fulfills my source review. I haven't don't any spot checks, but I don't see a strong reason to at this stage --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. For what it's worth, Hawkeye did a spot check at the ACR; he appears to have copies of some of the books. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Nick-D

I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:

  • The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
  • The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
  • Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

1987 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • removed. I thought it was a commons image.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Dupplin Moor[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle. There are, I believe, sufficient contemporary accounts of the battle, and modern scholars commenting on them, to support the weight of a FA and I have plundered them to the utmost. Any and all constructive criticism is most welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the meaning of the red square vs blue circle on the map? A legend would be useful
Done.
  • Regarding the coats of arms, suggest having a look at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Close_the_coats-of-arms_loophole. If these are kept, several are missing sources.
They have been removed.
  • File:Charge_of_the_Scots_at_Halidon_Hill.jpg: author link goes to a dab page - which one is intended?
Fixed. (James Grant (1822–1887))

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, your suggestions all actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review

Do we need a blockquote in "Location" section? (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Well in my opinion yes, despite my frequent citing of WP:QUOTE to cut down on the use of quotes I believe that in this case it communicates the information well and succinctly and that little or no purpose would be served by paraphrasing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, response above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

I inserted an obvious missing verb, other comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks.
  • between more than 15,000 and 40,000 men—I don't like between more than, just "between" I would have thought?
That is not quite what the source says. I have rewritten to be a little longer but avoid the unwelcome phraseology. My fault, as I was inconsistent and not quite true to the source in the main text - now tidied.
  • Link Fife, Berwick, Dunfermline
Done.
  • Balliol was crowned king of Scotland.—cap King?
Not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Lots of people have been king of Scotland; Balliol was only one of them.
  • from Yorkshire ports on 31 July 1332.—which ports?
The sources sayeth not. Sumption has "three Yorkshire ports"; Nicholson "the Humber"; others either "Yorkshire ports" or have Balliol's force gathering in Yorkshire and sailing to Scotland without explicitly stating that they left via Yorkshire ports. (I could make a good guess based on this, but that would be OR. I assume some chronicle lists the ports - there may or may not be a good reason why the sources don't name them.)
  • Yes, not many realistic options, but if it doesn't say...
Those Scots who had not been killed or captured fled—perhaps Those Scots who were not killed...
Why? What about those who were captured? (Some of whom would have been captured without fleeing? In these sorts of presses it was common for many prisoners to be those dragged semi- or unconscious from the heaps of bodies. This is not explicitly stated by any source, but it is for similar battles which are covered in greater detail, eg Crecy or Agincourt.)
  • I think my ellipsis above has muddied the waters, I wasn't querying the content of the sentence, just the verb tense, i.e were not instead of had not been. Anyway, I'll leave that one with you, otherwise happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
D'oh! Fixed.
Thanks Jimfbleak, appreciated. Your comments to date addressed above. Further eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will take a look soon, might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Patterson 1996 seems to be unused
Odd, but fixed.
  • It looks like the exact date of 21 March for adding to the historic listing needs an exact citation
Oops. Now covered in main text.
  • In the Omrod reference, it might be wise to add the US state for New Haven.
Done.
  • Same comment about the author link for the battle image as Nikkimaria.
Fixed.
  • Do we really need the accessdate for the Weir book?
Removed

Anticipate supporting. I can barely even find things to nitpick here. Very excellent work; some of your best work, Gog. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That is very flattering Hog Farm, especially from someone who themselves knows what it means to generate an account of the nuts and bolts of a large scale of a battle which is a generally comprehensible, coherent account which also covers everything of note in the sources while being true to them and yet manages to of a professional standard. I shall endeavour to maitain the standard. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 4. Did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 21:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Namco[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 18:43, 8 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)
  • 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)

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.
  • Are all eight citations to 2 on the same page?
  • 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.
  • 5: Same as 4, though I would ask what kind of publication this is, as it's a bit unclear to me.
  • 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.
  • 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)

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)

Comments 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)
  • "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)

[To be continued] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:50, 15 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.
    • 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."?
    • "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?
    • 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".
    • "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".
    • 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.
    • "in the 1960s and 1970s" might be better specified as "by 1973".
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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?
    • 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.
  • Keep up the great work!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 13:58, 19 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)

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 does. 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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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)
  • 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
Hope this helps.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: I have addressed your requests.

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)

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)
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)
  • "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)

Jamiroquai[edit]

Nominator(s): 옷OO 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about the English funk and acid jazz band Jamiroquai. They are well known for their music video of "Virtual Insanity" and the song "Canned Heat", the latter which appeared in Napoleon Dynamite. My previous attempts to nominate the article in 2019 failed and understandably so, as it had cluttered writing and excessive detail, but has now improved in comparison. I've worked on this since 2018, which has been challenging but rewarding, as I've learned alot from it. This article is in hopes that it will represent the band's artistry and success above all the tabloids and sensationalism that overshadowed them. Thank you and I hope this passes. I want to give a special thanks to Ceoil for helping out. With his guidance, this article will age like fine wine. 옷OO 17:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Ceoil and MaranoFan because I should have done so earlier. 웃OO 03:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • What are the copyright statuses of the headdresses? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY-SA 2.0, CC-BY 2.0. Or were you referring to the headdresses themselves? 옷OO 22:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The headdresses themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I never knew that there would be guidelines for clothing. If need be, the images could be removed from the article. Though they have been photographed by photographers releasing their work under CC. Overall, I'm unsure of the licensing regarding this. 옷OO 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
As per commons:COSTUME, costumes can receive copyright protection when distinct from clothing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess what I can come up with as an argument is that he isn't portraying as anyone else but himself. (though there could be some issue with the native american headdress) some of his hats are designed by himself, otherwise the other designers, such as one who created the Automaton LED hat, would create them for the brand of Jamiroquai. The photos taken are also freely licensed as well. I also want to add that they are all concert photography which is generally acceptable. 옷OO 01:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, but the photographers can only release the rights to their photographs, not to the designs which are not theirs. Is there any indication these designs have been freely licensed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I keep eyeing this quote: "If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature, or one among many costumes, it is likely to be considered de minimis." it's probably the best representative for the situation is it portrays him performing in a concert. But also the issue may just be the three images in the artistry section that give them closer looks to illustrate the hats apart from the other photos where the Kay the singer is singing zoomed out in the photo. Other than that, determining the license of headgear and such is beyond my knowledge. 옷OO 01:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, please provide a better caption for the image identifying the band members by name according to their position in the infobox. Consider cropping out the guy on the left if he's not important, as it would make the rest of the image much easier to see at the infobox size. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for removing the headdress pics. I feel like the infobox pic before at [9] gives a slightly better view of the band. Though the purpose I had with the images of the band was too illustrate the band's lineup from the left side of the stage to the right. 옷OO 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 15:55, 18 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)

Older nominations[edit]

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?

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)

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,” [10]. 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, Willbb234Talk (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, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

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

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

All About That Bass[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "All About That Bass", which she initially offered to other artists but decided to record herself. It reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s in the United States, earning two Grammy nominations. Over the past few days, I started rewriting it "from the bottom to the top". After a copyedit from Baffle gab1978 and peer review comments by Aoba47 and SandyGeorgia, I am confident about this article. It is quite large so thanks to everyone who will take the time to offer their feedback here.--NØ 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/All About That Bass/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

♫ Guess who's back, back again? ♫ Wait a moment, wrong track :P. On a more serious note, I'll start by assessing the files used here:

  • File:Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (Official Single Cover).png has an appropriate FUR
  • No issues with File:L.A. Reid.jpg or File:Meghan Trainor (15378489253).jpg
  • As far as I can tell, File:All About That Bass by Meghan Trainor (sample).ogg meets WP:SAMPLE
  • I'm not sure how File:All About That Bass screenshot.jpg benefits the article per WP:NFCC#8
  • While File:MinajHammersteinBallroomNYC.jpg and File:Jennifer Lopez at GLAAD Media Awards.jpg are free of copyright, they feel more decorative here than anything else, so I don't recommend including either

Other details will follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review! I removed the Minaj and Lopez pics and added a screenshot that would be more beneficial for readers' understanding. Looking forward to your other comments ;)--NØ 17:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, and this portion of the article now passes when the critical commentary focused on File:All About That Bass screenshot.png is definitely a better inclusion that the previous video screenshot. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • July 2013 is actually when the song was written, not necessarily recorded (all I can say for sure from the given link is how recording took place in between that month and January 2014)
  • Kadish says he finished the demo two to three days after the session and confirms it is the version that was released: "what I sent her is what you hear on the radio", this is also confirmed by Reid here.
  • Not sure why the US of all places is being singled out within the lead among the many charts it topped. Perhaps you could rework this so it says something along the lines of "These included ________, where it also received multi-platinum certifications" after mentioning how it went number one in 58 nations?
  • I changed it to a mention of its US sales record.
  • Is "played an important role in the song's rise to prominence" based on the subsequent "rock star in two days" bit regarding the music video?
  • That and its viewcount.
  • Since "attractive" is an inherently subjective description (people's tastes widely vary on what does/doesn't look good), I'd scrap "conventionally attractive"
  • Removed.
  • Two reviews on their own don't seem like much to substiantiate "Some" from "Some music critics viewed 'All About That Bass' as a novelty song"
  • Added more.
  • For the accolades it only got nominated for, let's mention who won instead
  • I guess this is considered out-of-scope, since the FAs I was looking at—Shake It Off and Blank Space—do not include it.
  • Is it known when the video was filmed?
  • I don't think so.
  • Try to avoid having super short paragraphs like the first and third ones from "Background and concept"; that makes the text flow seem choppy
  • Fixed that one.
  • Something about the tone of "essential" from "Social media was an essential factor" doesn't feel optimal
  • Rephrased.
  • "Cracked" → Cracked.com
  • Done.
  • "2014–16" from "Live performances" should be "2014–2016"
  • Fixed.
  • "Cover versions" is better off being its own section instead of a subsection of "Cultural impact"
  • Split.
  • Don't italicize Digital Spy, AllMusic, or CBS News
  • Done.
  • Today (American TV program) should have italics
  • Done.
  • I can't say for certain whether Stereogum or Idolator are supposed to be italicized
  • Apparently, they should be italicized per this discussion.
  • Salon isn't the strongest of sources to use
  • Removed.
  • "The Huffington Post" → HuffPost
  • Fixed.
  • "top40.nl" should read Dutch Top 40
  • Done.

Once these are resolved, I'm sure the article will be closer to FA-material. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, SNUGGUMS. :) I made the changes and have responded above.--NØ 04:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I now support the nomination. My bad on recording time (I initially misunderstood the demo part when reading about it). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am less certain about the music video screenshot. I understand SNUGGUMS' comment about the original screenshot, and I do understand the purpose of it as it does illustrate a common point of criticism directed at the video. I just have not seen a screenshot used to emphasize negative reviews, and I would like to hear @SNUGGUMS:'s perspective on this as they are far more experienced than I am. I was just under the impression that images were not used to focus on negative reviews, but avoiding that completely may cause some NPOV issues. If the current screenshot is kept, I would move it down to the "Reception" subsection as it is more about the critical response to the video.
  • In the "Critical reception" section, the first sentence of the first paragraph has four citations. I understand why the citations are there to support that information, but to prevent citation overkill, I would encourage you to bundle the citations instead.

Thankfully, I was able to get around my current computer issues by figuring out how to connect my wireless keyboard to my computer. I had participated in the last peer review for this article, and all of my comments were addressed there. I just have two quick comments (i.e. a question about the music video screenshot and a recommendation about citation bundling), and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Criterion #8 of WP:Non-free content criteria is Contextual significance, requiring that files such as these help illustrate a point more easily for viewers when text alone wouldn't be helpful enough. I've seen other pages use screenshots featuring aspects of videos that get criticized by reviewers, especially during instances where it sparked controversy. In this case, I feel the image of twerking helps give readers a better sense of what the complaints were about. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the very quick response. That makes sense to me so the image seems appropriate to me now. I have moved it down to the "Reception" subsection per my suggestion above as I think it is a better fit there, but feel free to revert if you disagree. Thank you again for the help. It is always nice to learn something new about Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, Aoba47. I removed the AllMusic ref. The other three are cited multiple times so bundling them could cause confusion. And as for the music video screenshot, I do agree it looks more relevant in the reception section :)--NØ 06:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Buidhe[edit]

I am also not convinced about the screenshot. The description already in the text of the scene is sufficient to understand why critics objected, I am not convinced that its "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. It is not the specific action of twerking that is significant here but its cultural identification with a specific group of people, so I don't think the visual is necessary. Likewise, I am concerned that it highlights a negative aspect of reception that barely gets 2 sentences in the article, thus potentially being a POV issue especially considering BLP implications. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, I will remove it if you insist. However, I think the screenshot is demonstrating a number of things in this section—the pastel pink backdrop, the "retro pop world" comment, Trainor's size (which resulted in a debate), the dance sequence and colorful sets being designed to attain online popularity, the "Baby Got Back" influence, finally the accusations of cultural appropriation—the latter is just the one I considered the most worthy of being the caption. So I do see its omission being detrimental to readers' understanding of this section.--NØ 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see that, but if it's being retained for other uses, I would change the caption to reflect that, rather than giving undue prominence to cultural appropriation claims by repeating them in the caption. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Done, thank you for the comment!--NØ 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Is fn 11, 153, 163 necessary?
  • None were, so I removed them.
  • I am not exactly certain of this, but I believe titles/references are supposed to be converted as if they were prose. For example, All About That Bass would be "All About That Bass" and Billboard would be Billboard in a title parameter.
  • Done.
  • fn 24 is not the Cape Cod Times; unsure of its reliability too.
  • I removed its usage for the musical elements. I hope it's fine to keep the interview-sourced details since its video is linked at the bottom of the article, and no replacements were found.
  • Is it the only source for the music video elements like director and filming period? If you want to keep her quote maybe I'd just cite a timestamp from the audio interview on YouTube, so we can be certain the quotes are correct. Also "Trainor described Robinson as "the best of the best" and credited her for making Trainor" doesn't really make sense; Trainor credited her for making Trainor?
  • For the filming period, yes. Retargeted this to the video itself.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stereogum is italicized in prose but not citations?
  • All italicized now.
  • fn 54/165 are not a Vogue article
  • They aren't but they confirm the claim they are used to cite, since the Vogue article itself seems to have been deleted.
  • I would suggest removing the New York Post ref given the sentiment surrounding it in general (WP:NYPOST).
  • Removed.
  • fn 80 url is dead
  • Archive added.
  • the music video really premiered on Idolator?!
  • I was shocked too, lol. The YouTube upload date is the following day.
  • I suggest adding the archived url from archive.today
  • Added.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the reliability of The Fader?
  • WP:RSMUSIC considers it reliable and Larry Fitzmaurice, the author, has written for Pitchfork, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, etc., so I do not have any reservations about him.
  • fn 177 is HuffPost Canada, not HuffPost
  • Fixed.
  • fn 190 Billboard Brasil should be italicized
  • Done.
  • fn 199 dead
  • Marked dead, archive already present.
  • suggest changing itunes links that redirect to apple music to apple music links
  • Amended.
  • fn 87 doesn't reflect the figure cited; looks like it's for "On The Floor".
  • Fixed.
  • should be clear in the certifications table that 10 million US figure is units not sales? (currently no symbol is listed)
  • Done.
  • for Spain, platinum streaming certification = 8 million units?
  • The template automatically generates 8 million streams for a Plat cert, while Promusicae states it is 10 million streams; for now I am trusting the former. Please feel free to suggest otherwise.
  • Template:Certification Table Entry cites the Wikipedia article as the source... maybe add refs that indicate the threshold amount/definition of all the certifications too? (I realize that's a lot, but Meghan Trainor required refs for the discography section, and that's for something with an article, bu this is via a template). For the sake of accuracy I would prefer to rely on a direct source rather than a template that apparently cites Wikipedia articles. It appears the Spain certification threshold is here, so the 8 million looks correct. Heartfox (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I just realized that the PDF that opens from the reference link includes the streams. There is only one asterisk in front of "All About That Bass" and if you scroll down they confirm it is just "Disco de oro" (Gold) = "4 million escuchas" (4M streams).--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • didn't do text–source spot checks
  • sources not noted above are suitable for their usage, Heartfox (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Italicize the second instance of "X Factor UK" in prose
  • Done.--NØ 06:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a better source for South Africa certification than a Sony tweet (it should be template:cite tweet either way, not web)?
  • No, removed.--NØ 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 246 url-access=subscription. Maybe re-check the other Billboard ones as well.
  • Done.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Recheck the non-English refs and add language= parameter to those without it.
  • Done. Please let me know about any specific one I may have still missed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 238, 243
  • It appears the Hungarian chart ref live links have changed. Heartfox (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--NØ 06:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think fn 93 title would be 03.11.2014 - 09.11.2014
  • the trans-title parameter should be added for those with non-English language titles (e.g., fn 98, 109, 125, 192) (some have them already, but some don't)
  • Not sure where fn 87, 102, 112 publisher are coming from. What companies are "Top 40 Singles", "Top Digital Download", "Canciones Top 50"? These seem to be chart names but are used as the publisher?
  • fn 122 website title looks to be El Portal de Música Heartfox (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartfox, most of these are what is automatically transcluded through the singlechart templates. Their use is recommended, and can be seen on longstanding featured articles like Diamonds (Rihanna song) and Blank Space. With all due respect, it is not fair to task me to change them all manually for a song that charted in, like, 200 countries. If you want to change them on a large scale, start a discussion at Template talk:Single chart. I have fixed some of these out of courtesy.--NØ 05:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 104 is dead.
  • fn 196 missing trans-title.
  • fn 208 missing language
  • fn 202 "Adult Pop Songs" is not on the page.
  • Adult Top 40 is Adult Pop Songs.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 224, 238 is not in English
  • weekly Hungary Radios Top 40: there are two consecutive parentheses. Heartfox (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Addressed, Heartfox.--NØ 08:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartfox, does the source review pass now? It will make the coords' work easier if this is stated explicitly.--NØ 11:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • fn 128 does not seem to indicate filming occurred over a two day period. Also url-status=live. Heartfox (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Addressed. Note that Heartfox indicated this was the last of their concerns, on their talk page, so this concludes the source review.--NØ 04:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I noted issues to the people at the certifications template, and Template:Singlechart's code is fully protected, so major overhauls which I believe are necessary would unlikely be completed in a timely matter. I will say this source review passes as I would not oppose when certain things are out of the contributor's reasonable control. MaranoFan, I know you want to nominate other articles but telling the coords "this concludes the source review" yourself feels a bit over-the-top to me. It's not like I'm going on vacation tomorrow... I tried to be as thorough as possible and would hope proper citation formatting and taking advantage of appropriate parameters is in the best interest of an article, especially one to exemplify "Wikipedia's very best work ". Heartfox (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. After reading the article (twice) I could not find any grammar mistakes. It is a well-written, extensive, and well-detailed article about an essential commercially-succesful song. The sources seem to be reliable and images well-used as well. Congratulations! — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

2017 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The oldest association football cup in the world, and 2017 was a veritable Clash of the Titans. An enjoyable read hopefully, full of lovey descriptive prose. Fingers crossed you can make both heads and tails of it. As always, I'll be my ever-diligent self when it comes to addressing all reasonable comments. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed. I edited to remove sandwiching which had been present. (t · c) buidhe 19:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility: The route to the finals tables should have captions. Some images are missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Heartfox all addressed and I added alt text to the kit too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Great! Heartfox (talk) 21:28, 28 March 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
  • London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea - do we need "London rivals" here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see why not. It might not even be clear to some people that both clubs are based in London. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's also a weird sea of blue, I think it wouldn't be too bad, but there are a lot of top end London rivals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree there other other rivalries, but given there's even an article specifically about this one, I don't see it's harmful in any way, indeed it gives context to the perhaps edginess of the match. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It was the 136th FA Cup final overall and was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup), organised by the Football Association (FA) - I feel the bit about it being the final of the FA Cup is a little more relevant than it being the 136th edition of it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't really follow. These are all relevant facts, it says it's the final, acknowledging that it's the 136th edition of it demonstrates the provenance of the competition. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No, I mean the order. So, mention the match is the final of the competition, and then that it was the 136th edition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • But the two facts are literally side by side! It would look really bizarre to say "it was the final ... and the 136th final..." The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • first final since 2003 in which both sides split the league games against each other during the course of the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017. - I think we could re-write this in such a way that would mean you don't need to know about the premier league. Maybe "The two sides had met twice in the Premier League in the season, with a 3–0 victory by Arsenal in September 2016, and a 3–1 win by Chelsea in February 2017, the first time since 2003 the sides had won once against each other coming into the final." or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Minor reword. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The game was broadcast live in the United Kingdom by both BBC and BT Sport. BBC One provided the free-to-air coverage and BT Sport 2 was the pay-TV alternative - I don't think we should mention "free-to-air" or "pay-TV", as arguably you have to pay to watch either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    No, I think "free to air" is common usage for broadcast on things like ITV and BBC, it means that no additional fees have to be paid to see it. In any case, we all know it's possible to watch the BBC without paying anything at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "chested it down", whilst I don't want to stifle regular wordings, this doesn't add much to "recieve the ball".Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, for the lead I've removed that detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The goal by Ramsey should really mention that he was an Arsenal player, as we've just talked about Chelsea scoring.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • champions for the 2017 FA Community Shield. - in the 2017.... I know technically it is for the Shield, but we are saying they qualified to play in a match.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't follow, sorry, they earned the right to play for the Shield. That's what they did and that's what it says? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • I think I've suggested this before on another FAC, but could we have a little bit of background for the FA Cup, what it is, how its played etc.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've added a link to 2016–17 FA Cup which, in turn, will link back to FA Cup. I think the gist of the competition is best described in one or both of those articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth relinking the Arsenal and Chelsea teams in the prose.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I've never noticed this before, but why do we link the away stadiums in the route to the final table under "A"? If we need to have the links, surely there should be another column. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think so. We don't need the links, but they might be interesting and useful. If you don't think they're useful, I can just unlink them, but that goes against other similar articles where this has never been a problem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'd never noticed this before. I suspect I'd have to take it to WT:FOOTY, but I suspect the answer will be "it's always done like this", but it's a little WP:EASTEREGGY to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Well the facts are already in the prose, so this is just a synopsis of that really. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • London rivals Tottenham Hotspur - do we need these links next to each other?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Well I've been told at least a dozen times that two links side-by-side don't constitute a sea of blue. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, but it was yourself who actually told me it was! What about "London rival" club Tottenham Hotspur to avoid all of this? It's a bit interesting to me, as the article isn't on London rivalries, it's on the specific rivalry between the two clubs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Reworded a bit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • previously (in 1930, 1936, 1950, 1971, 1979, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2014 and 2015) - this does feel a bit overkill. Maybe as a note? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Same as lede with the PayTV dealio. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    See above. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • qualified for the 2017–18 UEFA Europa League group stage, having failed to qualify fo the 2017–18 UEFA Champions League - had they not already qualified for the Europa League from finishing 5th? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, good spot, the end of the season was a bit of a mixture with qualifications when United won the Europa League etc... Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have no idea how the qualification works for that tournament, other than they would have had a position regardless of the result. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • There's on ref for Metro - I think this is generally regarded as unreliable (I don't use it for snooker articles for that reason)
    Replaced and reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski thanks, I've taken a stab at your comments. Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to support, although I would say that I'm not the biggest fan of the links for the (H) and (A) in the table to the stadiums. Not enough to cause a fuss, but I'd say it probably is a question needing to be asked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 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) 15:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As noted before, I have been warned not to solicit reviews from others by a co-ord so I guess this one is destined to fail for no good reason. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 18 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 [11], 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)

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)

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[12] 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)

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)

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)
  • "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,"
      • Resolved all--I hope you could continue with the prose. HĐ (talk) 01:12, 20 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)

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]

Resolved
  • The "one song" from "Orrall produced one song, and Nathan Chapman produced the remaining" in the lead should be mentioned by name ("The Outside"). Also, this setence structure gives a misleading impression that it was the only track Chapman didn't do any production for.
    • An "additional producer" is fundamentally different from a record producer. It's hard to explain, but they are different in nature. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • How in the world are those not the same? The word "additional" indicates there were multiple producers involved. On another note, one thing I forgot to mention earlier is that all single release dates should be cited, whether in infobox or article prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Not sure, but at Template:Infobox album#producer this distinction does exist--I'm guessing "additional producer" signifies one that does not produce the track as a whole, but only contributes to a small portion. The album booklet also says that Orrell is the producer of "The Outside", and notes Chapman as "additional". HĐ (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it known what Faith Hill documentary made Taylor decide to move to Nashville? I couldn't find its title here.
    • This source mentions that it is a VH1 documentary, no exact title was given however. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "the sole writer of three and co-writer of eight" sounds like it's missing "a" before "co-writer", or perhaps you could say "co-wrote eight"
    • Added. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If you can find out which specific months in 2005 this album was recorded, then I'd add them
    • Nothing thus far. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not only is "He produced all songs but one, 'The Outside', which was produced by Orrall" unsupported by the attributed ref, but the tracklisting credits contradict that "all songs but one" bit. In reality, that's just the sole track Chapman didn't produce on his own.
    • C/e'd. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "every time he hears their mutual favorite Tim McGraw song"..... a name would be nice
    • Swift said that it was "Can't Tell Me Nothin'", but given that "Can't Tell Me Nothin'" does not have a standalone article, and that the title of the song is not in the lyrics, I wonder if this would be notable--I think this info better fits or the "Tim McGraw" article. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone doesn't specify what "I'll tell mine you're gay" got changed into. Also, you're missing "like" within the "I love a line in a song where afterward you're just ... burn" quote it mentions, and the "burn" shouldn't be italicized.
    • The changed lyric is mentioned in the latter source, I believe. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Just found the revised lyrics here. Thanks for pointing that out. My comments on the "burn" quote still stand, though. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • The burn is italicized in the quote.. do you think it is appropriate to de-italicize it? HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "hit" from "a crossover hit at pop radio" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
    • Done. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "a number-one country single" makes it sound like "Our Song" was the first song in country music to top the Billboard Hot 100 or another nation's primary chart (it peaked at 16 in the US, which I feel is worth a precise mention). You should be more precise and say this actually was the first to reach the summit of the Hot Country Songs.
    • Done. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The attribution for generally favorable reviews and "keen observations and perspectives" seems like WP:SYNTH. Pitchfork actually writes "Taylor Swift was beloved as much by Southern teens as by critics, for its ear for detail and prickliness". To my shock, I couldn't find any Metacritic listing for the album, or I'd say use that. I still recommend looking for another piece.
    • "keen observations and perspectives" may be undue, but do you think another way of paraphrasing should be acceptable? I'm thinking of "capturing emotions with vivid details in her songwriting". HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Taylor Swift actually stayed on the Billboard 200 for 277 weeks, not just 275.
    • That's probably a glitch. Chart history says 275. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • In that case, I'd replace the used link with this chart history URL you've provided here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I kept it to add info about the date as of when it logged such weeks. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd keep Australian certification details with the country's chart numbers instead of placing New Zealand charts in between them.
    • Done. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are any opening sales figures outside of the US known?
    • Thus far, not really... especially with such low positions. HĐ (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure whether you can access it (requires a subscription), but apparently the album has sold 167,000 copies in the UK.
  • "over 5.534 million copies worldwide" is quite outdated, and that's especially obvious by how the American numbers alone have already surpassed this amount
    • Removed. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Impact and legacy" sounds repetitive. Just use one term or the other in its section title.
    • "Impact" is for the album's reception that is outside critical and commercial data/numbers, and "legacy" is for the album's reception years after its initial release. While these are not mutually exclusive, as I explained to another editor above, I think this title is appropriate. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Music journalists attributed the album's success to Swift's songwriting and online marketing strategy" sounds like it's more relevant for "Commercial performance".
    • I feel like placing it here would be more appropriate, as it includes critical commentary on why the album was particularly successful and not the chart/sales data numerically. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's already obvious that Chapman was a producer for "The Outside", so it's needlessly redundant to single him out in "Track listing" with a "additional producer" note.
    • Per my previous comment. HĐ (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "Notes" should be placed as a subheading under "References"
    • Done. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title when that can also potentially refer to works written by a subject. I recommend renaming it.
    • Should "Literature" be appropriate? It's kinda funny as when I FAC'ed 1989, the section had been named "Cited literature" before some editor told me to rename it. I'm open to discussion however. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • You forgot to add the author name (Hoda Kotb) to Ref#19
    • Added. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, SNUGGUMS. I have responded above. Let me know if you have any follow-ups! HĐ (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
My pleasure. Just a few things left to do other than removing italics from "burn" (where those were used for emphasis when those should be saved for identifying titles of works within Wikipedia entries). You still need to add sources for single release dates ("Tim McGraw" is the only one to currently cite such detail), UK sales should be added to "Commercial performance" (not just talking about certifications), the "favorite Tim McGraw son" is fine to identify by name here when that wouldn't take up much space (you can fill in a..... Blank Space there :P), and using something like "Print sources" or "Book sources" when renaming "Bibliography" will suffice (I've never seen "Cited literature" before and that feels a bit repetitive when you already have a "citations" subheading). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Done all, I believe :) HĐ (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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 ([13]). 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)

Coordinator comment[edit]

  • This is three weeks in and the nomination shows little sign of a gathering consensus to support. Unless activity here picks up considerably over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived.
Have you contacted all of the editors who have commented on previous FAC nominations of this? Do you have any favours you can call in?
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild I have asked a couple of users to give their feedback on the FAC. Can you please do me a favor and try to hold this open for some time? Thanks in advance! — Tom(T2ME) 08:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that there are a couple of general reviews ongoing. So long as they move along in a reasonably timely fashion the nomination is unlikely to be archived for lack of comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from MaranoFan[edit]

  • The first sentence would be more effective if "that was" was removed: "'Can't Get You Out of My Head' is a song recorded by Australian singer Kylie Minogue for her eighth studio album Fever (2001)". I don't think that arrangement would be grammatically incorrect since I have seen it on many articles.
  • I would change "Record label Parlophone" to "Parlophone Records" as natural disambiguation is usually preferable
  • I am not sure a link to Record chart in the lead is necessary. Just "The song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries" works too in my opinion.
  • Capitalizing the first letter in certification names, "Gold", "Platinum", etc. is optimal.
  • I don't think I understand your query here?
  • "Gold", not "gold", and "Platinum", not "platinum", etc.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and was Minogue's breakthrough US commercial success" -- While I personally agree, these two sentences being merged gives the impression this was the first time she reached the US top 10. Maybe try "the song peaked at number seven on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, Minogue's first top 10 in 13 years".
  • "Minogue has included it on the set lists of most of her concert tours" -- Most of is a specific claim that would require a source. "Various" or "many of" would be a safer word choice.
  • Were the decade-end lists it appeared on commercial or critical?
  • It is obvious from the name of the lists that is critical inclusion, not commercial. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would include the nationalities of Dennis and Davis while introducing them
  • Link: Loop (music)
  • "Three and a half hours" should have a nbsp. Same with "three minutes and fifty seconds"
  • Actually, that's optional. "All About that Bass" does not have that either. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The guideline is at MOS:NBSP if you are interested in reading about it. Sure it is optional but it is recommended.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dennis later said" -- Mention when this was
  • "a "la la la" hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part" -- by whom?
  • The source reviewer can decide whether this is appropriate to use for the song's composition, but it is odd it doesn't mention the critic's name
  • I mean it would be great to have a name too, but it is a BBC review, so I am pretty sure it is reliable. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • See if it might be possible to paraphrase some of the more lengthy quotes in the Composition and lyrical interpretation section.
  • This has been done a lot since the beginning. Did our best. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure why the other songs' composition is relevant here: "On the album, 16 of Minogue's earlier songs were re-worked and backed by an orchestra"
  • Relevant to distinguish between her regular disco style and something different she did with The Abbey Road Sessions'.
  • That makes sense. But I still don't see the relevance of mentioning there are 16 tracks on it. This isn't the album's article.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some sentences appear to be in passive voice.
  • Can you please specify which ones? — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly, it was the ARIA Charts one which has been removed now. I will try to read the article again at a later date to catch more.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also finding the use of ARIA Charts as a source for composition details a bit iffy
  • The Herald Sun list being compiled in celebration of Minogue's 50th birthday isn't something worth noting in my opinion.
  • Thanks for fixing this but there is a Grammar issue now, since a sentence abruptly begins with "Calling".--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Minogue's own website should definitely not be used to source it reaching number one in every European country except Finland
  • I would remove the Victoria Beckham song's mention. Not relevant since CGYOOMH was not blocked by it.
  • It received enormous media coverage in the UK back then. So I think it would not hurt anyone if that information stayed. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding two more sources after this sentence will help justify its inclusion, to prove it is not undue.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't use Minogue's website as a source for it becoming her best-selling US single since "The Loco-Motion" either.
  • "British fashion designer and Minogue's stylist William Baker" -- "Minogue's stylist" gives enough context so remove "British fashion designer"
  • Were there no regular critical reviews for the music video upon its initial release? The "Impact" section seems comprised entirely of retrospective events.
  • Again, 2001, a long time ago. Most of the sources are had to be found on the Internet nowadays. — Tom(T2ME) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The mash-up performance was ranked at number 40" -- Remove "mash-up" from this sentence as this is already clear in the preceding one.
  • I am pretty sure the Australian charts website can be edited by random people, it shouldn't be used to source Love at First Sight's inclusion as the B-side.
  • Is there no secondary source for her SNL performance? That is quite unlikely.
  • No, there is not. She performed this in 2002, and most of the sources from that time are dead. Same with the GMA performance. That's why I am citing the video. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the second single from Fever", "the fourth single from Fever" -- These do not really contribute to the reader's understanding of the Live performances section.
  • "ninth studio album Body Language, ." -- Punctuation error.
  • The Live performances section relies a lot on primary sources. If these performances really didn't receive coverage in reliable secondary sources then they are being given undue weightage here. Just cover the notable ones.
  • Lee Barron is linked in the prose but not in the ref.
  • A MetroLyrics link would be beneficial in External links, since there is discussion of the song's lyrical content in the article.
  • Actually, I was told to remove that link since MetroLyrics is not really a reliable source. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
A lot of efforts have clearly gone into the article. But I do take concern with the prose and there are some questionable sources used. A good source review will do wonders. Good luck.--NØ 13:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
MaranoFan. Thanks for your comments. I did most of them and also left some replies where I thought it was necessary to clarify things. — Tom(T2ME) 14:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome. I will have to give it another read after the source review to see if I have any more comments. Good to see other reviewers will be posting feedback in the meantime.--NØ 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I figure there is no need for me to be nitpicky about the sourcing when someone who specializes in source reviews will take care of that anyway. Here are the final batch of comments before I support!
  • Link Demo (music) and Single (music) in the Writing and Release section.
  • Stick with either Parlophone Records or just Parlophone, I slightly prefer the former.
  • The New Rolling Stone Album Guide could be wikilinked, also shouldn't this be in italics rather than quotes (it is in the reference)?
  • "hook that is often noted as the song's most appealing part by the music critics" -- "The" could be removed.
  • I would link One night stand as it might help some readers.
  • Are you sure Electronic music shouldn't be linked?
  • I see that the bit about the Orchestra album having 16 tracks is still here. Why?
  • I know neo-disco is linked before, but the first mention of disco should be linked separately. A link to Orchestra probably wouldn't hurt either, for those unfamiliar with the concept.
  • Optionally, the la la la hook could be introduced with a link to Non-lexical vocables in music.
  • PopMatters is italicized on most FAs I have seen.
  • The bit about the Pitchfork writer thinking that it "launched Minogue back into commercial relevance in the US" does not flow with the rest of the paragraph and doesn't sound like a very critical opinion either, could be omitted entirely or maybe incorporated in the Commercial performance section.
  • "The Guardian included the song on their list of The Best Number One Records" -- Assumably referring to UK number-ones? Should be mentioned.
  • Why is Top 40 being capitalized in "UK's Top 40"? It's not the name of the chart, so isn't it referring to just the #1-40 positions on the chart?
  • Introduce Michael Rooney as an American choreographer.
  • "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the music video for "Can't Get You Out of My Head"" -- At this point in the article it is already established which song's video is being talked about, so honestly even just "At the 2002 MTV Video Music Awards ceremony, the video" would work.
  • "In 2009, Minogue performed "a dancetastic rendition" of the song on the "For You, for Me" tour" -- Reframe this to explicitly convey Caulfield was the one who described it as "a dancetastic rendition", or alternatively paraphrase.

--NØ 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • MaranoFan, done all! — Tom(T2ME) 07:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I now support. My final query, which does not hinder my support, is, why are the tour names being put in quotation marks? This seems to be discouraged by WP:TOURDAB. Everything else looks great!--NØ 07:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for supporting! Also, I removed the quotation marks. — Tom(T2ME) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • File:Kylie Minogue - Can't Get You Out of My Head.png has an appropriate FUR
  • It looks like File:Kylie - CGYOMH.ogg meets WP:SAMPLE
  • The lighting for File:Kylie Minogue Can't Get You Out of My Head white dress screenshot.jpg feels subpar with how the jumpsuit blends into it, plus that doesn't give a clear angle of her face
  • File:Kylie Minogue - Golden Tour - Motorpoint Arena - Nottingham - 20.09.18. - ( 23 ) (46464908601).jpg is free of copyright, just change the 19 from "2018–19" in its caption to "2019" since for digits are preferred for years as more complete and professional looking than only using two

More to come later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments 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
  • song that is notable for its "la la la" - I don't think we should specifically say "notable for", we should comment on what critics said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • is narrator really the right word in asong? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Some music critics praised the song's production and Minogue's vocals and labelled it a highlight of Fever. - and others? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • he song peaked at number one on charts in 40 countries including every European country except Finland - There are 50 countries (44 sovreign states) in Europe, so this doesn't ring right. I'd assume you mean it peaked at #1 on all European charts, except the one in Finland? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Austrian charts is the ARIA charts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • link platinum in lede.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • link music video?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Done all of the queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • bpm pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cubase is at a different title, is this right?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • verse-chorus needs an en-dash. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 'la's' " - is the space intentional?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The song was also certified gold in Belgium,[43] and New Zealand,[44] platinum in Austria,[45] France,[46] Germany,[47] Greece,[48] the Netherlands,[49] Norway,[50] South Africa,[51] Sweden[52] and Switzerland;[53] and double-platinum in Italy.[54] As of February 2018, it is Minogue's highest-selling single with worldwide sales of over five million copies.[55] - I feel like we could Bundle the citations rather than have them after each country Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lee Vilenski Could you help me with this (technically)? Honestly, I am not sure how to do it properly (oops!). — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I went to do this, but because you don't actually have citations, (it's a template), it won't work. I would suggest a ref confirming that this is all sourced to the Certification section where there is suitable references, or use {{cite web}} for each of the individual citations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Lee Vilenski Done. Used the first option. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 2002 Brit Awards - pipes to a redirect back to itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • MTV Europe Music Awards - pipes to a redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Glastonbury Festival set - pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The track listing seems a little crufty to me, is this normal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Back in the day there were a lot of single releases, and the label heavily promoted the song, so that is why there are a lot of track listings. Btw, resolved the other queries. — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • Do we need to link to amazon? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we not just cite the release rather than have a link to the product page on Amazon? It's not an RS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's only used for a release format (namely downloads for some alternate mixes and a live performance). Amazon actually is fine for non-contentious details like that, distribution dates, and duration. Its customer reviews on the other hand should be avoided. While one is free to replace it with things like iTunes or Spotify, this is some food for thought. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As Snuggums pointed out, Amazon is fine for formats and release dates. I don't think there is no need to be replaced with a link from Spotify or iTunes/Apple Music, since they are similar platforms as well. — Tom(T2ME) 16:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list.

  • Will check them out soon! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at this before, so hopefully get something up soon.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for the review! — Tom(T2ME) 17:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Resolved
  • From the lead, "notable" from "is notable for its 'la la la' hook" is inappropriate POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • Unlink "obsession" per WP:OVERLINK
  • The term "iconic" from "became an iconic fashion statement" is puffery
  • I don't feel "set lists of various of her concert tours" reads very well. Try "set lists of various concert tours" instead.
  • "has a more-noticeable musical arrangement"..... changed or altered would work better here
  • Much of the first paragraph from "Legacy" (except for the Rolling Stone bit) seems like it's better for critical reception when that seems to focus more on rankings and how much critics liked the song than it does impact, and same goes for awards.
  • Ref#9 and Ref#80 are missing thier release/publication dates (respectively 1 October 2001 and 8 January 2007)
  • Move the 28 December 2002 date from the title in Ref#171 to the "date" parameter
  • Don't italicize "Kylie.com" or News.com.au (which should have an uppercase "N" instead of a lowercase one)
  • While not the worst publication I've come across, I recommend using something stronger than Gigwise for the bit on "A Kylie Christmas".

Get through these (along with changing the caption for one image and using something else for the music video's jumpsuit), and it should be ready to become an FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Thanks for your comments! I resolved all of them with the exceptions of the last one. I really could not find a more reliable source than Gigwise to reference her performance of the song at the 'A Kylie Christmas' concert. It seemed to be under-reported honestly. PS. do you like the new MV screenshot? — Tom(T2ME) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well done! File:Can't Get You Out of My Head MV screenshot.png has much better lighting, so media review passes and I also support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you Snuggums! — Tom(T2ME) 07:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

National Union of Freedom Fighters[edit]

Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a revolutionary group in Trinidad and Tobago in the 1970s. Because most of their leadership was killed, their story was largely untold until after 2000. When I created this article in 2005 the two sentence summary was all I knew, and almost all the attention they received in most sources. Times have changed, and I think this is an episode in our history that's worth documenting. It's been a long time since I've nominated a FAC, but I think it's a viable, and interesting candidate. Guettarda (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

I'm going to review this. The article's short length is manageable for my current schedule. Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

First read-through:

  • The prose is engaging.
  • Inconsistency throughout the article about whether to have a comma after phrases such as "In 1969" and "In February 1970" at the beginning of the sentence.
    I think I got them all. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

  • When I'm doing leads I try to (more or less) give a proportional amount of the text to the amount of text in each section. There doesn't currently seem to be anything in the lead from Background and formation, even through it's a full five paragraphs of text. I haven't specifically checked the other sections, and am not sure how proportional the lead is for them. What would you think about considering going through and making the lead somewhat more proportional?
    Good point. I've rounded off the lead a little more. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wasn't sure what precisely "improved intelligence capabilities" in the lead is referring to in the main text.
    That way my (obviously imperfect) attempt to summarise The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August. Guettarda (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Background and formation:

  • I suggest putting "(PNM)" and "(NJAC)" directly after the first mention of the full name of each, like you have done for "(NUFF)" and "(WOLF)". Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Guettarda (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Great, I'll try to look at your changes and continue with the review soon, hopefully this weekend. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath:

  • "According to historian and former Black Power activist Brinsley Samaroo, Eric Williams, who remained Prime Minister until his death in 1981, was "decidedly harsh"... " It's a bit awkward to have "[name], [name], who..." Also, it's probably relatively clear that the quotation is Williams' words, but could anybody think (even temporarily) that the "According to [name] ...:" structure would suggest the words are Samaroo's? I don't have any easy solutions off the top of my head, but would you have ideas for fixing at least my first issue, and possibly also my second issue (if you think it's valid)? Moisejp (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for these, Moisejp. I believe I have solved the problem. Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there more explanation available about why Samaroo thought Williams' statement was harsh? I understand that the societal issues the rebels were protesting were no doubt valid things to protest, but does the article need more clearly-stated evidence that the police were in fact extremely brutal, and that the rebels' violent measures were the only means they had to bring about change? In itself without extra context, Williams' statement seems a valid point of view. But maybe I'm thinking too much, and the article is not saying Williams was the bad guy, it's simply stating the facts of "Williams said this; Samaroo said that". If so, maybe it would sound more neutral to not frame Williams words around Samaroo's rejection of them. Again, maybe I'm thinking too much here, but I wonder whether even if no bias is intentionally implied, the reader may infer a bias here. Moisejp (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    The solution is actually quite simple: all Samaroo was saying was that unlike his milder criticism of the Black Power movement, Williams was harsh in his criticism of NUFF. But there's a larger problem here - because so little of this exist on Wikipedia, readers can't just click over to other articles to gather more context. I need to think more about how to solve this problem without making the article too broad and diffuse. Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ideology:

  • A few direct quotations in this section seem probably unnecessary to me and could be easily paraphrased, namely: "seemingly anti-sexist"; "had inherited and which, even though the party condemned it, appeared to serve its purposes"; "grew up around members of NUFF"; "traditional roles of cooking and caring". Moisejp (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Trimmed these quotes. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • The Black Power movement is mentioned part way through the Background section, but I believe it's not until the middle of the Guerrilla campaign section that it's explicitly hinted that most or all of the activity between 1970 and 1972 was by "Black radicals" ("Burroughs was seen as a heroic crime-fighter by the middle class and "public enemy number one" by Black radicals"). OK, now I see "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" is also mentioned early on, but I guess I missed this. I leave it up to you about whether you think it is clear enough or whether it be good to mention a little more explicitly that NJAC and WOLF members were predominantly Black. Moisejp (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Serial comma used in "They captured 13 shotguns, a pistol, and ammunition" but not in the next sentence "for Jeffers, Harewood and Jacob". I have a feeling you mostly don't use serial commas but it would be good to have a once-through to make sure it's consistent everywhere. Moisejp (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The possibility of rewards, coupled with the use of harsh interrogation techniques, allowed the police to ambush the northern group at their camp in Valencia on 28 August." Don't know if it's explicitly stated in the source, but I imagine this means the police got information about the group's whereabouts through people coming forward for rewards, and through interrogation, and thus they knew where to ambush the group. If this information is available in the source, it would be better fill in this extra logical step in the text. Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government." For such a broad statement, would it be better to say something like "Historian Jan Kippers Black has argued that NUFF never posed a serious threat to Eric Williams' government"? Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have finished my second read-through. When the last points above are addressed I'm expecting to support. I still am not 100% sure there is no small unintended bias towards NUFF as the good guys and Williams as the bad guy, but that's just a vague uncertainty, and I can't put my finger on exactly what would make it so; if no other reviewers think so, I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt. (I actually don't have much experience reviewing such political uprising kind of articles, and am not sure what is a normal balance of details when describing insurgencies by an oppressed group.) Moisejp (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moisejp: I agree with you about the bias. The problem is that the sources tend to see NUFF sympathetically (seeing them as misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal) and Williams less so. Samaroo was active in the Black Power movement, while Meeks arrived in Trinidad just after, and seems to have known NUFF activists. Johnson is probably the most openly partisan of the three of my main sources, seeing NUFF through an anti-imperialist and pro-feminist lens (and Burroughs/Williams/mainstream middle class as the opposite). So while Williams has his admirers, and remains a revered figure among the supporters of the party he founded, broadly speaking, he isn't as well loved among the intellectuals and academics who have chose to write about the period. The problem is that it gets into the "verifiability, not truth" scope of things. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I'm mostly happy to trust your judgment, and that of any other reviewers who may or may not choose to chime in on this issue. A couple of ideas you could consider before shutting the book on this question: (1) Are there any sources you can add, or citations from existing sources, that present Williams more positively, to present a more balanced picture? The sources maybe wouldn't even need to touch on this particular uprising, but could perhaps just generally talk about his style of governance, or the positive changes he brought about to the country and its people; (2) Without contradicting the existing sources, are there any places in the text where the wording can be tweaked to add neutrality to way details are presented? For the second idea, I have no particular places to suggest, but am just saying that you who are familiar with the content and the sources, may or may not be able to find opportunities for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One more idea: About what you said about the sources believing NUFF to be "misguided in their embrace of violence, but not wrong in their broader goal", I did get just a glimpse of that in the Legacy section, but I wonder whether it might be valid and beneficial to highlight this point more, maybe even in the lead (i.e., that sympathy historians have had for NUFF has not necessarily included a full support for the degree of violence)? I think if this could be highlighted more, it would bring more balance to the article as a whole. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted
    Thanks, I need to pay more attention to that. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN11 is not working
    Added an archive link. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN12: is this an authorized republication?
    Cecil Paul was Deputy President of the NWU forever, so yes, I think this is. Also since it says "sent to" rather than "published in", I'm inclined to consider it a pre-publication. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes FN14 a high-quality reliable source?
    At the time he published the book, Owen Baptiste was a journalist with almost 20 years experience and had been editor of the Express for 9 years. He went on to be CEO of the Caribbean News Agency. While Inprint Caribbean went on to publish a number of important works, this was at the beginning of its run, and Baptiste and his wife were the publishers, so I made sure to attribute opinions. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FNs 20 and 21 should both use |publisher= instead of |website=.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, fixed. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Approaching three weeks in and this nomination has picked up no general supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to support developing over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. So far I'm expecting to support on prose, but I can't promise really until I've done a second thorough read-through to see if any big issues I might have missed the first time around jump out at me. I'm currently 3/4 the way through my first read-through. It hasn't been going speedily, but I can try to pick up the pace as much as I can if it makes any difference for you keeping the nomination open. If I make it through the first read-through finding no big issues, chances are fairly high I won't find any the second read-through. Anyway, I'm not sure if that's enough for you to keep the nomination open a little bit longer, but that's where I'm at with my review. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: Have now finished my first read-through. I can try to work more quickly through my second read-through if it makes a difference for keeping the nomination open longer. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to review this soonish too, but not being familiar with the topic, I was hoping to wait until another review was completed first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd ask for this to be kept open longer, I'd like to take a swing at reviewing it. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the experienced reviewers queuing up to have a look at this, consider Damocles' sword to have been removed. Reviewers, feel free to take your time - within reason - and come to a considered opinion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Just my opinion, but I think it helps to relink things on a first appearance basis in the body text outside of the lede, eg. Eric Williams could be linked again. Same with repeating names in full before reverting to their acronym eg NJAC should be "National Joint Action Committee (NJAC)" on first instance in the background section.
    • Done. Guettarda (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, one of the predecessors to NUFF is listed as "Block Five", but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article.
    • Added now. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Trinidad and Tobago became independent in 1962 From the UK?
    • UK, British Empire, West Indies Federation...good question :) But the British Parliament did pass the independence act, so United Kingdom is probably the best choice. Added. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I presume WOLF wanted to overthrow the government because it had some ideology for replacing it and provided its unemployed members with jobs. If it had some defining political characteristics (socialism, Black Power, etc.) that would be nice to mention.
    • I've expanded a bit about WOLF. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In 1971 the as-yet unnamed revolutionary organisation So WOLF collapsed after the Black Power Revolution and its remnants formed this new unnamed group before it was to become NUFF?
    • Not exactly. I think it was one of the constituent parts of the uprising. NUFF grew out of it as Jeffers and others transformed it into something more militant. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • attacked an Estate Police Station belonging to the American oil company Texaco The capitalization of estate police station makes it sound like something special and unique. Was this Texaco's private security?
    • Yes it was their private security. The Supplemental Police Act of 1906 created the legal framework for "estate police", which were private police forces for sugar estates. Security companies function within this framework. I followed the source in capitalising it, and I seem to remember Texaco Trinidad's security being called that. But as I'm looking into it now, I can't find evidence for this, so I'm going to de-capitalise it. Guettarda (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Clarifying that C. L. R. James was a historian/political activist would be helpful.
    • Great point. I got stuck trying to think how to succinctly describe James, put it off for later, and forgot about it entirely. Done. Guettarda (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • For the references to journal articles with siginificant page ranges, I think it would helpful to mention the specific page from which info was taken, as has been done with the books.
    • I believe I got all of them. Guettarda (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm satisfied with the above responses and the state of the article; supporting promotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Serail Number 54129[edit]

Parking my tank on the lawn, as it were. ——Serial 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Link Trinidad and Tobago and other terms now only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body too?
    • Done, other than Black Power Revolution which is linked in the {{Main}}, which I think should be sufficient.Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Afro-Trinidadians and Tobagonians" Anything to link?
    • Linked. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "was "a postponement of social, political and economic equality" It is often good to attribute direct quotes in-text.
  • Link Port of Spain? Montreal?
    • Montreal done. POS already linked in para 3 of the second section. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You mention it was rooted in the black power movement, then a mutiny and shooting of some figures. Was the army and other government organs dominated by white people? If there was such an aspect, could maybe be mentioned for context.
    • The seeming paradox of Black Power in Trinidad was that it was an uprising of Black people against a Black government. There were two prominent white or near-white Cabinet ministers - John O'Halloran and Gerard Montano - and I believe the head of the Coast Guard was white. But the major cogs of the economy - the oil industry, the sugar industry, the banks - were owned by British, Canadian or American multinationals, while the local big business and the best jobs (outside the government service) were largely in the hands of white and near-white Trinidadians. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This is maybe something worth explaining in the article for context? If the relevant sources do, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This may answer the question above, but comes very far down " and said that they differed from NJAC in seeing class, not race, as the dominant problem in society." So I wonder if it could help with more historical context/background at the beginning of the article, not sure. Perhaps go more into demographics of the country? As you mention Black Power grew among one segment of the population, what other segments were there, and were they ethnic or just class based? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Theodore Guerrra" One r too many, surely?
    • Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In late 1971 Jai Kernahan" After first mention of full names, you'd only need to list last names?
    • Removed that "Jai", left the one in the "Legacy" section; given the context (while her husband Jai Kernahan...) I think it's clearer to include it. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Eric Williams in the image caption.
    • Done. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I really like the inclusion of the forest image, helps with immersion when reading.
  • "the sons and daughters of the of the very population" Double "of the".
    • Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Western United Liberation Front could redirect here?
    • Makes sense. Done. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "unemployed me in the western" Men.
    • Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "They were the only group to sustain a guerrilla insurgency in the modern English-speaking Caribbean over an extended period of time." This seems to be only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • It's in Aftermath. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There are a few unanswered points left I'm waiting for. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989)[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!), Amakuru (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Some have described this as one of, if not the, biggest upset in English "soccer". Top-division Coventry "Sky Blues" City, riding high in the First Division and winners of the oldest soccer football cup in the world just two years before were quite literally humbled by a bunch of "bricklayers, assistant bank managers and insurance clerks" playing for non-League club Sutton "Amber and Chocolates" United. A hard one for my co-nom (a Cov fan) to swallow but a pleasure for the footballing world who love this kind of "David beats Goliath" story. And it's true too! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • You need to state specifically that the Conference is/was the fifth tier of English football, to give context to the "gulf" between the teams. I didn't spot this mentioned anywhere, meaning that a reader not familiar with English football would not know whether there were 1,2,4 or 12 divisions between them........
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Billed as a potential cup upset by the media, the visitors went into the match as strong favourites" - these two statements seem at odds with each other. Cov were strong favourites, yet the media predicted a potential upset? There's also no mention in the body of the article (as opposed to the lead) that the media saw it as a possible upset.
    I'll come back to this... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right here, I think I'll tone it down in the lead and add some more about the prelude in the main body. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I've removed the "upset" thing because I can't actually (believe it or not) find anything in advance of the match where anyone really gave them a cat's chance. But I did find the odds before the match of both sides winning the cup, so that's in there as a clear indicator of Cov being clear favourites... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Phil Dawson who struck an oustwinging cross" - spot the typo :-)
    Done in both places. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "had knocked out Football League teams in the previous year's FA Cup, defeating both Aldershot Town and Peterborough United" - might be worth stating which divisions these teams played in
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    One other thing I just thought of - they can't have defeated Aldershot Town, as that team didn't exist at the time. They actually defeated Aldershot -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    That's me being far too young... Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "went into the FA Cup tie having lost away to bottom club Aylesbury United and drawing at home against Maidstone United." - firstly, this isn't grammatically correct, and secondly does this refer to their two most recent matches prior to the cup tie? It's a bit unclear.......
    Cleared up, hopefully. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Coventry City had finished the previous season in tenth place in the Football League First Division." - clarify at this point that at the time this was the highest division in English football
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "But his header was poor" - don't start a sentence with "but"
    Rejigged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis for Keith Houchen" => "In the 70th minute, Coventry replaced Cyrille Regis with Keith Houchen", also needs a comma after Houchen
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Pedantically, Coventry's shirts were really sky blue and white halves, not all sky blue (fond memories of the Hummel kits of that era) - see here
    I'm not convinced they were white/blue, look at the video where it looks more like blue/sky blue?? It's a poor quality video mind you... I'm at a bit of a loss how to "create" the necessary shirt pattern. The football kit template is a bit nightmarish. I'll see if I can ask someone! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the identity of the Sutton substitute not known? If not, it might be worth putting "sub: not known", or something, so that readers aren't potentially left wondering why Cov had a sub but Sutton didn't......
    None of the sources indicate that Sutton had a named substitute. I'm not even sure we can assume there was one, can we? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Fair point about the lack of sources, although as someone old enough to have been a regular match attendee in the season in question, I can't really think of any plausible reason why any team would *not* have had a named substitute..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I guess it's akin to trying to prove a negative. Unless I can find a source with a named sub (which will fix the issue!) we really don't know... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru any thoughts on this? Got a programme?! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have the programme myself, I didn't go to that game thankfully! Although it appears to be reproduced here: [14]. As with most programmes it includes the squads but the actual team sheet would not be known until the day. I assume both teams had two substitutes on the bench, of which Cov used one and Sutton none. My book has the two team sheets and shows the Cov sub that came on too, but doesn't mention any unused subs unfortunately.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Even the MOTD video clip with Motty mentions Houchen as "one of the subs" but neither lists on the graphic nor mentions the others. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Aha, I have found more info - the unused Sutton sub was Bangs: [15] and seemingly there really was only one sub on the bench for each side, even though there were clearly two subs in the FA Cup matches the previous season. And here he is again, Steve Bangs: [16]. Whether either of those are reliable sources is anyone's guess. Oh, and check this out - everyone's favourite railway nerd Geoff Marshall has something to say on the matter too... Mr Bangs was his PE teacher.[17]  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    Good research. I wouldn't consider either of those to be RS unfortunately... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    It was definitely two subs per team in the FA Cup that season. But if the information isn't available re: the unused subs, I'm not sure there's any more you guys can do. I just thought it might confuse people who looked at the article and thought "why did Coventry have a sub available but Sutton didn't?"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    It may do. I don't know what we can do without reliable sources. Of course I have seen some matches where different numbers of substitutes were available for each side, and it seems in this case there may even be two other "missing" subs. But we can't pin that down. If you can find the rules for the 1988-89 FA Cup which says how many subs each side were allowed, we could add a footnote to that effect I suppose? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe just change where it currently says "Substitute:" to "Substitute used:"? At the end of the day, I don't think listing people who didn't play in the match is actually that important, but the above-mentioned change would at least remove the possibility of confusion......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Williams suggested" - presumably this refers to the Sutton manager? As this is the first time he's been mentioned other than being listed in the match details section, which could easily be overlooked, I would suggest making it clear who he is/was
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested Sutton" => "David Lacey of The Guardian concurred and suggested that Sutton"
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "made an appearance on Terry Wogan's chatshow" - I would suggest that chat show is two words, but I'm prepared to be over-ruled......
    Done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that the article is about *this* match, I think detailing all of Norwich's scorers in the next round is an unnecessary level of detail
    I don't know, it's two sentences and I've only really mentioned them by name and number of goals. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Are the two entries under "sources" actually sourcing anything in the article? If not I would say get rid of them. If they are, then cite them at the appropriate point(s).
    Nothing in either, so gone. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got on an initial read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments and for helping out with the kit! I've tried to address your comments, but of course, please do let me know if anything is unsatisfactory or you spot anything else you'd like to see fixed! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and this nomination shows little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless there is more activity here over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • C'est la vie. I've been warned off asking others to perform reviews by one of the co-ords so I guess this one will sink without trace for a couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • The visitors went into the match as strong favourites, a reflection of the gulf in divisions that separated the two teams. - maybe it's wise to put the gulf before this IE they were in Conference/First Division before this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • dropped to seventh place by the conclusion of the First Division season. - I don't think the lede actually says where they were prior to this match, so it's difficult to say how much worse they played after the match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only issue I really have with this lede, is that it doesn't really get across why we have an article on this match. Sure, it's a giant killing, or at least a match where the lower ranked team won, but I would like to at least hear that the press/other teams/legacy of the match is well defined. I do think an extra quote from the reception would help with this. Specifically the ones from Talksport and the Independent, which really do get across the magnitude of the win. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • I think I mention this every time, but I'd still like a little sentence explaining what the FA Cup is. A short sentence, saying "The FA Cup, formerly the Football Association Challenge Cup is a knockout association football tournament held annually in the United Kingdom (or England I suppose)." or similar. I think this gives everyone a heads up as to what the article is about, and also isn't overly detailed explaining the nuances of the game, jargon etc. I realise we can click on the FA Cup article, but personally I wouldn't expect someone to have to do this to understand Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In MOS:CUE, we do losing scores like 0–6. I noticed here it is 6–0 loss. I have also seen it done by home/away. The MOS for football (at WP:FOOTY) is more of a template for creating articles than a MOS for things like this. I'm sure you are right, but any ideas if this has been discussed before? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 5,000–1 against - I know this was a while ago, any ideas if this was a particular bookmaker? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "clowned their way through the pre-match warm-up" - I feel this could be broken up to just "clowned", or just outright saying that the players didn't warm up seriously for the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Alf Buksh.[26][27][28][29] - do we need four citations? I realise that you want to use all of the coverage the match has, but the 11v11 source doesn't even have the Sutton players listed, so might not be the highest quality (even if they are generally very good). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • capitulated - I don't really like this sort of expression. The definition means to surrender or to cease resisting, which isn't exactly true, as they were still trying, but were clearly outplayed. "heavily beaten" would be better in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Code of Hammurabi[edit]

Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks from Ovinus[edit]

  • [5]: Footnote, not a source
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • [11]: I'm getting a 404
That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
  • [25]: good
  • [31]: good
  • [40]: good
  • [41]: good
  • [44]: good
  • [53]: good
  • [57]: good
  • [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
  • [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
  • [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
  • [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
  • [169]: good
  • [176]: good
  • [177]: good

I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ovinus: @Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.

  • [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
  • [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
  • Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
  • Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
  • [144, now 143]: Reworked.
  • [150, now 149]: Rephrased.

@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.

  • Louvre is (/was) a web page.
  • Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
  • Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
  • Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
  • Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
  • Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
  • Added for 71.
  • 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
  • Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
  • 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
  • Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
  • Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Commensts from Fowler&fowler[edit]

  • I'm making a placeholder here. Delighted to see a traditionally encyclopedic article here for a change. Will begin soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from The Land[edit]

I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.

This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Morningside Park (Manhattan)[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a park in Upper Manhattan, New York City. It is built on a cliff that was deemed too steep to develop upon when Manhattan's grid system was executed. It was first proposed in 1867 but, due to various delays, took three decades to complete. Morningside Park then went through various ups and downs over the years. Besides its topography, the park has some nice art, a waterfall, some paths and plantings, and several fields and playgrounds used by residents of Harlem and Morningside Heights. Morningside Park was designated as a scenic landmark in 2008. If this passes FAC, this will be the second FA about a scenic landmark in NYC, after Riegelmann Boardwalk.

This was promoted as a Good Article a year ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Lee Vilenski. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - a bit trivial, but the image in the "Columbia athletic complex" section is almost precisely the same shot as the one in the "Bordering streets" section, just taken in a different season and a lot less sharp. It just feels like a lower-quality duplicate. Guettarda (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Morningside_retainer_116_jeh.JPG is missing a caption, and why include two very similar pictures of the retaining wall?
    • @Guettarda and Nikkimaria: Thanks for pointing this out (both of you pointed this out similarly). I swapped the image in the athletic complex section with one of brick arches. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up File:Morningside_Park,_New_York,_N._Y_(NYPL_b12647398-69897).tiff
    • Done. I also cropped the image to a 16:9 ratio.
  • File:Morningside_Park_Aug_2019_57.jpg: what is the copyright status of the monument? Ditto File:Carl_Schurz_Morningside_116_jeh.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Lafayette and Washington (1900) and Carl Schurz Monument (1913) are public domain in the United States. I will tag them accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Guettarda[edit]

Lead
  • The lead seems short to me, given the length of the article
    • I've added a little more detail to this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • sentence 4: "several rock outcroppings" - isn't the cliff a rock outcropping, and if so, shouldn't this be other rock outcroppings?
    • Yes, I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The mention of protests in response to the construction of the gym seems to be missing a "why".
    • I've added some explanation as to the protests. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
History
  • Site: sentence 2: "smoothed during glacial periods" seeks overly vague, given that there have several over the last 3 billion or so years
    • I've specified these glacial periods specifically applied to the last million years. Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • para 2, sentence 4: "Johannes de la Montagne, who was among the first settlers". Given that you refer to the Lenape as the initial settlers, should this be "Dutch settlers" (or whatever ethnicity he was)
    • I think he was of Huguenot descent, per this link, or a Protestant from France per this link. However, neither are although it's not exactly an FA quality source. I instead clarified that he was among the first European settlers, as his ancestry is not too important to the narrative of the park. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • para 3, sentence 6: the juxtaposition of "owned by several families...several of whom also owned slaves" feels a little weird to me. The idea ownership of land and of people put so matter-of-factly alongside each other. Something like "occupied by several families and their slaves" or "occupied by several families...several of whom were slaveholders" or better yet, "enslaved Africans" or African Americans (assuming that's verifiable)
    • Done.
Design and construction
  • At the least first time that $ is mentioned, I think you should specify US$
    • Done.
Beginning of construction
  • These three paragraphs are too long, wordy, and blow by blow. The writing could be tighter - some of the language in there is just filler. (TBH, the language could be tightened up throughout)
    • Apparently, the paragraphs were supposed to be four paragraphs. Nonetheless, I've reworded unnecessary wording throughout. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Early and mid-20th centuries & 1950s and 1960s controversies
  • I think there's an undertone of race here that leaves me wondering whether this attitude to the park and its proximity to Harlem is reasonable, racist, or some combination of both. I'm not saying that we need to delve into that in the article itself, but I do think that we need to at least include a link, a reference or a note acknowledging this.
  • This is even more true when you get to the discussion of segregation and sit-ins.
    • For some reason this was in the Morningside Heights, Manhattan, page but not in this article. I transferred the detail over. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Recreational features
  • Plant family names (Magnoliaceae, Ranunculaeae, Berberidaceae) are not italicised
    • Removed.
Art
  • Carl Schurz Monument and Seligman fountain are italicised in the text, but not in the photo caption. It should be consistent
    • Done.
Bordering streets
  • "All of the sidewalks were asphalt until 1911, but today they consist of Belgian blocks and concrete" - "now" isn't time-bounded, and should be, especially when it's supported by a 2008-vintage source
    • Fixed.

Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks good enough for me to support. Nice work! Guettarda (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than two weeks in and no non-image comments on the article. If this has not changed significantly by the time it hits three weeks the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of doing a broken record imitation, a lack of significant further indication of a consensus to promote forming by the four week mark may have unfortunate results. If you can call in a favour or two, now is the time to do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 8 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
  • A cliff of Manhattan schist - There's something missing here, or I'm reading this wrong. Maybe it's "off"? Still doesn't read right. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • "A cliff made of Manhattan schist" is what I was going for. I have
  • although a nonprofit group, Friends of Morningside Park, helps maintain it. - I'm not sure how it being nonprofit makes any difference? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed.
  • facilities such as softball diamonds, - maybe we could just say "softball facilities" or similar? Diamonds is pretty indepth if someone's never heard of softball; and we aren't linking to softball the game Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I would ordinarily agree with your assessment. However, it is part of a longer quote ("recreational facilities such as softball diamonds, basketball courts, and playgrounds"). In this case, these are three examples of sporting fields or play areas that were installed in the park. I have rephrased it to "sporting fields and playgrounds". Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's fine. I was just attempting to avoid the "diamond" aspect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Cathedral Parkway–110th Street in infobox has a slighly different wording in the linked article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I used the {{stn}} template to fix the redirect. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The infobox links to "Bus", but it's a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
Prose
  • (Part of this creek in modern Central Park, dubbed Montayne's Rivulet, was also named after de la Montagne.[8][10]) - should this be a note instead, rather than brackets?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The first such fort - the link here has an unnecessary disambig. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • "Path in Morningside Park", could we maybe get a slightly better caption? It's not very descriptive,and doesn't show why the picture is in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Same with "the south end of the park", and "park entrance". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I rephrased the captions. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On that note, unless I'm reading it wrong (understandably, it's quite long), isn't there quite a few different entrances? 11 in total were suggested and approved, but later it is mentioned there is another one - I lost count. How many in total? Might be worth mentioning the total when you discuss this later in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • There are at least 17 entrances: seven each on the western and eastern borders, as well as one each at the northwestern, southwestern, and southeastern corners. This calculation was made per WP:CALC, since the source did not say directly. This map may imply there are more, but the source counted each intersection as a single entrance, regardless of whether it contained one or two paths. If each ramp and stair is counted separately, there may be as many as 22. Unlike Central Park, Morningside Park doesn't name its entrances, so it's very hard to tell for sure. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be nice to add the amount somewhere, as we do mention the amount planned at several places, so CALC is fine, but I do think it needs to be in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list..

Favour called in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

    • Happy to support. I just have one question, but it's not enough to oppose a great article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Willbb234[edit]

  • several athletic fields to 'several atheltics fields' (see below for some more comments on this).
    • I believe this may be a case of WP:ENGVAR. As far as I know, "athletic field" (singular) appears to be the common American usage. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In the introduction, you wikilink the second mention of 'playgrounds', but not the first.
    • Fixed.
  • Who or what is 'Columbia'? If it refers to Columbia University, then you should use this name and wikilink as it is the first time it is mentioned.
    • Added - thanks for pointing it out. This refers to Columbia University, but I had thought this was mentioned earlier. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Manhattan was settled initially by the Lenape Native Americans do we have an approximate time period for this? The paragraph previously talks about glacial movements that happened millions of years ago so this could be confusing to a reader.
    • I'm not sure when exactly the Lenape arrived, though it is likely they would have arrived no earlier than 9,000 years ago. I just clarified that it was several thousand years ago. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • between 109th and 124th Street. did these streets exist in 1658? If not, then you could say 'between what is now 109th and 124th Street' for clarification.
    • Nope. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Colonial forces used... wikilink to the appropriate article, I suggest British Army.
    • Done.
  • You should wikilink to the first mention of Central Park instead of the mention under 'Initial plans'.
    • Fixed.
  • under which 31.238 acres (12.642 ha) was acquired for Morningside Park and 0.018 acres (73 m2) were condemned at a cost of US$1.33 million not sure what is being said here, maybe I'm just not reading it right. I'm confused by the use of the word 'condemned' here as I can't see how it fits.
    • This refers to eminent domain, which uses a process called condemnation to seize land. I have linked there. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The Times should the 'The' be in italics as well?

More to come. I need a break first. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Morningside Park would be designed to emphasize scenery and its proximity to Central Park not sure how it can be designed "to emphasize... its proximity to Central Park"? This might need explaining.
    • The southern part of Morningside Park is one block from the northern side of Central Park. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • overlook bays what is this? Do you mean 'overlooking bays' or something along the lines of Scenic viewpoint?
    • The latter, as the current design contains terraces that overlook Harlem. I've added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In July, a group of Civil War veterans stayed in the park during the Independence Day weekend, firing cannons and pretending to storm the blockhouse walls you could include that this was a reenactment (Historical reenactment) if the sources imply or say this.
    • Done.
  • though this did not come to pass this wording strikes me as overly formal or somewhat dated.
    • Fixed.
  • In 1913, Carl Schurz Memorial to "In 1913, the Carl Schurz Memorial".
    • Done.
  • Other issues were caused by a large Independence Day celebration in 1912, this is quite vague. You should try to say what issues and how, if that information is available.
    • Done. The celebration was not the only cause of the erosion and decay, but I've added this. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In its annual report of 1929, NYC Parks you haven't already introduced NYC Parks. It looks as if it is the same thing as New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, in which case NYC Parks should be placed in parentheses the first time the organisation is mentioned.
    • Done. This is indeed the NYC Parks Department's abbreviation. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • as signs of a racial problem. quite vague here.
    • Clarified.
  • reported that Teachers College of Columbia University should this read "reported that the Teachers College of Columbia University"?
    • Done.
  • You say 113th and 114th Streets where 'Streets' is plural, but earlier you say 109th and 124th Street where 'Street' is singular. Some consistency is needed.
    • Fixed.
  • Wikilink to softball.
    • Done.

More to come. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "the park was virtually off-bounds to [Columbia University] students and faculty as "too dangerous'.” not sure what's going on with the speech marks here. One is curly and the others don't add up (single and double mixed).
    • Fixed. I'm not sure why there was a curly quote. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Further on from my mention of 'athletic' to 'athletics' in the lede, in the section 'Columbia athletic complex', my understanding is that 'athletics' is a noun that refers to sports as a whole (in some cases to track and field), while 'athletic' is an adjective. See Sport of athletics and [18]. At this point, I think both make perfect sense in the context, but it's just a question of what you think would be best. I also could be completely wrong and be talking about British-English instead of American-English.
    • Yeah. I think this may be an American-specific usage, like I mentioned earlier. However, in regard to this specific issue, "athletic" is indeed being used as an adjective. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate these, and I have addressed or replied to all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • of which alumnus Francis S. Levien donated $1 million in May 1962. I suggest changing this to $1 million of which was donated by alumnus Francis S. Levien in May 1962.
    • Done.
  • that it was given the nickname "Muggingside Park" by whom?
    • Added.
  • The abbreviation 'LPC' needs to be placed in parentheses next to New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.
    • Done.
  • drew up plans for a $12-million why does '12' and 'million' have a dash between?
    • Removed.
  • who died in 1996 to "who had died in 1996".
    • Done.
  • Going back to the 'Final plans and completion' section, you should add a wikilink to Riverside Park (Manhattan).
    • Done.
  • Since then, additional improvements have taken place within the park. Additional trees were planted in the park in 2009, including a sequoia tree these two sentences can likely be combined into one. The phrase "within the park" can be removed as this is implied given the previous sentences. A semi-colon can be placed between the two statements.
    • Done.
  • Two years later, NYC Parks presented a plan to restore the northern section and add a playground there. do we have any details on whether this went ahead. I can't tell if you are implying this in the next sentence.
    • Done. I have added a few sources about when it was completed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Morningside Dog Run is an enclosed space for dog owners to bring their dogs to play. happy doggies!
    • Yep. A lot of parks have these, and they're generally nice to play around in. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You should wikilink the first mention of arboretum.
    • Done.
  • was built in 1903–1904 and destroyed in 1952. why was it 'destroyed'. This implies some kind of vandalism/incident. If this isn't the case, how about 'removed' or 'dismantled'?
    • Done. I sometimes use "destroyed" and "demolished" interchangeably, but it may be just me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilink to Marcus Garvey Park.
    • Added.
  • A tablet was placed on the site by the Women's Auxiliary of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society in 1904; part of the cliff was destroyed in 1915 I can't tell if these two statements are supposed to be linked.
    • They should not be. I've split these. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Residents and visitors to the pond these two terms I would associate with humans. Are there more appropriate terms you can think of?
    • I have rephrased the sentence.
  • both in uniform and holding hands 'holding hands' struck me as an odd phrase here. The source [19] says "clasping hands", perhaps implying they're shaking hands, also implied by the image [20]. I don't know what phrasing you want to use, but 'holding hands' doesn't seem quite right.
    • I reworded it to shaking hands. This is largely synonymous with "clasping", based on the context, but doesn't copy directly. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The group is atop there are only two of them, so how about 'the pair'?
    • Done.
  • The Marcus Garvey Park is wikilinked in the 'Management' section. This should be removed per my above comment about wikilinking earlier on.
    • Removed.
  • Alright, so I'm confused about some of the organisations here. The MAA was set up and attempted to reorganize the Friends group (A portion was used to assess what the park needed done most urgently, while a second portion went to reorganize the largely dismantled Friends volunteer group.). In the management section you say that the park is maintained by the Friends group, implying that the group didn't really dismantle (or if it did, it was able to reorganize successfully). However, there is no mention of the MAA in the management section. So I'm confused about the role of the MAA. Were they simply a temporary organisation to help the failing Friends group, were they a separate organisation which at some point ceased to exist, or are they still about but are not mentioned in the management section?
    • Basically, the Morningside Area Alliance still exists, but it is a neighborhood group, not a park-specific group. This is why it's not mentioned in "Management", as its focus is largely on the neighborhood rather than the park. As for the Friends group, it was "largely" dismantled, but a better wording would probably be "disorganized" or something similar. It didn't cease to exist at the time, but had shrunken from its largest extent. I have made that change. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding the New York Post, I see it is considered unreliable at WP:RSP although I did see your comment at the RFC ([21]) saying that it is good for real estate articles. I will presume it is fine here, especially as there is very little, if anything, relating to politics

That's all I have to say. I'm happy to support once said comments are addressed. If an in depth source review is conducted and issues are found, I may change this decision, but I doubt that will happen. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thanks again for the comments. I have addressed all the comments you've left above. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, it's been a long long time since I nominated an article for FAC (FLC has been my main hang-out for many years), but after seeing the excellent work done by The Rambling Man with 1987 FA Cup Final, I decided to finally expand this article (which I got to GA in 2008 - heavens, was it really that long ago?) to a (hopefully) FA-worthy state. I have tried to write in a way which non-experts will be able to understand/follow (the use of some footballing terms is by definition unavoidable but hopefully I have kept it simple and avoided real jargon, but the odd bit might have slipped through, so feel free to pull me up on that). All comments will be most welcome and promptly acted upon. Disclaimer: I am a Gillingham fan and was at this game cheering them to victory, but I am confident that everything in the article is handled in a NPOV manner...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • Per WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I do not see how omitting the promotional poster would be detrimental to the understanding of the article.
  • Other image licensing is OK. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: - replaced with a free image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • "was a football match", I think it's generally preferred to got for "an association football match" to avoid ambiguity for our readers over the pond.
  • "1999–2000 season", I'd probably extend the link to season as well to make it crystal clear.
  • Should "the" be capitalised in "The Football League" when used mid-sentence like this?
  • Might be worth noting how the team's fared in the following season at the end of the lead, similar in fashion to TRM's articles
  • "them thanks to their 2–1 win", thanks sounds a little informal, perhaps replace with following or something similar?
  • "scored a goal for Gillingham", a goal is probably redundant here.
  • "previous season's Second Division play-off Final", worth linking to the article?
  • "with Darren Sheridan dominating", Sheridan has already been mentioned by this point so no need to use his first name again. Same with Iffy Onoura slightly further on.
  • Link crossed to Cross (association football).
  • "Simon Haworth flicked it up", no need for the first name again. Sheridan, Barlow and Ashby also have the same issue in the extra time section. Ty Gooden is also linked for a second time here too.
  • Defender is linked in the extra time section, by is used a few times before this. Move the link to the first usage.
  • What order are the substitutes listed in the details section? There doesn't seem any obvious ordering (number, position, alphabetical, etc?)
  • A few first name repeats in the post-mact section, Benson, Taylor, Hessenthaler.
  • "2002–03 season" include season in the link to match the rest of the article.
  • "penultimate game to take place" > to be played perhaps. The following sentence uses the take place wording again which is a little repetitive.

Hi Chris, nice to see you at FAC. This is a few points I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kosack: - all done (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi @Kosack:, I was wondering if you were feeling able to support or oppose this nomination yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, sorry I've been a bit limited for time recently and this slipped off my radar. Yes I'm happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

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

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

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

@Edwininlondon: all done. Oh, and BTW I have actually been contributing to WP since 2005. I feel old now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As a WP reader I say thank you for 16 years of contributions!

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

  • Shortly afterwards, Wigan were awarded --> awarded used twice on same line
  • with the commentary team stating that --> perhaps add Sky: the Sky commentary team
  • first corner kick of the game, but Wigan goalkeeper Stillie was able to catch --> not so sure about that "but". There is quite a bit implied here. Perhaps something along the lines of "but nothing came to it as Wigan goalkeeper..."
  • Four minutes before the end of the game --> the end of regular time you mean
  • "You feel cheated, but decisions like that are part of the game". --> ."
  • in a celebratory open-top bus parade. --> would it be nice to add perhaps where this took place?
    • From non-reliable sources I know that it was definitely in Gillingham (as one might expect), but the only reliable source I could find which mentions it (the one in the article) just refers to "the town". Do you think it's too much of a stretch to specifically state Gillingham in the article with that as the ref........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The context in the source is clear. Fine to say Gillingham in article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • before it was mostly demolished and a new stadium of the same name built in its place --> shouldn't there be a "was" before built?
    • No, I think it's OK as it is. It's like saying "The man was chucked out of the pub and told not to come back" - that reads more naturally than "The man was chucked out of the pub and was told not to come back" (IMO at least) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No idea what made that the first example to come to mind, BTW :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Amusing example. Thanks for explaining to me. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • never written those players off, never". --> ."
  • is there anything to be said about the financial aspects of winning or losing this match? These days it has a big impact, going up or not, but was it like that 20 years ago?
    • I can't find any sources that talk about that. There's a lot of talk about the financial impact of going up from what is now the Championship to the Premier League, but I don't recall ever seeing much talk about the impact of going up from League One to the Championship...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, it was just an idea. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As I suspected, I could not make any significant contributions, just nitpicking. Nice work. Once I have time I will look at the sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Mostly amended - a few comments for you above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, all fine. This weekend I will do a source review. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review:

  • Linking inconsistencies: the Independent is linked 2 out of 3 times. The Times and BBC Sport seem never linked. I believe there is no rule other than being consistent. I prefer to link every instance, but that's just me.
  • The locations of the publisher of the books are missing.

Spot check:

  • #1 all fine
  • #2 doesn't seem to cover this bit "one position ahead of Wigan Athletic" (I guess you can just add #1)
    • Done
  • #4 all fine except for the generic rules bit "with one game at each team's home stadium and the result determined based on the aggregate score of the two games". I assume that is covered by #5, which I can't access
    • Another ref added for good measure
  • #6 doesn't seem to cover these bits "Four days after the first leg matches took place, Wigan defeated Millwall 1–0" and " midfielder Darren Sheridan scored the only goal of the game in the second half" but #7 does, so I guess it's just a matter of moving #6 to the end of the sentence.
    • Done
  • #7 Fine. Oddly enough the BBC does not mention that the game went to extra time. So I guess you had to add #8, which I can't access
    • Yes, that ref does mention it, but I added another one for good measure
  • #9 ok
  • #65 ok
  • #40 I couldn't see the following bit exactly word for word: "These players, especially the ones that were here last year, deserved it. All season they've shown unbelievable character, and that's what they have done today. They never know when they are beaten"
    • Fixed - I forgot to copy a ref from elsewhere in the article
  • #47 ok
  • #66 ok
  • #67 ok
  • #68 ok
  • #21 ok
  • #69 ok
  • #70 is a dead link
    • Assuming you refer to https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/30642796 (that was #70 at the point you commented but is now #72, it works fine for me??
Yes that is the one. It works fine for me now too. Odd. Just noticed though that the dates are not right.
  • #39 ok
  • #72 ok
  • #73 ok
  • #74 ok
  • #54 ok
  • #55 the timing is off here. I would say around 02:34:40
    • Done
  • #56 ok
  • #58 ok
  • #59 ok
  • #60 ok

That's it. I'll watch some more of that game on YouTube now. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Responses above to the second section. My tea is ready now so I will look at the first section later or tomorrow :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Book locations added, all publishers/works linked, fixed my own dumb typo in the dates of that ref -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice work. To the best of my knowledge this article now meets all criteria for FA, so Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: - thanks for your support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Edwininlondon, just checking for clarity: That is a pass for a source review, a spot check and a general review, yes? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, sorry for not being clear. Yes, it is pass for source review, spot check and prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this is a great article and is thorough, detailed, easy to read (and easy to understand). I made a few superficial alterations (such as adding some more wikilinks, a few MOS issues, some source format consistencies etc) but nothing substantial. Glad to support this as one of Wikipedia's finest articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ambulocetus[edit]

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

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

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

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "novel by James Rollins featuring Ambulocetus" - source?
should I cite the novel?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Does the novel name the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • DOI in FN1 is returning an error. What kind of source is this?
it's a jstor id not a doi   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN6: "Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg" appears to be a series name rather than a journal name. What is the publisher? Is this an authorized republication?
it says it was uploaded to researchgate by Thewissen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Who is the publisher, and is Thewissen legally able to upload this to Researchgate? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
on researchgate it lists the publisher as E. Schweizerbar, but on worldcat it gives Frankfurt am Main: Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft. I always just assume if one of the authors uploads it to researchgate it must be legal, otherwise they'd be breaching some kind of contract with the publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I would be inclined to trust Worldcat over Researchgate. And yes, people breach contracts. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
added publisher   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN8 is missing pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll add as I go along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed you commented right now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • modern river otter— You put "river", but link to otter, which includes the sea otter. Either the "river" or the link is wrong
there is no river otter article, it's just a disamb page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • sea lion, palaeontology — link?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Eocene cetaceans did not preserve limbs very well.—I assume you mean that the limbs did not preserve well, slightly odd sentence structure as is suggesting their active involvement. Also, some indication of why cetacean bones didn't fossilise well would be good
fixed wording. As for the fossil gap, no real explanation put forward for specifically cetaceans, but I'd assume it's because they evolved in a tropical region and tropics aren't exactly conducive for fossilization considering how efficient they are at recycling nutrients   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Should I also change "The holotype preserved seven neck vertebrae" and similar prose?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • They also estimated a length of roughly 300 cm (10 ft) long—"long" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, they also —"also" is redundant
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've read the rest of the text, and I couldn't see any other issues. As for the holotype preserved..., I can see that you are avoiding the passive construction, but I'm not so bothered with the more abstract subject. With the one I commented on, I just had this image of these whales getting out their preserving pans... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support An excellent article, thorough and comprehensive. Well worthy of FA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
While I still support the nomination, I have a concern that the license for the Eocene map in the last section of the article is not valid. Blakey's maps have been previously deleted from commons because they are under an incompatible license, and I don't think the word of the guy who runs "thearmchairexplorer.com" is an authoritative source to say otherwise. I don't think that removing the image would detract much from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the ResearchGate link as it is probably copyvio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It says "Maps © Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, Colorado Plateau Geosystems" but specifically makes the exception "Bottom map courtesy of Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, CCA-by-SA 4.0 License"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and only one support; this does not indicate a gathering consensus for promotion. Unless further general reviews are forthcoming in the next few days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

  • "from the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan roughly 48 or 47 million years ago" - This feels a little confusing - perhaps change to "from roughly 48 or 47 million years ago, in the Early Eocene (Lutetian) Kuldana Formation in Pakistan".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "It contains one species" -> "It contains of one species"?
what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops, I misread "contains" as "consist". Sorry about that, the wording in the article is indeed correct. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and was the first cetacean postulated to have preserved a suite of adaptations consistent with an amphibious lifestyle" - "postulated to have preserved" feels a little odd here, perhaps change to "postulated to have had"?
"...was the first cetacean discovered preserving a suite of adaptations consistent..."
Excellent! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus is classified in the group Archaeoceti" - Is Archaeoceti still in common usage despite its paraphyly?
it's common convention to split cetaceans into Neoceti (Mysticeti+Odontoceti) and Archaeoceti (all other more basal cetaceans)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "the family Ambulocetidae, which includes" -> "the family Ambulocetidae, which also includes"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Because of these" Perhaps it would be better to change this to something like "Because of these features" to clarify that this is not just about the eyes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Might be worth it to gloss pachyostoic in the lead.
that's the point of the word "heavy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My one concern about that is its placement, as "heavy, pachyostoic" doesn't necessarily indicate that they're referring to the same thing (like "narrow, streamlined" immediately before this). However, my perspective may be somewhat skewed as I'm relatively familiar with the jargon (and perhaps overly worried about explanations), so I'm fine with just letting this be unless anyone else raises an objection. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The above comments all are about the article's lead. I look forward to continuing to read this article (also, it's cool to see a taxon as iconic as Ambulocetus at FAC)! I hope to go through the discovery section later in the day or sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "proximal tibia" Perhaps change to "proximal portion of a tibia"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "An hour later, Arif discovered the limbs" I don't entirely understand this, as the femur and tibia are part of the limbs, as far as I know. Perhaps "discovered more of the limbs"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link stage
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What does "HGSP" stand for?
Howard–Geological Survey of Pakistan (i.e., the funders)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link bed
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "thoracolumbar series" - Might be good to explain what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales), and Neoceti descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic." -> "Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti, whose members span the transition from terrestrial to fully aquatic."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "After discovery," - What does this refer to? The discovery of archaeocetes, the discovery of Ambulocetus, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "They are also closely allied with the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)." - The way this is said makes it sound like cetaceans and hippos don't belong in this group. Perhaps this could be changed to "Both lineages are members of the hoofed even-toed ungulates (Cetartiodactyla)."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to the publication cited for the cladogram, but if the relationships of the three ambulocetid genera are shown in the source cladogram (and assuming they're not just in a polytomy), it could be interesting to show this on the cladogram.
they're only known from jaw fragments and date to about the same time, so I don't think there're any cladogram relating the members of Ambulocetidae with each other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all that I have for the Taxonomy section! The Description section will be next (I may also review part of it later today). (I've also also clarified some of my points regarding the lead.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Define falcate, postglenoid foramen, paranasal sinuses, trigonid and talonid cusps, protocone, paracone, metacone
falcate is already described by where it is, added postglenoid, and paranasal sinus literally glosses itself in its own name. As for the cusps, it's better if they click on the hyperlink and go to the article and see this picture rather than me explaining it all in words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't falcate mean sickle-shaped, though? Or is "falcate process" here the actual name of the structure (as opposed to it just being a process that is falcate)? The rationale for the tooth cusps makes sense, and the added definition (for the postglenoid foramen) looks good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
"...have a falcate (sickle-shaped) process..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike Pakicetus but like later archaeocetes," - Not sure if another comma's needed after "Pakicetus" there
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The snouts for Basilosaurus" -> "The snouts of Basilosaurus"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The mandibular symphysis of most mammals is at the midline of the jaw, but it extends much farther in archaeocetes;" - I think that I understand what this is getting at, but the two phrases don't seem to be talking about the same thing (presumably the mandibular symphysis is still located along the jaw's midline in archaeocetes unless they've got asymmetrical mandibles). Perhaps rephrase as "The mandibular symphysis of archaeocetes extends farther back in the the jaw than in other mammals"? Might also be worth it to gloss mandibular symphysis
that is the gloss   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the mandibular symphysis where the mandibles fuse, though? I can't find mention of this in the paragraph. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
yes, that's why it encompasses the midline of the jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The coronoid process of the mandible (where the lower jaw connects with the skull)" - Does the coronoid process actually connect to the cranium? This kind of makes it sound like the coronoid process is the jaw joint (although I might just be incorrectly applying reptilian anatomy to mammals here...)
well it forms part of it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's the review of the first two parts of the description section, sorry that it's a little later than I planned on doing it. I should be able to go through the rest of the description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "spinous and transverse processes (which jut upwards and obliquely from the centrum)" - I'd replace "centrum" with "vertebral body" in this instance, as that's more understandable to the average reader. Centrum should probably be glossed on the next mention
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Gloss "capitular facets"
that's the point of "on the top margin of both the frontward and tailward side to join with the ribs"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The holotype preserves 26 ribs, though it is thought to have had 32 in life" On each side, or in total?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebrae, the transverse processes of S1 are smaller than those of L8, and form a robust sacroiliac joint with the hip." I think that this should be split into two sentences in some way, as the second part doesn't seem to have much relevance to the other three sacrals.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "longer-than-broad" Are hyphens used in this phrase?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Are there measurements for the radius and ulna, if they're complete?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "dorsolaterally (from left to right, and leaning towards the head)" Doesn't dorsolaterally refer to left to right and upwards (as opposed to forwards)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The widening of the ischial width" This feels a little redundant, perhaps "The widening of the ischium"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The femur measures 29 cm (11 in), which is similar to the presumably cursorial mesonychid Pachyaena." In shape or size?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That's all I've got for the Description section. I'll go over Paleobiology tomorrow, and, with any luck, Paleoecology on Thursday. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "though probably did not have the agility to commonly consume them." Might be better to use "catch" instead of "consume", as that seems to be what agility would be needed for.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Optional: "much like modern river otters including the Pteronura, Lontra, and Lutra." -> "much like modern river otters including the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra." This is more consistent, though perhaps less readable, so feel free not to do this.
  • Optional: "So, using river otters as a model" - Remove "so"
  • "So, using river otters as a model, Ambulocetus was possibly a pelvic paddler—swimming with alternating beats of the hindlimbs (without engaging the forelimbs)—and also undulated (move up and down) its tail while swimming.[9] Like otters, swimming was probably powered by undulation of both the tail and the torso." I find this a bit confusing. This paragraph seems to be noting that the hindlimbs were a major force of propulsion, coupled with movement of the axial column, but the last sentence seems to imply that movement of the axial column was the only means of propulsion used.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The pelvis and robust forelimbs could indicate Ambulocetus was capable of weight transfer (walking) on land" Why not just use the simpler term ("walking") here?
does a sea lion walk persay?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I see what you mean (they sort of can, but definitely not very expertly). Perhaps something like "movement" or "locomotion" might work better for glossing weight transfer then. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
"capable of venturing onto land"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link taxa
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "use their heavy, osteosclerotic ribs as ballasts." I'm pretty sure that "ballast" is uncountable (not needing the "s", though I might be wrong about this)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, a lot of the change to the external auditory apparatus occurred between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus." Not sure if "Nonetheless" is needed here, as nothing that would seem to contradict this was stated before.
contrasted with "but is smaller than later archaeocetes and toothed whales"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized that I somewhat misunderstood this (I misread it as just being about the changes between Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, not the overall change in whale evolution as a whole). On account of that, "nonetheless" does indeed make sense. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added some comments on the Paleobiology section above. One other thing I've thought of: the "Torso" section of the Description also discusses the neck and tail, which are not part of the torso. Perhaps it should be renamed? I'm struggling to think of what it could be changed to and still reference ribs, though. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "as opposed to the icehouse climate of today, so, in general, areas were much warmer than today" Not sure if the "than today" is needed at the end
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" It should be explained what this is
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The waters off the western coast seem to have featured upwelling and low-oxygen." Not sure if "low oxygen" needs to be hyphenated
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "These beds alternate with showing marine deposits." As opposed to terrestrial deposits? It might be clearer to phrase it as "These beds alternate between showing marine deposits and" the other type of deposits.
it is as opposed to terrestrial deposits   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "A redbed underlies this layer, followed by grey, green, and purple freshwater mud, silts, sandstones, and limestone. These beds alternate with showing marine deposits. The formation begins with 10 m (33 ft) of grey and green mud, silt, and sandstone, containing two bivalve beds near this locality." I find this a little confusing - is the lowest part of the formation part of the series of beds described by the previous sentence, or is it located above/below them?
the key words are "near the locality"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What exactly does this mean?
the first shell bed is usually 1 shell deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, as in there's only room for one shell between the top and bottom boundaries? I was wondering if this had something to do with index fossils. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
As in the shell bed is usually a shell thick, as opposed to 20 shells thick. Much like how xyz mineral layer is a meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The upper Kuldana Formation may be contemporaneous with the Subathu Formation." Are Ambulocetus or other archaeocetes also found in the Subathu Formation? This feels a little random.
Subathu is terrestrial so it has a lot of rodents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm failing to grasp how it's connected to Ambulocetus, though. Is it directly connected to the Kuldana Formation, or just laid down at the same time? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
it was laid down at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Aren't there multiple formations with Lutetian deposits, though? Why mention this one in particular? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the fish Stephanodus," Might be nice to add a more specific group in front of "fish"
"pycnodontid fish" isn't that elucidating   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link crocodiles. Turtle should be linked on first mention as well (which is under Hearing)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps clarify that Anthracobune is an anthracobunid?
not the most helpful descriptor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It's already been explained what anthracobunids are further up in the article though, though not Anthracobune itself. Currently there's no descriptor in front of it, and while the reader could draw the connection between the two terms, I think that it's probably safest to clarify it here (as taxonomic names can be misleading). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other archaeocetes are:" Might be nice to specify that these archaeocetes are from the same geological unit. I'd also use "include" instead of "are:" but this latter part is just preference and therefore totally optional.
include implies it's an incomplete list   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point, I should probably remember that for the future in my own writing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure if the novel listed under See Also really needs to be there, as it doesn't have an article and the single paragraph devoted to it on the author's page doesn't mention Ambulocetus.
Ambulocetus is central to the plot, and there's not enough other material for a pop culture section, so See also seems perfect   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Has it had a major impact on the perception of Ambulocetus in popular culture though? Unless its impact has been mentioned in a reliable source, I'd be inclined to remove it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
if it had a significant impact then there'd be a pop culture section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
But if the novel doesn't have a significant impact, then why add it at all? While Ambulocetus may not have a huge presence in fiction, there definitely are other works of fiction that feature other taxa in just as great prominence, and with some (such as house mice or Tyrannosaurus) listing these would effectively flood their articles with single line mentions of books. Since we wouldn't do that there, I don't see why we would do it differently here. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You have to take into account scope, like you wouldn't talk about the molar cusps of Smilodon but you would for a taxon only known by teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I still would disagree here. I won't deny that dental anatomy carries much more weight for, say Pectinodon than Gobivenator, as that is the sole basis for the former's existence as a distinct genus, but I'm unconvinced that such reasoning applies to pop culture stuff (instead, I see it more as why we wouldn't go into specific details of troodontid postcranial anatomy in Pectinodon). Elasmosaurus and Allosaurus, for instance, have been featured multiple times in popular culture but do not have popular culture sections or any appearances in fiction listed, simply because, presumably, there just isn't enough on this topic in published sources to warrant this. However, I think that this may be more of an issue of editing philosophy, and am willing to let it drop unless other editors bring it up (though this general topic of pop culture stuff could, perhaps, warrant discussion at the project page sometime). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Ambulocetus size.png, File:Ambulocetus new NT small.jpg, and File:Амбулоцетус.png don't appear to have gone through WP:PALEOART

And that's all from me! This has been an interesting read. Hopefully these comments have been helpful! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I've responded to some of the above comments. Additionally, I found one more minor thing: Mangroves should be linked in the article body. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Marking my spot until I get more time to review. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a bit odd that there's a section called "head", when it is only about the skull, and all other palaeontology articles call it skull.
  • Perhaps a photo of just the skull would be better in the section about it:[22]
added
  • A bunch of terms (excluding the cladogram) are duplinked.
I found 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Tibia and femur is still duplinked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other specimens initially found" Have others been found since?
none that I can see   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this[23] another specimen or a cast of the holotype? It shows the bones in the position they were found, which may be interesting to show.
there's copyrighted artwork behind it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it's actually showing because that's not the complete holotype (maybe all that was known by the time it was described?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The German text on the window says the bottom is the skeleton as it was found and the hanging is in swimming posture. It is interesting to show how the bones were found. FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Mohammad Arif and Hans Thewissen" Occupations andn nationalities? You give it for people mentioned further down.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "to recover land mammal fossils in the Kala Chitta Hills" Any background to this? Why there, and why specifically land mammals?
  • Explain femur at first mention (thigh bone).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "tibia (at the knee joint)" I think you also need to specify this is a lower leg bone.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "found the teeth near the end of the field season, which are characteristically" since the story is told in past tense, you would say "which were". I know they still exist, but it doesn't flow as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "for the rest skeleton" missing "of the".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and the species name natans "swimming" The way this is written, you need "means" in there.
no it doesn't "The genus name comes from Latin... and the species name..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The formation is constrained" Name the formation again, this is long after your first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "during the Lutetian stage" State it is Eocene too.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Other specimens initially found were HGSP 18473 (a second premolar), HGSP 18497 (a third premolar), HGSP 18472 (a tail vertebra), and HGSP 18476 (lower portion of a femur)." This is written as if they belonged to different individuals, are they from the holotype specimen, just with different numbers?
those were listed under "referred materials", separate from holotype   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so there are more than one individual involved after all. But the intro still says "It is known primarily from a single skeleton which is about 80% complete". FunkMonk (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
this is still a true statement, it is primarily known from the 80% complete skeleton and not these 4 other isolated elements   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2009, some more elements of the holotype's jawbone were identified." Discovered in the field, or among the already collected fossils?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "is a partial skeleton initially discovered preserving a partial skull" One "partial" could be replaced by "incomplete" to avoid repetition.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the only evidence of this in the fossil record was the 52-million-year-old (fully terrestrial) Pakicetus" Add "prior to the discovery of Ambulocetus" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and a hypothesised link between cetaceans and the Paleocene mesonychids" This is not evidence, so you should state it on its own like "and a link between x and y had been hypothesised".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Modern cetaceans (Neoceti) are grouped into either" What is the first citation mark for?
typo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This image[25] that shows Ambulocetus from a new angle (front) along with another primitive whale could nicely fill the white space next to the cladogram.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under Discovery is entirely about evolution. I think it could either be moved under classification, or there could be a subsection called evolution.
it's more about significance than evolution   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "(Neoceti) are grouped into either the parvorders Mysticeti (baleen whales) or Odontoceti (toothed whales). Neoceti is descended from the ancient Archaeoceti" Link these clade names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "paraphyletic" Add it is an unnatural group.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Upon species description, Ambulocetus was" You could say original description instead to make it clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and their somewhat similar physiology" I think what you mean is morphology.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The oldest identified cetacean is the ambulocetid Himalayacetus" You should make it clear this was named after Ambulocetus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there no available cladogram that shows the genera within its family? What is its closest relative?
no since the other 2 are only known from fragments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the holotype of Pakicetus attocki" Why full binomial once?
there are multiple species of Pakicetus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "or comparison, the holotype of Pakicetus attocki may have been 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) long.[4] In 1996, they estimated weight" Since the last genus you mention is Pakicetus, it is unclear whose weight you mention afterwards.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "In 2013, Gingerich estimated a weight of 720 kg (1,590 lb), similar to modern cetaceans, based on vertebral size." Not sure what this means. By comparing with modern cetaceans?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems extremely WP:trivial to have a book without an article under see also, whose summary doesn't even mention this genus.
Ambulocetus is important to the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Like other archaeocetes which preserve this aspect" Aspect is a bit odd to use, element or part would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the base of the skull undulates both towards the front and the back of the head" It's a bit difficult to envision what this means. How does the source phrase it?
better?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I think so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Remingtonocetid snouts are quite narrow, which was clearly not the case for Ambulocetus." How is this known?
I don't understand the question, that's like asking how do we know 'Smilodon had saber teeth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
How is it known the snout of Ambulocetus was not narrow if it is not preserved? I assume it is because the back of the jaws are wide, but could be stated. It could perhaps be helped by adding "The known part of the snout was quite broad, but the end of the holotype's snout is missing". FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
we know a large portion of the snout, and it's effectively impossible that the very tip would have shrunk down and extended some more   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • " by wider gaps (diastema)" Since gaps is plural, you should use the plural of diastema, which would be diastemata.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus skeleton reconstructed with incisors" Why is it necessary to point this out in particular, when the whole snout is reconstructed? Is there any reason to believe it didn't have incisors?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In one caption of artwork you say reconstruction, in another you say restoration. Both can be used, but it looks better to be consistent. You can also pipelink paleoaert, as some reviewers have trouble understanding those terms sometimes.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some more answers left to earlier comments above I'd like responses to before continuing.
  • "Giant otter swimming at Tierpark Hagenbeck" Captions should establish their relevance to the text if it isn't apparent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Map of the Earth 50 million years ago" Likewise, you could add something like "around the time Ambulocetus lived".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "may have supported strong longissimus which" Add "muscles" after longissimus.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "by T8" A bit esoteric, I think at first mention of these abbreviations, you could state "the eighth thoracic vertebra" in parenthesis, then the reader will know what it means henceforward.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "though it is thought to have had 32 total in life" Why?
I'd assume comparison with mammals of similar size? It only says "A total of 26 separate ribs of the presumed 32 are preserved"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "in the side view" The is superfluous.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • State where the lumbar vertebrae are.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "are bulbous on the tailward size" Side?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The surface where the vertebrae join" You could add "join each other" for clarity. Technically, it could also be where they join the ribs.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "For the four preserved sacral vertebra" Sate these are part of the sacrum, and where this is located.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Now it says "at the sacrum, just before the pelvis", but since the sacrum is actually between the pelvic bones, this should probably be reworded.
  • "In life, Ambulocetus possibly had upwards of 20 tail vertebrae." How do we know?
It doesn't exactly specify, but I'd assume it's because C8 looks like what we'd expect a mid-series caudal vertebra to look like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "semi-pronated position" Could be explained.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus hindlimbs at the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris" Isn't it a single hindlimb?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You only have "Ribs and vertebrae" and "Limbs" sections, yet dicussion of the limb girldes is artbitrarily distributed across them. Instead, you could rename the last section to "limbs and girdles" and move the sternum info there. Or just have a single "postcranial skeleton" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "which may have precluded the ability to break a bone" A bit unclear, break its own bone or bone of another animal?
"precluded the ability to crush bone"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Therefore, it most likely that" It is.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "indicates Ambulocetus required a large area for crushing (probably because it was crushing large items)" Reads like repetition/stating the obvious, could be rephrased?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "rather common on the Indian subcontinent" on or around? If they lived in coastal areas?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "in river deltas which were preserved in the Kuldana Formation" The deltas weren't preserved there, the formation was deposited by them, so it can be said to represent river deltas.
"which were recorded"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The nasal canal has bony walls extending into the throat, used in crocodiles to keep the nasal airways open" Whose nasal canals? The rest of the text is about crocodiles, so if it's the canals of Ambulocetus, could be clarified.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Ambulocetus probably went after fish and reptiles when given the opportunity, though probably did not have the agility to commonly catch them." Double probably could be varied somehow.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we be told who has proposed the various ideas discussede under Palaeobiology? You only do this for "In 2016, Japanese biologists Konami Ando and Shin‐ichi Fujiwara" now.
it's all Thewissen (et al) to my knowledge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Could be stated at the beginning of paleobiology then, afterwards the reader will be able to infer it's the same citation following. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the giant otter, Lontra, and Lutra" A bit confusing that you use a common name, then to generic names, you could say "the giant otter, and the species in the genera Lontra and Lutra" or similar.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Link lever arm.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "and also undulated (move up and down)" You could be consistent in tense, "moved up and down".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Based on the length of the known tail vertebrae, Ambulocetus may have had a long tail" Their length or the amount? The individual bones don't look particularly long.
Thewissen noticed the mid-tail vertebra is proportionally similar to mesonychians, and assumed Ambulocetus probably also had a mesonychian tail with a few long vertebrae in a rigid tail rather than a lot of short vertebrae in a flexible tail   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "They then concluded Ambulocetus could not walk on land, but that the study was limited by" seems like a connecting word is missing, you could say "but cautioned that the study was limited by".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "which is speculated to be related to the increasing size of the malleus bone in the middle ear." For the benefit of what function?
didn't specify, but it does show Ambulocetus had characteristically cetacean modifications to the ear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "at Locality 9209" This could get more context. Designated by who and when? During the 1992 exzcavation?
it didn't specify the naming convention   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "silts, sandstones, and limestone Link these terms.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "The first often stretches only one shell" What does this mean?
it's one shell deep, like how a layer of (for example) limestone can be 1 meter deep   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "transitioning to the Kohat Formation" State if this is younger or older.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "the group Archaeoceti—the ancient forerunners of modern cetaceans" Is this really correct to say, considering that group is now considered unnatural? The cladogram used here makes Archaeoceti contain modern whales, so if that is the currently accepted stance, it should be specified. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Archaeoceti specifically includes the ancient forerunners of Neoceti, all modern cetaceans. No one would call a bowhead whale an archaeocete, but it's unavoidable in the case of a cladogram when you're handling non-natural groupings   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, in that case Archaeoceti isn't an unnatural group. If the name is still used for a clade that includes modern whales, what is unnatural about it? It would be unnatural if it only included the ancestors, but not the descendants. It is possible that there are different uses of the term y different authors, but this should be determined. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
No you misunderstood. Archaeoceti excludes all modern cetaceans. All modern cetaceans are classified into Neoceti. Neoceti is most commonly understood to have evolved from Archaeoceti. It's like how Homo evolved from Australopithecus, leaving Australopithecus by convention paraphyletic.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Explain hyperflexion and cursorial.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Tibia and femur are still duplinked.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC) 

The Thankful Poor[edit]

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

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

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

Support[edit]

On 1a-e and 3. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

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

Background

  • "photographed models which Tanner shot" sounds a bit violent ;)
I didn't realize that until now! The wording has been changed. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis

  • We talked (in the peer review) about the average reader perhaps not being familiar with Annunciation, - what do you think of creating short articles on those two paintings? It would help understanding without blowing up this article.
I feel like that writing up articles for the two shouldn't be that hard, especially since there are images of both paintings on WikiMedia Commons. I'll see what I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I see a certain contradiction in "ritual experience" here and "ordinary moment" there, for the same scene. Perhaps I misunderstand "ordinary" - English is not my first language.
Ritual means that it is a religious ceremony done in a "prescribed order" according to Google. I believe praying a table would satisfy being both "ritual" for its religiosity and rigidity as well as "ordinary" for its frequency. However, I do agree that using "ordinary" does undermine the specialness of the moment (I even use a quote in the next sentence describing the scene as "extraordinary", so definitely a contradiction!). I replaced "ordinary moment" with "African-American religious custom" since I feel its more descriptive that way. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider to move the Banjo lesson from the gallery to above, where it's mentioned, - it gets a bit lost next to the large lighter one.
I think that's a good idea. Done GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I could imagine his parents' beliefs and school founding in the background section, - and if in Analysis, then perhaps sooner?
Reading it over again, I have to agree with the rather awkward structuring of the article there. I rearranged some of the content concerning Tanner's upbringing. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Next round: Thank you for moving passages, and creating a new article! I shuffled the images a bit, to context, and we should not "sandwich" text between images. One thing wanted for featured articles - and actually all articles - is that we provide an "alt" parameter for each image, describing what's to be seen for someone who can't see it, - imagine someone blind. Not too detailed! Perhaps compare FAs about images. Otherwise, I'm pleased, but will wait with a support because when others will comment, things may change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, I finished adding alt texts. How do they look? I hope I got them right the first time. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, they look good, but I'd expand the very first one because it's the subject, - "opposite", "African American" and the modesty of the food should be mentioned, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Gerda Arendt are you ready to support now? Coords say the nom may be archived soon without support. (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the ping. I looked again. While I am happy with the second half, I'd prefer to see Background more in chronological order: first his parents, upbringing, and beliefs, then the rather specific Banjo. If I am the only one with such a concern I can support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    I prefer the current organization of background, except that I think the last paragraph should be moved up. Also, I still think that the background length is too long compared to the article and I would be looking for ways to trim nonessential info. (t · c) buidhe 19:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt and Buidhe, I made changes to the Background section as best I could. Please let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    I like the new order much better. I'll look again tomorrow, please check the section once more. First we hear religious - which could be any religion, later specifically which Methodist. Not every sentence there needs to connect to the painting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    The current first sentence (!) reads: "The Christian religious education observed in the The Thankful Poor's depiction of a young boy imitating his elder praying can be traced to the educational values of Tanner's parents, who both graduated from Avery College and went on to found schools."
    1. I think it's too complicated, whatever the content.
    2. "Christian" is still very broad, and a link distracting.
    3. The "the The" is to be avoided.
    4. I am not sure "educational values" is a good expression, - it could have too many meanings.
    5. "can be traced" sounds like something hardly visible (traces) while I think it's the core thing.
    How about trying to not even mention the painting in the first (!) sentence. We know already that the artivcle is about that painting. This section is Background: parents, education, values, when and where painted, how old was he, in which situation, - that's what I'd like to know in the section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Hello Gerda Arendt, thank you for the detailed comments! I made changes as best I could; let me know what you think. GeneralPoxter (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    I like it much better. Two little things: In "the denomination encouraged education among African Americans and founded colleges." I think it needs at least a comma after Americans, ot that would still be "among", no? Also, in the sentence about Tanner and the bishop, can we avoid the repetition of Tanner in that they agree? I trust that you will find solutions and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support and suggestions. I'm not sure which sentence you refer to "about Tanner and the bishop", but I assumed it was referring to the one in Background about race and Bishop Tanner's lectures and sermons? GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, my memory ... - no, "Tanner was also influenced by family friend and educator Booker T. Washington, with whom Tanner shared the belief that skills should be communicated from one generation to another". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

  • Background section has grown quite long, it seems some of this info is not directly related to the painting. For instance, I think much of the material in the paragraph starting "Tanner's first major work of this sort was the The Banjo Lesson" belongs in The Banjo Lesson article but not this one. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello buidhe, yes I would have to say the Background section is getting quite bloated. I cut one irrelevant detail and moved another to a footnote, but I'm not sure if I should go any further. I want to keep the stereotyped criticism there because it sets the social context for The Thankful Poor. Scholars like Professor Woods argue that such comments may have contributed to Tanner's departure from African American subjects following The Thankful Poor, and this idea is alluded to in the History section. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would still say that the background section is longer than ideal, but I'll defer to you as to what is essential information. Whenever writing (esp. background sections), consider "Does this help the reader understand the topic (The Thankful Poor in this case)? If it does not, axe it. With Wikipedia articles, sometimes "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Naurice Frank Woods believes..." Whenever you introduce an attributed statement like this, always explain (very briefly) what the credentials are and why the reader should care. For example, "Art historian Naurice Frank Woods..." (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • All right I added Woods' credentials. I believe Woods is the only source I mentioned by name without including credentials—unless I'm mistaken. GeneralPoxter (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, will you be willing to support? GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, thanks for the *partial* support! However, I'm having trouble trimming and restructuring the Background section down any further. I was wondering whether you could offer any suggestions on which particular sentences could be considered for deletion or rearrangement? GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Source for dimensions?
  • Etinde-Crompton appears to be a children's book - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Missing publisher for Wilson
  • White House Historical Association is a publisher, not a work. Ditto Smithsonian American Art Museum, check others
  • The Princeton University 'Commons' site appears to host student work - who is the author of the specific source cited?
  • How does Baker meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hello! I added a ref for the dimensions; cut Etinde-Crompton, Princeton, and Baker from the sources and replaced them with pre-existing sources along with a biography on Tanner for one quote; and I had the website parameters changed to publisher whenever applicable (i.e. every time I used it). Let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
ARTNews and International Review are both work titles so should still use website (the latter can split out Hampton as publisher). The detail added for Wilson is a website, not a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I made the appropriate changes for ArtNews and International Review, but on the pdf for Wilson, it says "Published by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst, 1992" in the lower left. GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You already cut it by a good amount. If that's all that can give it's ok. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder

  • Have been following the expansion over the last several weeks. Comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Ceoil following up... (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Also wondering whether Johnbod could take a look if they have time (Theramin referred me to them)? The review process sort of slowed down this last week. GeneralPoxter (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This is nearly three weeks in with no indications of support for promotion. Unless this changes in the next two or three days, the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have started looking at this. Apart from a copyedit, it is looking good so far. --15:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the first time I have been able to review an article at FAC without any substantial comments. This is how FAC is supposed to be. I review in particular for quality of prose and flow, lack of inconsistencies and lack of sentences that raise more questions than they answer. If only to prove I did in fact read through the article I have a couple of minor comments:

  • As a purely stylistic matter, I think lower-case alpha notes are clearer in the callout superscripts than upper-case alpha: that is the author's choice though.
  • In note D, British idiom would say that a price established in the past "was" rather than "is". Not sure about American idiom which would clearly be more appropriate in this case.

--Mirokado (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Mirokado! I'm not sure if American idiom has rules on this, but it makes logical sense for the verb to be in the past tense. However, I didn't change the notelist letter casing since it seems many of the featured art articles also use upper case (then again, those articles all seem to have been nominated and/or written by the same editor). GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)h
Thank you for the response. Support. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Tecumseh[edit]

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

It's been 14 years since I've submitted a Featured Article candidate, but winter and COVID conspired to bring me back. This article is, I believe, an important one. Two centuries after Tecumseh's death, he is still widely admired and studied, and places continue to honor him with new memorials. The internet is filled with old myths about Tecumseh, long since corrected in scholarly sources. This article can now serve as a source of reliable information that's hard to find online. Thank you for your time and attention. Kevin1776 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment, watchlisting with an eye towards eventually supporting, you can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for duplicate links, which are a judgment call, as some can be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a neat tool, thanks. Kevin1776 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
      Please ping me to review after source check is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Image review pass per ACR. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Citations: Several page ranges have "p." when they should have 'pp.'.
  • Sources: Not all books have publisher locations.
  • Infobox: All entries should start with an uppercase letter.
  • There are a lot of duplicate Wikilinks.

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

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

HF[edit]

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

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

Comments have been posted. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 06:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by DumelowSee talk page

  • Done! Thank you so much for this review. I've made adjustments to address these issues. I've added the IPA pronunciation for "Tecumtha" in the body of the article; this pronunciation may be far too uncommon now for the lede, perhaps. Kevin1776 (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Your changes look good, Support on prose. I've moved my comments to the talk page as there is an issue with the length of the FAC listings page - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Phonology of Shawnee name

  • /tɪˈkʌmθə/ looks suspiciously like English phonology, according to Shawnee language#Sounds the language does not have any of these vowel phonemes. (This academic paper agrees). In order to keep this a better source is needed. The Wikipedia article on Shawnee also states that stress in Shawnee is ultimate rather than penultimate as claimed here. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I think you're right. We'll have to stick to the earlier version without the IPA. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for over a month and has only picked up one general support. Unless there is considerably more indication that a consensus to promote is starting to form over the next two or three days, I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I will look in, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought and hoped that you might. Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning support, beautifully written, minor queries on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Support a fine piece of work that fills a previous hole in the internet! I suspect Victoriaearle may want to read it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Reiterate support after reading through new reviews below mine; it is important to stick with high quality sources, and avoid the myths and lesser quality sources, as Kevin1776 has done. Wikipedia does not lead; it follows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Kevin1776, I'm sorry that I didn't know earlier that this was at FAC. Not sure I can get to it in the time remaining but suggest leaving a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and more specifically asking Montanabw, who might be active. Also re the pronunciation of the names it might be useful to ask Maunus (if he's active) as he's a specialist. I've pinged both but it's okay to ask on their pages. Tell them I sent you. If I get some time, I'll try to get back here, but can't promise. Victoria (tk) 00:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I have left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America previously. I might try again if we need another review. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no "s" sound in Shawnee, and the earliest recordings of his name give either tecumtha[26] or tecumthé. If our own page on Shawnee language is correct the pronunciation had to be [tekom'θe]. 09:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)·maunus · snunɐɯ·
This corroborates tekomthé as the best approximation.[27] Also it seems a source that could be incorporated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not sure if a newspaper column is the type of source we want to cite, but fortunately the pronunciation it gives (Tecumthé) is already cited in our article. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Tecumthé" is a problematic spelling, I think it should be complemented with a phonetic representation as [tekom'θe]. C is a ambiguous consonant with no geneally agreed upon pronunciation, and the vowel u is wrong since there is no u sound in Shawnee either. So in phonetic rendering it must be tekomthé (In english the u is often used to represent short o). I also think the Shawnee name should appear in the definition sentence - since this must be considered his real name. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I trust your knowledge on the ipa rendering, I just don't know how to cite it without straying into original research. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we use this source (already cited in the article) and have Maunus render the IPA, or does the IPA need a source? Victoria (tk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments by Maunus[edit]

  • I would encourage that in articles about topics related to indigenous peoples, one make an effort to include the voices and perspectives of the relevant communities, even if that sometimes means citing sources that are not academically published. Sticking strictly to established ideas of "reliable sources" unfortunately sometimes means, excluding those who have the most intiomate knowledge because they don't have access to academic venus of publication. I would certainly try to find ways to include contemporary Shawnee views of Tecumseh in the article. The legacy section for example does not say anything about how Shawnee people today see him, or how theyv have been affected by his actions. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • An article by the current chief of the Shawnee Tribe, Ben Barnes, is cited in the article, but I agree more on his legacy among Shawnees today would be good. Your suggestion about altering the definition of "reliable sources" is a Wikipedia policy decision beyond the scope of what we can do here, I believe. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not talking about altering the definition in policy, but about how that definition can be applied in articles about different topics. There is nothing in policy that says a testimony in Indian Country Today is not a reliable source per definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One source of Shawnee views of Tecumseh, might be this book. Especially the first chapter after the introduction deals with the conflict internally in the Shawnee tribe around time of Tecumseh's war- focusing on two Shawnee leaders who fought on the American side against Tecumseh - Captain Lewis and Black Hoof.
    • That book is cited in the article. There's not a lot about Tecumseh in that book, since it focuses on Shawnees who did not follow his path. BTW I've cited that chapter you mention extensively in my draft article on Captain Lewis here. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Great.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And here is an eye witness account of Tecumseh's death[28].
    • There are many such accounts, of varying reliability. Scholars have examined them all in depth. Is there something about this primary source that caught your eye? Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Only that it was recently made available on that website. If there is a lot of discussion about the sources and circumstances regarding his death, then I think the article should reflect that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • And an article about the debastes about who killed him: Simmons, D. A. (2012). " Thus Fell Tecumseh": The 1813 Struggle for the Northwest Territory, and the Mystery Surrounding Who Killed Tecumseh, Revealed through the Personal Accounts of the Participants by Frank E. Kuron. Michigan Historical Review, 38(1), 161-162.
  • And here is a book that can be used to flesh out the account of the events at Vincennes[29].
  • And here is an article that tells of how Tecumseh has been used differently by Indigenous and non-indigenous canadians in telling their relations with the British Empire.Brownlie, J. (2017). " Our fathers fought for the British": Racial Discourses and Indigenous Allies in Upper Canada. Histoire sociale/Social history, 50(102), 259-284.
  • Here is another by Brownlie on Tecumseh's legacy and commemorations:Brownlie, Robin Jarvis. "COMMEMORATING TECUMSEH." Canadian Issues/Thèmes Canadiens (2012)
  • And Gordon Sayre has a chapter on Tecumseh in his "The Indian Chief as Tragic Hero: Native Resistance and the Literatures of America, from Moctezuma to Tecumseh. Sayre mentions that in the biography of Benjamin Drake there are some materials from an account by Stephen Ruddell, who lived as a prisoner with the Shawnee and knew Tecumseh as he was growing up - he mentions that he disliked the practice of torturing prisoners. This might be something to include. ·maunus · .snunɐɯ· 18:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The modern biographies of Tecumseh draw extensively on Drake's materials and Ruddell's testimony. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Good. I think the article might want to mention Ruddell as a source of information about Tecumseh then.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There is an article on the New Madrid earthquake's that discusses how they aided him n securing support in Alabama - apparently suggesting he might have known about the area's history of earthquake (judging from the abstract). Hough, Susan Elizabeth, and Roger G. Bilham. "Tecumseh’s Legacy: The Enduring Enigma of the New Madrid Earthquakes." In After the Earth Quakes. Oxford University Press.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I concur with Montanabw that it would be beneficial to try to give a better idea of what SHawnee politics was like, than one gets by just saying he was a "chief" - I think footnote 4 should be in the actual text, perhaps with some citations. Also the fact that a "chief" had no coecive power and dependened entirely on whether people chose to follow their lead, would perhaps be relevant to emphasize a bit more even. Lakomäki describes this for war leaders (he does not say war "chief" does he?), and how you can demand being recognized as war leader but that doesn't mean anyone will actually consider you that. The Shawnee terms for peace/clan leader and war leader are Hokima and 'Neenawtooma respectively, which should probably also be in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, btw, Lakomäki uses the term "war chief" often. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

comments by Montanabw[edit]

  • I’ll leave a notice at WP Indigenous people of NA.
  • But as it sits, the first thing that leapt out at me was overuse of the word “chief.” It pops up 21times. That’s the white man’s word and should be minimized in its use (i.e. mostly if used direct quotes from historic documents, etc.). The exception is if the nation themselves has officially adopted the term “chief” as a formal title or honorific. This needs to be examined. Usually the word “leader” is a better word, and particularly watch out for overuse of “chief” with other people mentioned in passing.
  • I wouldn’t fret too much on the pronunciation issue, I’d use both the standard way the name is spelled and pronounced by mainstream historians with IPA and ALSO put in the traditional transliteration with as close as possible sourced actual pronunciation of how he may have said his own name, i.e. “Tecumseh (IPA), in Shawnee Tekomthé (pronunciation) [citation]...”
  • I share the perspective of Maunus that relying too much on academic sources, particularly older ones, is fraught. Absent tribal views, too much academic content is prone to inaccurately portray native perspective and promote colonialism. Seeking content from present-day official sources from the Shawnee tribes, tribal colleges, and so on is wise.

Ping me at my talkpage if you want me to take another run. I’m not on WP a ton, but I’ve got my settings so TP messages shoot me an email Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that Ben "that's Chief to you" Barnes, current chief of the Shawnee Tribe (who's cited in the article), and Glenna Wallace, current chief of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe (author of "Chiefs of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe") might be surprised to learn from Wikipedia that they have "white man's" titles. Kevin1776 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

SMS Nymphe (1863)[edit]

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

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

Support from Truflip99[edit]

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

Lead

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

Design

  • "The ship's crew consisted of 14 officers and 176 enlisted men" -- link Officer (armed forces) and Sailor?
    • Done
  • "Nymphe was armed with a battery of ten 36-pounder guns and six" -- link artillery battery again
    • Done
  • "In 1869, these guns were replaced with seventeen, and later nineteen, rifled 12 cm (4.7 in) 23-caliber guns. Later in her career, these were reduced to nine guns." -- WP:NUM
    • This is fine as is per MOS:NUMERAL, and probably better left as words to avoid difficulty parsing "later 19, rifled 12 cm (4.7 in) 23-caliber"
      • Meant to delete this bullet, you are correct.
  • "rifled 12 cm (4.7 in)" -- adj=on
    • That won't do anything - the template only adds the hyphen for non-abbreviated units. Parsecboy (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Also not sure why I included this bullet lol.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Service history

  • "Nymphe was transferred to Swinemünde to spend the winter months on 25 November, since the port would not remain frozen over as long as Danzig." -- slight reword: Nymphe was transferred on 25 November to spend the winter months in Swinemünde, since that port would not remain frozen over as long as Danzig.
    • Done
  • "In addition, as tensions rose between Denmark and Prussia over the Schleswig-Holstein Question" -- is there a reason why Prussia is linked here and not anywhere else nor any other nation?
    • Per WP:OLINK, countries should generally not be linked, but the general consensus I've observed over the years is that countries that no longer exist should generally be linked.
  • "The Danish fleet, which was much more powerful than the Prussian fleet, immediately proclaimed a blockade of the Baltic" -- link blockade again
    • Done
  • "but the weather was very poor, with snow showers hampering visibility." -- suggest omitting "very" here..
    • Done
  • "Dockum turned his flagship to starboard and began firing broadsides at Arcona." -- link Port and starboard
    • Done
  • "by which time the Austro-Prussian War had broken out and been decided at the Battle of Königgrätz." -- odd wording here... probably "and had been decided"
    • Fixed
  • "she turned to port and engaged the French squadron." -- you can probably omit the wikilink here...
    • Done
  • "reported in an 1899 account that Nymphe fired two broadsides at Bouët-Willaumez's flagship" -- dup link
    • Removed

Will finish this review off today. --truflip99 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Overseas deployment/Later career

  • doesn't linking Fiji, Samoa, and Singapore kinda breaks your rule?
    • Yes and no - there are of course exceptions to any rule, and the general preference to avoid linking modern countries breaks down when you're talking about city-states or small island countries
  • "where Sultan Jamal ul-Azam requested that Germany sign a protectorate agreement" -- link protectorate
    • Done
  • "ship traveled overland to Bangkok, Siam" -- link Bangkok
    • Done
  • "She was replaced by the ironclad Hansa, allowing her to continue her training cruise." -- She was later or then replaced...
    • Done
  • "On 1 April 1882, she was reactivated for another training cruise, which this year went to" -- which for that year went...
    • Done
  • "and had to go to Malta since a number of her crew were sick" -- after a number of her crew had gotten sick
    • Done
  • "She then began the voyage back to Germany, and on the way she stopped in Lisbon, Portugal, where she was visited by the King of Portugal, Luís I." -- omit
    • Done

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

Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Truflip99, just checking that you are indicating your support for promoting this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The infobox says she was commissioned in November 1863, but the text says she "was commissioned for the first time on 20 February 1864". Which is correct?
    • The text, good catch
  • Stenzel: what's the page range for this chapter? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Added. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Will review soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • " At midnight on 22 August, he sortied and began a slow approach to the French squadron, which remained at anchor overnight. At 01:15, Nymphe came within sight of the French ships" - So is the 01:15 on the 22? Maybe I'm just dense and use English wrong, but at least to me it seems like "midnight" could technically refer to 21 or 22.
    • It is a bit ambiguous, but in re-reading it, I realized I forgot to date the arrival of Bouët-Willaumez's squadron - that should give us the necessary clarity.
  • "fired two broadsides at Bouët-Willaumez's flagship, the ironclad Surveillante before turning to flee with Thétis" - Should be a comma after Surveillante, I believe.
    • Good catch
  • "Bouët-Willaumez decided that the attack demonstrated that the large ironclads couldn't be effectively used close to shore," - Don't use contractions
    • Fixed
  • So Nymphe went from England, to Brazil, to South Africa? Any rationale behind the seemingly unnecessary cut across the Atlantic?
    • Nothing specific in the sources, though if you look at eastern South America and western Africa, they aren't all that far apart. There weren't many well-developed ports in Africa before Cape Town at that time, and I'd assume the Germans didn't want to sail all the way to South Africa in one go.
  • " she was reactivated for another training cruise, which for year went to the Mediterranean" - Something seems wrong with "which for year" to me.
    • A missing "that" should fix it
  • Optional - split up the two images in the Later career section and move one up, for a more balanced use of images.
    • Done - and since the photos were taken in 1872, theoretically they make more sense to be in the section above anyway.

Looks good, anticipate supporting. I couldn't find much to even nitpick here. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Parsecboy ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Gog - everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4, and source reliability, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Paper Mario[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from RetiredDuke[edit]

  • Minor comments to start off:
  • isn't the 2nd game called Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and not "Thousand Year"? Might want to check all of those;
    Done.
  • please review so that the references are in order (for instance underdeveloped gameplay.[99][13] and overly complicated,[100][13]);
    Done.
  • per MOS:CAPTION, sentence fragments should not end with a period. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    Done.
  • RetiredDuke Considering "to start off," was there anything else you want to comment on? Panini!🥪 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. I won't be able to continue the review though, as I'm a bit short on time right now. Good luck with the nomination! RetiredDuke (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from HumanxAnthro[edit]

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

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

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

  • HumanxAnthro, before I begin, looking through the book sources I did not find much other than this, and most other instances the games are used as an example. Also, unlike the entirety of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise, these games did not move mountains; there isn't any big, cultural impact or references in other media. Although the first couple of paragraphs in the Sonic the Hedgehog article are about reviewers' thoughts of how the series evolved over time, this info is already infused with the critical reception section. Panini🥪 01:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'll ping PresN here, see what his thoughts are on this and if my legacy/reception merge alternative is alright. Panini🥪 13:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comments. Well, if there REALLY is no coverage about the general franchise's impact, then.... Support for completeness. There are a couple of minor issues (like those citation and prose ones I mentioned) but I think those are easily fixable. HumanxAnthro (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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

  • Fixed

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

  • (HATNOTE) Is the "Super Paper Mario" thing needed? If you argue that there is the word "Paper Mario", I'd argue that other video games in the series also have it. GeraldWL 12:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The reason why it's here is just in case readers might get the games confused with the Super Mario series, which this is a branch of. In my opinion, I think it's harmless.
  • (GAMEPLAY) The gameplay image is too small for me. Mind enlarging it a bit?
  • Yeah, but it made me have to move every other image in the article around to fit it. Thanks for that.
  • (GAMEPLAY) "a number of explorable areas, known as worlds"-- link virtual world in "worlds"?
  • Virtual world and simply "world" are different things; worlds are different sections in a game, like how New Super Mario Bros. Wii has "World 1", "World 2", etc. shown in this image. The "Virtual World" is simply just something or somewhere on the internet where users interact, such as a chat forum or a game on virtual reality.
  • (GAMEPLAY) "(XP, known in-game as Star Points, or SP)"-- I think it'd be better to change the first comma with a semicolon.
  • Changed
  • (GAMEPLAY) "RPG elements, such as XP, allies"-- shouldn't "XP" be plural, considering "allies" is?
  • Honestly, that's just not how the term is used; they call it XP, plural or not, probably because XPs sounds stupid. For this instance, though, I referred to it as its full term to avoid confusion.
  • (GAMES) "In Sticker Star"-- I'd rather change "Sticker Star" to "it", since the full name is said just a sentence ago.
  • Changed
  • (GAMES) "When Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, they find the town to be abandoned." Suddenly jumping to the synopsis without clarifying it in real-world context, like the above subsections do. I'd change it "In it, Mario and Luigi head to Toad Town in the Mushroom Kingdom, which is discovered to be abandoned."
  • Changed
  • Gerald Waldo Luis, would you be willing to support? I'd like to show that this nomination isn't stalling. Panini🥪 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, the watchlist pushed this page down and down and down. But yeah, supporting. GeraldWL 17:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Support from Shooterwalker[edit]

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

Shooterwalker, yeah, me too for yours. I cannot do it tonight as I've had a busy day and need to wind down. Probably tomorrow, as I've also promised two others a peer review so I'll make tomorrow a review day. Panini🥪 01:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Going to work through the prose and references and see how far I get.
  • Lead
  • I've never seen the word "sub-series". It might be a little jargon-y and there could be a plainer way of explaining its relationship to the overall franchise, and what makes it separate from the other platform games.
  • The commas in the sentence about the allies and antagonists add a lot of wordiness, in two sub-clauses. I feel like you could drop them without losing much information.
  • Removed, but left "Primarily Bowser".
  • "game to be Paper Mario," → "game to become Paper Mario,"
  • Fixed
  • "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to keep each game's style, such as in genre and combat, different from the previous game." This type of sentence isn't terrible, but trying to avoid run-on sentences with lots of commas is something to strive for. How about "Despite the early games in the series being well-received, Kensuke Tanabe wanted to each game to have a different style, varying the genre and combat system for each new title."
  • Changed but replaced "and combat system" to "and core gameplay element" as that is what's most often changed (there was also a typo in there).
  • "transition from role-playing games to more the action-adventure genre" → "transform genres from role-playing games to action-adventure".
  • Changed
  • "The new format of the games, starting from Paper Mario: Sticker Star onward, received mixed reception, with complaints regarding the new genre style but praise for the writing, characters, music, and reimagined paper aesthetic visuals." → "With the release of Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the series began receiving complaints about its change in genre, but still continued to earn praise for its writing, characters, music, and paper-inspired visuals."
  • You, my friend, are very good with words. You should consider Extraversion.
  • Gameplay
  • You don't need a semi-colon when a period will do. Truthfully, this whole sentence is a slew of commas that should be broken up into smaller sentences.
  • What can I say, I, for one, am a comma guy, as they not only help combine sentences, but, in my opinion, help with the flow of transition.
  • Maybe find a way to rephrase, without using "each game" so soon after each other.
  • Changed the first instance to series.
  • "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or help fight in combat." → (parallelism) "aid in either completing tasks in the worlds or helping fight in combat."
  • Fixed
  • "but uses up flower points (FP), an in-game statistic, when used" → "but uses up a finite amount of flower points (FP)."
  • "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead" → "Super Paper Mario is more of a platform game compared to first two role-playing games in the series."
  • Unclear what you mean here: "Although Mario does not fight alongside unique partners"
  • "In addition, allies known as Pixls, which grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels, can be summoned and used" → "In addition, Mario can summon allies known as Pixls, who grant additional abilities that are useful in combat and for traversing levels."
  • "the Paper Mario games are more aimed towards the action-adventure genre" → "the series shifted towards the action-adventure genre."
  • "RPG elements, such as XP, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced." → "The series reduced its emphasis on RPG elements, with no experience points, fewer allies, and a simpler plot."
  • Instead, the games are more based on puzzle-solving elements, and, although combat is still turn-based, each game has a unique strategy element in lieu of XP." → "Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat."
  • Changed
  • Games
  • "Paper Mario also saw multiple re-releases, namely on" → "The game was later re-released on"
  • Changed
  • "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and has stolen..." → "In Paper Mario, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach and steals..." (parallelism)
  • Changed
  • "Paper Mario's puzzles put emphasis on Mario's allies; most puzzles are based upon the skills of Mario's partners, all of which have a unique ability." → "Mario and his allies must also solve puzzles, which many of the challenges designed around one of the characters' unique abilities."
  • Changed
  • "The story highlight Rogueport, which contains a closed portal that holds great fortune. When Mario and Peach get involved in the discovery, Peach is kidnapped by the X-Nauts, who are also aiming to open the portal." → "The main setting is Rogueport, where Mario and Peach discover a locked portal that could lead to great fortune. Soon after, Peach is kidnapped..."
  • Changed
  • Again I might just replace the semicolon with a period, but this might be a matter of style than a hard requirement.
  • I'm also a semicolon enthusiast; I'll leave it in for now.
  • "which he can use to destroy the universe and replace it with a perfect one" → "so that he can destroy and remake the universe".
  • Changed but added a "to his liking" in to explain why a little more.
  • "To prevent this, Mario, aided by Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi, set out to collect the eight "Pure Hearts"." → "Mario sets out to stop Count Bleck by collecting the eight "Pure Hearts", with the help of Peach, Luigi, Bowser, and a new ally named Tippi."
  • Changed
  • "Royal Stickers inside the comet" → "Royal Stickers living inside the comet"
  • Added
  • "six Royal Sticker" -- plural
  • Probably just a typo
  • "using coins as currency" -- don't need the currency part
  • Removed
  • "pre-determines" do you mean "plans"?
  • Plans sounded a bit off to me so I replaced it with prepares.
  • "against enemies in combat" -- don't really need this. It's implied from being an attack.
  • Removed
  • "not visible in the regular camera angle" → "not visible from the standard camera angle".
  • We're getting F a n c y
  • "After noticing the island is also color drained, they are prompted by Huey who explains how six Big Paint Stars give the island color, but the six stars have been scattered, later to be revealed because of Bowser." → "After noticing the island is also color drained, they speak to Huey who explains why: the six Big Paint Stars that give the island color have been scattered, later revealed as Bowser's doing."
  • Changed
  • Having trouble understanding this one. Try to rephrase. "The player can use the Wii U GamePad which allows Mario to use the "cutout" ability, which peels a part of the environment and reveals locations that were not visible prior."
  • "The player can use the Wii U Gamepad to trace a hole in the paper environment to reveal secrets, known as the "Cutout" ability."
  • "To engage in combat, Mario uses cards that, much like Sticker Star, pre-determine what ability Mario is going to use or how he will attack the enemy." → "Mario plans his combat, much like Sticker Star, using cards to determine his action and target."
  • Changed
  • You could probably just break this into two shorter sentences. "When they enter Peach's Castle, they discover Peach to be folded into origami and brainwashed by King Olly, with many other residents, including Bowser, meeting a similar fate."
  • Split like a Pepto Bismal bottle that was actually cake.
  • "some elements of RPGs" → "some role-playing elements"
  • Changed
  • "For example, allies have been reintroduced, but don't serve as much use compared to the first two games in the series." → "For example, the game reintroduces allies, albeit in a stripped down role compared to the first two Paper Mario games."
  • My favorite fancy sentence change so far.
  • It is a little weird to put the spinoff games out of order, but I recognize this is a series within a series within a series. Just something to note in case someone else brings it up.
  • Again, I might try to find a way to explain the relationship between the series without the jargon of sub-series.
  • I settled with spin-off
  • "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book in the library of Peach's Castle which contains the Paper Mario universe." → "In Paper Jam, Luigi accidentally knocks over a book that contains the Paper Mario universe." (you don't really lose any explanation this way)
  • Changed
  • "After the Paper Mario residents spread all over the Mushroom Kingdom, the two Bowser's of both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach." --> "This causes the two universes to cross over, with the Paper Mario residents spreading all over the Mushroom Kingdom. The two Bowsers from both universes team up to kidnap both variants of Peach."
  • Changed
  • "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario; Mario and Luigi can perform their usual actions, and Paper Mario can do paper-like actions such as folding into a shuriken in battle" → "The player controls Mario, Luigi, and Paper Mario, using the usual abilities of Mario and Luigi, as well as the paper-inspired actions of Paper Mario, such as folding into a shuriken in combat."
  • Changed
  • "In combat, he can make multiple copies of himself, creating a large stack that deals more damage as a special attack." → "Paper Mario can also make multiple copies of himself, performing a high-damage attack as a large stack."
  • Changed
That's quite a bit and I'm going to leave it there. But should let you get started. I will try to work through the Development and Reception soon. The sources look generally good so far. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Shooterwalker, for the review. I did plan to get to your article today, but Plants vs. Zombies had some big prose issues it burned me out before I got to Namco. I'll get to it tomorrow. Panini🥪 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Trying a few more suggestions. Thanks for the kind words! Two general rules that help me write better:
  1. Try to avoid sentences where there are more than 3 clauses (e.g.: a sentence with more than 2 commas). Sort of like Wikipedia articles, sentences have size limits where it's more appropriate to split, shorten, or re-organize. (More commas for lists are a funny exception that you can get away with sometimes, especially at the end of a sentence.)
  2. Vary the pacing between simple and complex sentences. My last sentence was simple but not necessarily short, and this one is a little more complex without being too long.
  3. Avoid passive voice, especially in a more complex sentence, because it makes it harder to understand who is doing what. "The game was designed as..." vs. "Nintendo designed the game as...". Or even shorten that to "The design was..." to make it flow in a larger sentence.
Onto the review...
  • Development and history
  • I suggest revisiting how these paragraphs are broken up, just to really organize each paragraph around a game, or the period between games. It's possible that all the attention on "announcements" is adding clutter without adding much information, but use your judgment if the announcement is important to understanding the series history.
  • "Intelligent Systems was founded by Toru Narihiro after he was hired as an employee by Nintendo to port games on the Famicom Disk System to cartridges." I think make it clearer that they hired the company but it was effectively one person at first.
  • Put an "on his own" in there
  • "After his success in developing video games himself, such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, Narihiro hired more developers and expanded the company into Intelligent Systems" → "Narihiro went on to develop successful games such as the Wars and Fire Emblem series, which allowed him to expand his company with additional artists and developers."
  • "now modern-day Square Enix" you could drop this without losing much, and have a simpler sentence.
  • Removed. I don't like them, anyway.
  • "To try to get fans interested in the genre," drop this too, since you say it better at the end of the sentence
  • Removed
  • "following this," can cut this
  • Removed
  • "because he believed players would be tired of low-polygon graphics, as well as an attempt to bring out the "cuteness" in the characters." → "because he believed players might prefer a game with "cute" 2D character designs instead of another game with low-polygon 3D graphics."
  • "The game had a four-year development process; it was released in August 2000, late into the console's existence with the Nintendo GameCube about to be announced." → "Development took four years, and was released in August 2000, towards the end of the console's lifecycle."
  • Changed.
  • "The Thousand-Year Door was announced at the 2003 Game Developers Conference, and was announced to be the direct sequel to the previous game." You say announced twice, and this could probably be a shorter sentence. Try "At the 2003 Game Developers Conference, Nintendo announced a direct sequel, The Thousand-Year Door."
  • Fiddled with this a bit but overall changed.
  • "in July 2004 in Japan and late 2004 worldwide" For the sake of the summary it might be easier just to say 2004.
  • Changed
  • "the Mario & Luigi series started in 2003 with Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance, developed by the now defunct AlphaDream" → "Developer Alphadream developed the first game in the Mario & Luigi series, releasing Superstar Saga on the Game Boy Advance in 2003." (You could probably drop the semi colon before and just do a full stop.)
  • Changed, and for the second suggestion, no;
  • "The future producer of the Paper Mario series" Maybe bring this up later more naturally, so it doesn't break the flow and chronology.
  • Okie dokie
  • "which he says influences changes to the staff or a game's core system" → "leading them to explore bigger changes in each game's gameplay and design team." (This is something that hasn't quite happened yet, and is about to happen.)
  • Changed
  • "the game's director, Ryota Kawade, " → "game director Ryota Kawade"
  • Changed
  • "When the idea of being able to switch through 2D and 3D was conceptualized..." Try breaking this into two shorter sentences
  • Split like that one kid when he accidentally pulled the fire alarm.
  • "Super Paper Mario was originally planned to be one of the last games released for the GameCube, which was announced through a trailer at E3 2006," → "At E3 2006, Super Paper Mario was announced as one of the last games planned for release on the GameCube." (Full stop)
  • "when it was switched over to the Wii its motion controls were not implemented" → "it did not take advantage of Wii's new motion controls."
  • "was fully announced" → "were fully announced"
  • Fixed
  • "The developers, upon request from Miyamoto who was no longer the series producer, did not" → "As Mario creator Miyamoto was no longer the series producer, he requested that the developers..."
  • Changed
  • "Additionally, he also asked for the combat to be changed due to similarities to The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove the story because not many players found it entertaining and he believed the game would be fine without a story" → "Miyamoto also asked them to make the combat more different from The Thousand-Year Door, and to remove most of the story elements due to early feedback from fans." (simpler sentence, and you have the quote off to the right)
  • "Core changes in Sticker Star and further games in the series were made to help introduce the series to a new audience" → "Starting with Sticker Star, the series transformed to try and reach a new audience."
  • Changed
  • "prohibited the developers from creating either new characters or new traits based on pre-existing characters in the Mario franchise" → "limited outside developers from modifying or adding characters to the Mario universe." (gets you most of the clarity, especially when read with the next sentence)
  • Maybe another few examples where a full stop would be better than a semi-colon.
  • "last mainline game" needs clarification and could probably be rephrased. Could we just say game?
  • Clarified a little bit, meant to say "last game in the series"
  • "The artists made the worldbuilding look entirely out of paper," There's maybe a better way to say this.
  • Changed
  • "through a Nintendo Direct" could be "on Nintendo Direct" or even "through Nintendo Direct"?
  • Changed to "via"
  • Maybe end that last sentence with a full stop. The negative fan reception is a separate event and separate thought.
  • Changed
  • "The game released worldwide in early October" what year? do we need to say worldwide for a Nintendo game?
  • Fixed
  • "in a video in early September" Don't really need to say "in a video"
  • Removed
  • "in mid-May" is missing a full stop
  • Yeah, I just don't like them that much.
  • "He stated how due to not being able to satisfy every fan, generally the core fans of the series and casual players, he instead attempts to gravitate towards new concepts, which is why The Origami King used origami as a new paper-like theme." This could be simplified a lot.
  • Simplified
  • I'd say the last paragraph of this section does have a few run-on sentences that could be shortened and/or split.
  • Fiddled a bit
Reception
  • Maybe try to re-state the timeline for the reader as you start this section off. e.g.: Paper Mario is the first game, it's from the year 2000. Probably doesn't need more than a few well-placed words, but if it starts to add clutter, you can try its own sentence.
  • Maybe move the 2006 list ranking to the end of this paragraph, to distinguish between its immediate reception in 2000 and its long-term legacy.
  • Fiddily-diddled.
  • I think my last two comments also apply to each additional paragraph, establishing a year, if not some other marker of how the series was changing (maybe the platform?). It would help those paragraphs flow, and help the reader keep the timeline straight. As is, it just feels like a few disjointed paragraphs about different games.
  • Skipping to the end, the paragraph about the three games since Sticker Star is actually really informative. I saw one of the above FA reviewers comment that this article could use some more discussion of the series as a whole, and I think this paragraph is a great example. I know that's difficult if the sources don't exist. But maybe there's a way to re-organize it to have the reception feel more like a general comment on the evolution of the series, instead of a series of separate receptions for separate games. It sometimes feels like we are losing the forest by staring at each tree.
  • Shooterwalker, Just for confirmation, there should still be prose commentary for each individual game, however? Just some extra on the series as a whole?
  • "Additionally, the plot was also slightly criticized for being overly complicated" → "Some reviewers also criticized the plot as overly complicated,"
  • Ctrl C Ctrl V'd.
  • If you have three reviewers in the citation who agree, do we really need to name any of them?
  • You're right, Eurogamer doesn't deserve attention. Frikin' Europeans, man.
  • "the game's reception was mainly mixed and criticized for being centered around stickers" → "was mixed." Saying mixed and criticized is two different things, and you talk about the criticisms later.
  • I think I was trying to imply, "the game's reception was mainly mixed, with stickers specifically being criticized for being the center gameplay mechanic." I made the change.
  • "Thing Stickers were called" → "Reviewers called the stickers"
  • Changed to "Reviewers called the Thing Stickers" as "Thing Stickers" are a different thing than stickers.
  • "disdain" is a strong word. Just making sure that's what you mean.
  • Oh yeah. Talk to any Paper Mario fan and they'll come to an agreement on "this game is the absolute worst".
  • I see why the announcement of Color Splash is important, but you should try to keep a clearer chronology between the announcement and the game itself. Re-organize the first two sentences a bit.
  • Re-organized the first two sentences a bit
  • "lack of purpose" isn't clear.
  • Changed to "lack of overall necessity to the game".
  • "Giant Bomb reviewer Dan Ryckert realized the primary function of coins in the game was to buy cards for combat, which in return awarded coins which he believed made the system pointless." Try to say this in fewer words.
  • Fiddled
  • "as it returned old RPG elements and removed other faulty ones in the games before" → "as it re-added beloved RPG elements and removed other elements that had received criticism."
  • Changed
  • "considering their hiding spots and humorous dialogue" → "praising their humorous dialog and interesting hiding spots."
  • Changed
  • "The game's combat system was both appreciated and disliked" → "Reviewers gave the game's combat system a mixed reception"
  • C ha n G ed
  • You could drop the semicolon in the "other media" section.
  • Dropped
  • Related to my comment about this section more generally, the sales section could benefit from trying to make it flow as a comment on the whole series, instead of several separate sentences about several separate games. It might be as simple as using more words like "also" or "again", and other comparison words that show a when a streak is forming or being broken.
  • Added words.
That takes us up to the end and should give you a lot to work with. I know that's a lot of comments but it's on the right track. Feel free to ask any questions and we can revisit after a round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Shooterwalker, thanks for the review! I've been more busy recently and I do hope I have your patience for the time being. I'll get to your reception concerns in the near future. Panini🥪 21:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I understand being busy. Work at your own pace. Would very much like to see this article improved to FA status. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Just want to check in with support. It would help to have another reviewer take a thorough look on the prose, but it's generally up to standard, in my view. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM.
  • Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the awards and nominations table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from DWB[edit]

  • "In the series, Mario is tasked on a quest to explore the Mushroom Kingdom" - Tasked on a quest sounds weird, would "tasked to explore" or "tasked with a quest" be more appropriate?
  • Well, he's not going out and having fun for the heck of it, "quest" means he has an official goal. So it makes sense in its right.
(talk page stalker) Actually it doesn't. It's not grammatical. One is tasked with a quest. Or it could be 'sent on a quest'. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild Gog, don't call my grammar out like that. It's embarrassing! But yeah, changed. Panini!🥪 12:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "where Mario and an opponent take turns attacking one another" - Just to clarify, is it only ever one opponent or can it be more?
  • Ah, good catch, changed to "one or more".
  • " feature elements similar to that of a role-playing video game (RPG)." - "feature elements similar to that of a TYPICAL role-playing video game (RPG).
  • Added (and made another change)
  • "Super Paper Mario differs itself from the RPG genre, rather being more of a platform game instead." Maybe clarify it is the third game in the series.
  • Mentioned
  • "RPG elements, such as experience points, allies,[17] and a complex plot,[18] were reduced. Instead, the games focused on puzzle-solving, and replaced its experience point system with new strategic gameplay around combat.[17]" - I don't think you need to individually source allies and plot, when Ref 17 is used at the end of the sentence anyway.
  • Fiddled
  • The gameplay section is OK, I'm not a fan of images just being on top of each other but the sections are too short to really stagger them.
  • THe development and history section though... The logo images should either be a multi-image box or staggered, and the quote should be staggered from the crew photos.
  • Put the logos in a multi-image box (good idea), and moved the quote down a paragraph
  • "Color Splash was initially neglected when it was announced, but received generally positive reviews after release. " - Do you mean "ignored" or "interest was low"? Neglected sounds like the studio didn't care.
  • I went spicy and changed it to "derided"
  • I feel like "In other media" should be the last of the things in that section that it is otherwise dealing with reception.
  • Moved
  • There's a Red Link for DICE awards.
  • Yes, it's supposed to urge the article's creation. It is definitely notable enough to have its own article, considering its many other annual ceremonies have one too.
  • Everything seems to be archived properly.
  • The non-English language sources needed "language=Japanese" added to their references Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Added
Darkwarriorblake, thanks for the review! That should be everything. Panini🥪 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Good job Panini. Reading through again I notice that the last paragraph of the lede has two sentences that open with "despite this". I think the second one would be easy to reword to make the whole section read better.
  • I feel like the last sentence of the first paragraph should mention the number of games in the series since this whole thing is a summary. Something like (and I'm not saying this is the right phrasing) "The series comprises seven games, beginning with Paper Mario for the Nintendo 64 in 2000, to the most recent game, Paper Mario: The Origami King, released for the Nintendo Switch in 2020."
  • Maybe add a date and/or the numerical entry for the mention of Sticker Star in the third paragraph to clarify its positioning in the series and around when it started receiving complaints. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Darkwarriorblake, done, done, and done; easy but beneficial changes. Panini🥪 22:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Panini, I don't have a tonne of experience with series pages but there are no other issues that stand out to me, so I'm happy to Support Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Paper_Mario_Logo.png: the FURs claim the image is cover art, but then the tag gives it as a logo - which is correct?
  • Changed; see below.
  • File:Paper_Mario_The_Thousand_Year_Door_Combat.png: the FUR does not provide an adequate rationale for how the use of this image benefits the article - it seems to be almost entirely identical to the lead image, which serves a quite different purpose.
  • I've explained further its purpose in the article.
  • Good, but this would benefit from further improvement. For example, what does "this image is the best instance where identification is clear and resourceful" mean? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This does not seem to have changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The same is true for File:Super_Paper_Mario_Gameplay.png. Generally speaking, the more non-free works you have in a particular article, the stronger the rationale needed for each, and this doesn't cut it.
  • Removed it.
  • Ditto File:Paper_Mario_Color_Splash_Example.jpeg, which is also missing a source
  • Sourced. The image is to emphasize the whole point of the paper-like graphics.
  • Er, there don't seem to have been any changes made here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Still no source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, should've mentioned I had yet to do this one...
  • File:Super_Mario_RPG_Logo.png: why is this believed to be free, and the lead image non-free? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You are the third-ish person to believe the logo to be public domain and not fair use; I've since changed its criteria.
  • Nikkimaria, pinging to acknowledge addressed concerns. Panini!🥪 12:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria Okay, now it should be clear. Panini!🥪 14:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Heraklion[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN and ACR. The second Battle of Crete article from me, following on from the recent Battle of Rethymno. All suggestions for improvement gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Image and source reviews pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    The caption on the lead image appears to be copied directly from the image's source site, but has neither quotation marks nor a citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Nikkimaria, I had completely missed that. Now paraphrased and cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

  • No Royal Air Force (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete until April 1941, but airfield construction had begun, radar sites built and stores delivered. This sentence is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
Gah! One removed.
  • The Imperial's steering gear broke down at about 03:45[84] and her crew and complement of soldiers had to be taken off at sea, at night, and she was then sunk. Scuttled?
I have added the Wikilink, but would prefer to keep the more straight forward description, rather than swap it for a less readily understood technical term.
  • Any info on attempts to rebuild Heraklion following the German air raids?
That is a very good point. I have not seen anything, but I shall research it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood the query. The German air raids were more or less continuous from early May to when they overran the airfield. However, I have added, as the very final paragraph, some information on the airfield's role during the rest of the war and its use since.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indy beetle and thanks for your comments so far. All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I altered the cite on one of the airport factoids but everything else is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99[edit]

I offer my comments as a way to beg you to comment on my FAC c:

truflip99, many thanks for reviewing, although a request on my talk page is frequently sufficient to elicit a review. What is your current FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I enjoy reading your military articles anyway. It is MAX Orange Line. Thanks a million! --truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead/Background

  • {defended Heraklion port and airfield against a German paratrooper attack -- link Paratrooper?
Oops. Done.
  • following Germans attacks against -- German*
Fixed.
  • The Italians were repulsed without the aid of the expeditionary force. -- for clarity's sake, repulsed by whomst?
I had assumed that it would be pretty clear to a reader that it was by the country they had invaded. I have added "by the Greeks", although it looks a little "statement of the bleeding obvious" to me.
  • Hitler was concerned about attacks on the Romanian oil fields from Crete -- comma after this
Only if one uses serial (aka Oxford) commas. I don't.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa." -- full stop after quotes
Not if the full stop is in the original. See MOS:INOROUT "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material".

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Allies

  • In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece -- comma necessary?
Removed.

Germans

  • The German assault on Crete was code-named "Operation Mercury" (Unternehmen Merkur) -- curious why you opted with "English" (German) rather than alternative
Cus that's how the sources handle it, and because this is the English language Wikipedia. But I can see the logic of reversing it, and will if you think that would read better.
Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, you are doing it correctly. But I'm just really torn on "Operation Mercury". It would seem appropriate to switch just this but I won't get hung up on it.
  • This force totalled approximately 3,000 men[30] -- consider moving the ref at the end?
Why? It means that the cite is then after text which it doesn't support and causes anyone who wants to check the referencing or read more about that snippet to do twice as much work.
Wikipedia:Inline citation, but I see your point
  • ... Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong. -- there is an earlier instance of the word garrison that should be wikilinked instead
I know. The earlier version was the verb, so I skipped it. Quite happy to link it instead of the noun if you feel that woould be better pracrice.
  • The design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them... -- there could also be an earlier instance of the word parachute
I have linked parachute assaults to "Airborne assault", so the currently linked "parachute" is the first unlinked mention.
  • This precluded their jumping with any weapon larger than a pistol or a grenade. -- link pistol and grenade (there is a later wikilink of grenade that needs to be omitted)
Done.
  • perhaps consider linking Rifle and Automatic firearm, for those unfamiliar
I beklieve that "rifle" is common enough not to need linking, automatic firearm linked.
  • Each aircraft could lift thirteen paratroopers -- use numeral? MOS:NUMERAL (you also use "13 captured Italian field guns")
Done.

A bit slow to comb through this, promise I'll get there. --truflip99 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Truflip99, no worries, there is no rush and your input is much appreciated. Your points so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle

  • "which were to have consequences for their attack on Heraklion" -- can't you just say "which had"? since you pretty much explain it in the next sentence(?)
I can. Done.
  • "They were blanketed with dust clouds" -- how?
Expanded. At a possible risk of "going into unnecessary detail".
  • "In the event the attacking bomber and fighters ran low on fuel and departed before the paratrooper transports arrived." -- this reads like a fragment sentence
Sorry. I am possibly too close to it, but I really can't see in what way.
  • "Within thirty minutes" -- MOS:NUMERAL
... says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Is there some other part which overrides this?
  • "providing a succession of easy targets for Allied anti-aircraft guns. During this period no German fighters nor bombers returned to suppress the ground fire. A total of 15 Ju 52s were shot down.[43] Before the Germans had completed their drop Chappel had already committed his reserve battalion and tanks to a counter-attack." -- there's an earlier instance of the word tanks in this section; I would just omit the link since you link light tanks and infantry tanks early on
Good spot. Thanks. Fixed.
  • " "to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat", " -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion of the 85th Mountain Regiment (II/85)" -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "had loaded onto commandeered Greek caiques at Piraeus" -- ciaque links to a bird
Ah. The umlaut was removed at the request of an earlier reviewer and I didn't realise that changed the target. Thanks for spotting. Fixed.
  • Link flotilla
OK.
  • "Wary of the Allied naval patrols," -- omit comma?
Omitted.
  • "The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash
Omitted.
  • " facing large bands of Cretan partisans," -- is there a difference between these guys and the Cretan civilians mentioned early on?
Yes.
  • "On the 24th four companies of paratroopers were dropped west of Heraklion to reinforce the Germans[69] and the town was heavily bombed in retaliation for its non-surrender on the 21st" -- inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph
I have deliberately used different formulations to bring a bit of variation to the writing.
  • "They were further reinforced by paratroopers landing at Gournes on the 27th." -- here too.
As above.
  • "GHQ Middle East " -- acronym has not been established
Rephrased.

Almost there. --truflip99 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that truflip99. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi truflip99, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild, pardon the delay I thought I had already done this. Full support. --truflip99 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm really confused lol. I thought I had completed this one really. I'll keep my support but finish reviewing it now. Unlikely that I'll withdraw it. --truflip99 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Gerda support[edit]

This is a completely new topic for me, but being German, I am curious. I'll skip the lead for now, needing more understanding first.

Background

  • Why is Oberkommando des Heeres italic, but Luftwaffe not? ... and "Führer Directive" looks extremely strange to me, combining German and English.
Because "Luftwaffe" has been adopted into the language, and is considered an ordinary English word. (Like flak, stuka, or Gestapo.) See Wikt:Luftwaffe.

Germans

  • I see no reason for the pic being left where it pushes out the text, which is worse with a short section header.
Moved to the right.
"Führer Directive" is used by nearly all of the sources. Bear in mind that "führer" is also an English word. Eg see Wikt:Führer.

Aftermath

  • "Due to their heavy losses on Crete the Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations during the war." I think this could also go to the lead, instead of ending there with a list of statistics.
Done.

That's it for now. Will look once more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gerda Arendt, many thanks for looking this over. Your points above all addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses and changes. - The adoption of phrases is something I know from Latin where it's Requiem and Salve Regina, but italic when more unfamiliar. We can't help that it looks inconsistent when two of those appear close together, and it's also subject to change over time. - Right now I'm too tired for saying something useful, but will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Next bits:

Lead

  • What do think of mentioning "Allies" sooner, or would every leader know?
  • Also, I'm used from other topics that the first paragraph is an overview of the whole thing, - is that different here. Just curious.
I am unaware of any requirement for this. In fact if this were to be done I would have thought that it would break the policy at MOS:LEAD. I assume that we are discussing MOS:OPEN and/or MOS:FIRST, in which case it seems to me that the first paragraph meets both.

TOC

  • I am not familiar with headers in MilHist, but confess that the TOC is not overly helpful to provide an overview. Compare this article I recently had the pleasure to review.
We may have to agree to disagree on this. The section headers seem to me to meet all of the requirements of MOS:HEAD. Specifically they seem "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". They - to me - accurately and adequately introduce the text they head. Reviewing them they seem fine to me; except for "Evacuation", which I have expanded to "Allied evacuation". Your comment has me puzzled. Perhaps you could indicate a header which you feel is unsatisfactory and suggest a better wording? Thanks.
It wasn't one specific header, but the impression that just from the headers, you couldn't tell the story. But see below. --GA

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those Gerda. Comments on two areas I have never had comments on before. Proof of the value of having not subject experts look at FACs. See what you think of my replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for no response sooner. I was preoccupied with my FAC, death of a fellow editor (never wrote an obit before, but nobody else began ...) and other missing. I am happy to support, - military language seems just to be shorter than about a composer's who fought other battles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support by AhmadLX[edit]

Hi Gog. Since you've reviewed 3 of my GANs and 1 FAC, I will do this one to return some favor.

Thanks AhmadLX, appreciated. (You write good articles.)
  • "The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks ..." and "A German invasion in April 1941 ..." The two should be combined into one sentence, with e.g. an "although" preceding the 1st one, to give better flow. Right now it is abrupt.
I am reluctant to conflate episodes more than three months apart in a single sentence. I have added some waffle to try and smooth over the perceived abruptness, see what you think.
Seems good to me.
  • "The brigade was made up of: the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment (2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle) and the 2nd Battalion ..." So "2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment" is a single unit, then why do you have 2nd battalion again?
Because the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment is a different unit from the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).
  • Actually whole of the above sentence with battalions stuff is very laborious to understand (at least for those unacquainted with military terminology, like me)
Very true. British battalions have unwieldy names. But I have to state the units involved on both sides somewhere, giving full names at first mention. Like many technical articles there are bits where the MoS - and common sense - restricts how digestible one can make some bits. That said, I would be grateful for any ideas as to how to make it less turgid.
I would suggest two things (disregard if you don't like them):
1. and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) → and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)
Good idea. Done.
2. Relegating the stuff inside brackets [(2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle), (2nd Black Watch; 867) etc. ] to footnotes.
I'm not sure that it appropriate to relegate fairly important information to footnotes. Let me think on't - I am aware that my view may be skewed by being relatively used to the convoluted names of British battalions and so the sentence reading more smoothly for me.
I have tried a couple of things: putting the complements in footnotes; pulling them out into a separate, subsequent sentence. Each has pros and cons, but on reflection, to me the present arrangement seems least bad.
  • "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft ... which resulted in a high incidence of wrist injuries." Any info on why were they required to do so?
Yes. Added. Could you check that it is not getting too repetitive.
  • "south east" and "south-east"
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
  • "When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received large quantities of weapons, ammunition and equipment, including two motorcycles with sidecars." This should be made more explicit that they were duped.
I would love to add something like "believing they were German positions". But the sources don't support it. Stating that the pilots were duped would, IMO, be OR. It may seem obvious to you and me, but if a source doesn't support this supposition, I don't see how it can be included. Ah ha, after searching around I have found a source saying the Allies were able "to confuse the pilots", so I have tweaked the sentence.
The cited source in fact says that the Britons fooled the Germans in bombing their own positions (Although I'm not sure if it is regarding this battle or a different one on Crete)
I believe that you are thinking of the Battle of Rethymno, also currently at FAC. The source cited for this incident, at Heraklion, is Beevor, p. 94:

They had learned, like their counterparts at Rethymno, to confuse the pilots of the transport planes and bombers. They laid out captured swastika flags on their positions, stopped shooting and, when the Germans fired green Very lights, they did the same. On a number of occasions, captured recognition strips produced containers with weapons, ammunition, rations and medical supplies. Sets of surgical implements were parachuted, with true German practicality, in containers shaped like coffins to provide a second use. Two outstanding examples of this military manna from heaven were a pair of motor-cycles with side-cars, one dropped to Major Sir Keith Dick-Cunyngham's company of the Black Watch and the other to the Australian battalion on the Charlies. The Australians found themselves so well provided with German weapons that large quantities could be handed over to the less fortunate Greek troops.

It obviously says that Heraklion dudes used captured flags to deceive them. Somewhere else, without naming battle, it also talks about Germans bombing their own boys, but since google version has no page numbers, I'm not sure if it refers to Heraklion or some other battle. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reread Beevor, and the only reference I can find to the Germans bombing their own men is during the Battle of Rethymno, and no mention of it happening during this battle.
  • "On 23 May six Hurricanes ..." and "On 26 May, Freyberg informed ..." Several other similar instances of inconsistent comma after a time indicator (e.g. "By the end of the month, ... " and "On 30 April 1941 ...")
Thanks. I suspect someone has been "helpfully" inserting them. Removed.
  • "The embarkation went smoothly and the squadron was underway by 03:00.[81] with approximately 4,000–4,100 evacuees on board." Remove period after 03:00.
Done.
  • Duplinks: Garrison, Fighters, Middle East, Heraklion International Airport.
Fixed.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi AhmadLX, and thanks for that. Good stuff. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "weapon containers" and "weapons containers"
Done.
  • "caïques" → "caiques"
Done.
  • "Greece became a belligerent in World War II when it was invaded by Italy on 28 October 1940.[2]" Not on the cited page.
Gah! It should have been to page 1. I can only imagine that a cut and paste was interrupted, or something equally silly. It is not as if there are not several thousand RSs from which I could have cited that. *rolly eyes*
  • "and the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island. The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks without the aid of the expeditionary force." Not on the cited page
I have no idea. I assume that I simply missed a source. It would never have been in Long, his is not that type of history, and I can't find anything in older versions of the article. As it is all uncontroversial, readily referenced stuff, I assume that my eyes just skimmed over it. I have cited it to Gilbert, as RS a general text as one is likely to get, and deleted the Ploiesti bit as duplicating the mention in the next paragraph and being a bit peripheral anyway.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa."[10] Quote in the source differs from this
Hitler did say that - but not in FD 28. I am kicking myself for conflating the two. I am a prize idiot. I have made more edits on this article than any other I have worked on and I think that I have gotten far too close to it.
  • Please verify that no other such discrepancies exist. I am not assuming bad faith here. It is just that, as I know from my own writing experience and reviews that I've conducted, it often happens that one misreads something in the source, or incorrect page (or source) is cited by mistake, or sometimes moving around material creates discrepancies.
Gog, I need response to this and "and the Ploiești oil fields" before I support. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi AhmadLX and apologies for the very long delay. Your concerns above all addressed. Sourcing: I have checked a high proportion of the cites - over half but not all - and not found anything else I am unhappy with. Which is actually irritating, as it strains credibility that you could find several issues in the one section and the rest of the article is fine. With some trepidation I am passing it back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is it insisted here at FAC to have all hyphenated ISBNs? It does affect search results (compare e.g. 9780714652054 and 978-0-7146-5205-4). What is wrong with the ISBNs as they appear in the books themselves? Just a comment, no action needed.
I always used to do that, but got comments that FAs being "Wikipedia's very best work" then ISBNs should be presented in a consistent format. (And that cites should be in number order - another pet hate of mine.) Rather than have the discussion every other FAC - and some reviewers feel very strongly about this - it is easier to just pre-emptively standardise them. I even have 'run all articles through the hyphenator' on my pre-GAN checklist these days.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi AhmadLX and thanks for the ping. I got bogged down in my source check and distracted by RL and then FAC coordinator concerns and this review slipped off my "not yet completed list". Apologies for that. I hope to wrap it up on Friday and shall ping you when I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • Most of the images have empty alt text parameters. Heartfox (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Heartfox, alt text added for all images except for the map of Crete, where I don't feel that alt text would add anything to the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The template does provide an alt parameter; I think it could just be "refer to caption". Heartfox (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox, done; although I note that MOS:ALT states "for an image that strictly repeats the information found in nearby text or in a caption ... a blank alt attribute is ideal." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It is confusing for me as well because it also says "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text."
It also says at the top of the page "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible". Given MOS:ALT is not classified as a guideline, I would personally defer to WP:CAPTION which says alt text should be given regardless (unless an image is purely decorative, of which I don't think any image in an article would be anyways... so I don't really know why that's mentioned. Why would an image be in an article if it was only decorative?) Anyways, good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine[edit]

Claiming my place here. I will, as with Battle of Rethymno FAC, make use of the Hellenic Army History Directorate's Abridged History of the Greco-Italian and Greco-German War 1940–1941 to detect potential gaps. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, I don't think we can at this stage call the Cretans 'partisans'. They were not pre-formed into any partisan bodies, but spontaneously took up arms. 'Armed civilians' is preferable IMO. PS, just as a historical curiosity, the Cretans, who were mostly Venizelist and republican/anti-monarchist, had been disarmed by the Metaxas Regime following an abortive revolt in 1938. So the civilians who attacked the German paratroopers were usually 'armed' with sharp tools, until they got their hands on some German weaponry. Now imagine the Cretans had had their guns (IIRC somewhere in the region of 60,000 rifles had been confiscated) in 1941...
MacDonald goes with "partisans". I reckon that this blurs into "armed civilians" with a lot of overlap, but I take your point and have changed both mentions.
  • On the opposing forces, the Abridged History (p. 229) says much the same. Minor nitpicks: (4rd and 7th Regiments, not 'Battalions', although that is what they were, per Battle of Rethymno FAC) and Heraklion depot (recruit training/replacements) battalion. Again, as per Battle of Rethymno FAC, the caveats that these units were essentially barely armed and trained. The same source adds that the 13 guns were of 75mm and 100mm calibre, and some other details on individual weapons that are probably redundant or covered later on (Bofors guns etc).
Unit names amended. Could you please check. I could easily put the calibres in a footnote, but feel that that is getting a bit too detailed for any reader other than aficionados such as us. Let me know if you disagree.
Have made a small addition, see if you like it. On the calibres, agreed, I am happy with 'field guns'. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. I have tweaked your tweak - [30].
  • Since Bräuer led this operation, perhaps you'd also like to mention the unevenness of German paratrooper training: Bräuer had fought in WWI, but like many of the future paratroopers was a policeman in the interwar period, and the internal German army assessments found that the paratrooper units commanded by the former policemen were not well trained. In his post-battle assessment, Richthofen wrote that the paratroopers were virtually not trained in ground combat, and Sönke Neitzel mentions Bräuer by name to the effect that his men were insufficiently trained, and that he was completely out of his depth in the situation he found himself in (Deutsche Krieger, Propyläen 2020, pp. 205, 653-654 (note 332)).
I am seriously loath to get into this. I don't see it as relevant. Should I also discuss the short comings of the Commonwealth units' training, organisation, equipment, personnel, origins and prior combat experience and performance? Goodness knows that would make a long enough article. Similarly for the Greeks.
Only a minority of the Germans who fought at Heraklion were former policemen. Bräuer had been with the paratroopers for over five years, which seems long enough. To OR, of the four regimental landings his was arguably the most successful; admittedly against a low bar. And, to pluck two names from the air, both Student and Freyberg had immense experience - of the armed forces generally and of combat specifically; but both turned in performances which would have failed a first year military academy test.
I get your point. My only observation would be that while the shortcomings of the British and Greeks are generally acknowledged and discussed (also because they help explain why they were defeated) in English-language literature, the Fallschirmjägers' are not, at least not at the level of unit culture, training, etc. They are considered 'elite' and hence axiomatically competent, even if individual leaders come in for criticism. In this sense it would be a useful corrective, especially since these observations do not come from a historian, but from within the actual internal records of the German army. But I fully understand your reasons for not wanting to go into this. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
And I can understand that readers may bring preconceptions to the article, but I have carefully avoided describing the fallschirmjägers as elite, special, highly trained or similar.
  • As with the Battle of Rethymno article, I think we ought to add that the German assault on Heraklion was codenamed 'Orion'. I would also recommend that the German intention to land their forces in waves be mentioned either in the 'Opposing forces' section or in the 'Opposing plans'. It is mentioned in the lede, and at 'Initial assault' but the reader should be left in no doubt that the plan was from the beginning to make the assault in two waves, since the available air support was not sufficient otherwise (Abridged History p. 233 if needed).
I have moved some material up a section and added some linking phraseology. See what you think.
Looks good. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Add to the German plans that the plan was, following the capture of the airfield and the city of Heraklion, to move west with the Rethymno group while sending scouting patrols in the other directions (Abridged History p. 233).
Added.
  • Can we add that preliminary German bombing operations against the projected target areas (airfields, AA batteries, main towns) began on May 14? (Abridged History p. 234) Otherwise it might be unclear why the 14th Brigade thought a German air raid as something 'normal'.
We already have "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed." You feel that this needs expanding?
No, that's enough, I missed that at the first read-through. My only nitpick here would be that bombing =/= air superiority; perhaps something like 'conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to soften up their targets and isolate the island from seaborne reinforcements, as well as to establish air superiority'? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I would have no issue with that if I could find a source which explicitly stated it. Have you got anything. It is obvious, and I suspect that the sources treat it as obvious, but it would be OR without something specific. If nothing leaps out at you I shall re-trawl through my sources.
  • The Abridged History p. 240 notes that the initial air attack of ca. 50 aircraft caused most damage in the city, rather than the defences.
This is contradicted by English-language sources. Eg Long "For more than an hour the area was ceaselessly bombed and machine-gunned by aircraft which came so low that more than one flew below a strand of barbed wire which the troops had strung tautly between the two [hills]." I could include both PoVs, but given that all sources agree that the attack was militarily ineffective and that that is already covered I am not sure that it would help a reader.
Agreed, it is a minor issue either way. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Members of the battalion dropping close to the airfield clarify that this was the II/1 Battalion. I would also suggest providing the detailed breakdown of the German casualties (312 dead, 108 wounded), because that is a *very* lopsided killed to wounded ratio and indicative of the slaughter of the German paratroopers. Also, the survivors were about 70 strong (p. 241).
No other source gives even a regiment by regiment breakdown of German casualties, never mind for individual battalions. How confident are you that those are accurate?
I rather find it surprising that they don't. It is an official military history, using other official military histories, so I'd rate it as reliable. The breakdown is 12 officers and 300 OR killed, 8 officers and 100 OR wounded. Such level of detail must have come from some source, after all. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Does the Official History give a source? I hate to sound sniffy about it, but I must have read 6 or 7 detailed analyses or the German casualties, right down to separating aircrew casualties from the fallschirmjäger, but there is no suggestion that anything is available below division level. Several comment on the remarkably high proportion of killed. It feels a little like cherry picking sources - much as I would love to add that level of detail. Note my second paragraph in Aftermath.
  • 'Shultz' is a very unusual German name. Is it perhaps 'Schultz'?
I managed two typos in the one word. Corrected. (Schulz.)
  • II/2 Battalion also came under attack from armed civilians (p. 241).
According to my sources, not until later; as the area was thinly populated. For the night of 20/21 I already have " the II/2 Battalion, but this unit had heard that its missing components had been diverted to Maleme and, facing large bands of armed Cretan civilians".
  • by attacks from Cretan civilians civilians, gendarmes, and two companies of the 7th Greek Regiment (p. 241). Bräuer apparently also ordered III/1 Battalion to launch a simultaneous night attack on the city, but the order was never received by the III/1.
I already have "Schulz, to the west of Heraklion, was out of contact with Bräuer, but could hear heavy firing from the east". Do we need to go into details of things which didn't happen?
  • Add somewhere a mention of the Venetian-era Fortifications of Heraklion. It was the walls that mostly held off the III/1 Battalion, and the fact that the Greeks holding them suffered heavy losses in the morning air attacks of the 21st that allowed the paratroopers to get into the city again (p. 245)
Information on the walls added.
Imformation on the 21st was already there, but I have expanded it a little.
  • On the 22nd, the 3rd Regiment and armed civilians cleared the western and southern approaches of the city, even up to Archanes; the remaining Germans, about 500, held a line about 5km to the west of the city. The Black Watch also cleared the eastern approaches of the airfield from scattered paratrooper groups. On the same day, Greek and British began burying the dead Germans (approx. 1250) (p. 248)
Approximately 3,000 German airborne troops were killed during the Battle of Crete. To OR, it seems unlikely that more than 40% of these were at Heraklion and within two days. Especially as both Rethymno and Prison Valley were greater debacles.
I have incorporated most of the other information.
  • On the 23rd, following complaints by the locals that the Germans were using civilian hostages (mostly women and children) as human shields, the Greek military governor of Heraklion, Major General Michail Linardakis, sent an the local garrison commander, Major Tsangarakis, to the Germans, demanding that the civilians be released, on pain of reprisals against German POWs. The German commander agreed, but demanded the surrender of Heraklion and gave a two-hour deadline. Linardakis refused. (p. 251)
Added.
  • On the 23rd and 24th, Heraklion was heavily bombed and damaged. The water supply network was destroyed, and supply in general became difficult. On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos for rest and refitting, while the city was taken over by British units. (p. 251)
Added.
  • Following renewed aerial bombardment, on the 25th the Germans again attacked the city of Heraklion, but was beaten back. (pp. 255-256) During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes. There the Greek units were reorganized into two 'regiments' of about 1000 men each. (p. 256) At the same time, however, the Germans west of Heraklion skirted the city from the south, bypassed the few Greek forces there, and moved to join their comrades in the east. In the morning of the 26th, they captured a hill defended by part of the 2/4th Australian Battalion. The German forces were now concentrated east of the airfield, and began preparing an attack for the night of the 29th. (p. 256)
The last half sentence is contradicted by other sources. (And by the fact that it didn't happen.) And (ORing) it seems improbable: why throw lifes away attacking a dug in opponent when tanks and artillery are only a few miles away and heading your way?
"On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos"; "During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes." If the 3rd didn't withdraw on the 24/25th, which your first statement would suggest they did, could you clarify which units did withdraw? Thanks.
  • Chappel never bothered to inform the Greeks of the evacuation (), and the Greek units remained in place south of Heraklion in the Archanes area until the morning of the 29th, when they found out that the British were gone. Major General Linardakis met with Bräuer on the 30th in Heraklion and signed the surrender of his forces (so technically the battle continued until the 30th). (pp. 259-260). The Greek troops were taken as POWs at Maleme and Chania, but they were gradually released until November. (p. 260).
According to some accounts he didn't tell some of the Commonwealth outposts either.
Do you know where the Greek units were on the 30th? According to MacDonald they were disbursed and acting as a guerrilla force.
Date amended.
Details of the surrender and captivity added.
Were all of these Greek PoWs released by November?
  • File:Battle of Heraklion - Allied positions and German drop zones.svg lacks the drop zones of I/1 Battalion (southeast of the East Hill) and II/2 was further west (out of the map area, around Gazi). There are also a few typos: 'To Tymbaki', 'Headquarters 14 Infantry Brigade'.
I/1 dropped at Goumes. See the text.
The map matches Beevor. The most recent (1991) detailed source I could find with a decent map. Other maps and English-language text supports the landing area of the II/2 shown.
I am linking the Abridged History's map with my own translations of the unit names ([31]). I am pretty sure the Greek history's map is more accurate, both on the II/2 and the I/1 drop zones. Especially the latter is missing entirely from the map, don't you think that is odd? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Re I/1 - no. I could literally give you ten sources without searching which state that it dropped 5 miles away at Gournes, alongside the regimental HQ. Most then go into considerable detail around what it did, capturing a radio station, assembling, being attacked by Creatans, Bräuer peeling off a platoon and force marching it to the airfield, the rest of the battalion marching in through the night and taking 200 casualties to Greek civilians, etc. That the I/1 landed well away from the area on the map is as nailed down as anything in the battle.
I have looked at the map and it it claims that is where the Germans landed it is in contradiction of every other RD on the topic. If it says that was the position it is getting much closer. (My Greek isn't up to that distinction.)
  • The Von Blücher brothers are often mentioned in works about the Battle of Crete (probably due to their famous ancestor), and they were killed at Heraklion. Perhaps we should point to them somehow?
Not in my opinion.
No problem. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • A question: why do you use only a single page from Prekatsounakis, who seems to be specialized on the battle?
I have grave doubts as to him being a " high-quality reliable source". I use him once, uncontroversially and redundantly, to indicate that I am aware of the work and have read it and to ward against possible accusations of not having met "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Then stay well away.
I haven't read the book, but suspected as much. In that case I would recommend relegating him to a 'further reading' section, unless the reference is truly crucial and can only be found there. By citing him, you implicitly consider him a RS. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's it. It reads really well, is quite exhaustive (apart from the days after the 21st) and tells the story very engagingly. An excellent piece of work, as usual. Constantine ✍ 19:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Constantine, from an old hand like yourself I appreciate that. I have, I think, addressed all of your points. Disagreeing with you in places, querying in others, but mostly gleefully incorporating the information. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Just when I thought we were almost done, I found that I have access via the Vienna University Library, to the English translation of Golla's The German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41. He is indeed exhaustively detailed. I will pause my responses to you until I've had a look at it, and will be back at it tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Not an area in which I have any expertise, but just a few minor points you may wish to consider. Otherwise looks great Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The aircraft which had dropped the morning attackers were scheduled to drop..—perhaps The aircraft which had dropped the attackers in the morning were scheduled to drop...
In context - that is, following on from the previous sentence - I think that the existing form works best, or, at least, least badly.
  • it was still improvised in nature—perhaps it still appeared improvised
This would suggest that it only appeared improvised; the sources state that it was improvised.
  • other than their personal weapons, or not even those; — perhaps other than their personal weapons, sometimes not even those;
Done.
  • well dug in (twice)—dug-in
  • ill coordinated. (twice)—ill-coordinated
From Truflip99 above '"The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash'. Perhaps the two of you could reach a consensus on this and on dug in/dug-in? Or I could toss a coin?
  • number were too intoxicated to disembark from the Imperial—You may not know, but I wonder why and how men were allowed to get hopelessly drunk on active service?
The sources don't state. But in the chaos of a night evacuation, and the relief of believing the danger was over, I don't imagine that a secluded compartment was too difficult to find.
    • Jimfbleak Thanks for your comments but I'm pretty sure that you meant to leave them on a different FAC, this article does not contain any of these quotes. (t · c) buidhe 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: Has Jim cut and pasted the last comment in error? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Gog the Mild This was originally posted to my FAC Armenian Genocide denial—I noted that these comments did not apply to my FAC. So I believe Jim indeed meant to put it here. (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Buidhe.
Thanks Jim, much appreciated. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: @Ealdgyth and Ian Rose:: This has five supports and image, source and accessibility passes. I have recently responded to the last of Constantine's queries, and while there may be some further to and fro I envisage this being sorted fairly promptly. All of this being so, could I have permission to nominate a second article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't see why not... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide denial[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about "perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organized, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate". Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the state of Turkey continues to reject the change of genocide against its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress. Perhaps even more reprehensible than claiming that the events never occurred at all, as is typical of Holocaust deniers, it is often claimed that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the "result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population".

I would like to thank Sturmvogel and Twofingered Typist for reviewing and copyediting the article respectively. (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ovinus[edit]

  • Hi Ovinus, just checking to see if you feel able to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, though I've got quite a bit on my on- and off-wiki plate, so expect a full review by next Sunday. Thank you for working on such an important topic. For an idea of where I'm coming from: I know of the Armenian Genocide but little of its details, and nothing about its denial. Very interested to know more. I'll read up on it after I read this lead, but apologies if I ask strange—or insensitive—questions. Things I'll pay particular attention to include WP:FRINGE information, dispassionate but accurate WP:NPOV, and broad understandability.

(reviewing moved to talk per SandyGeorgia's advice)

Image review[edit]

I know this is kind of your specialty here at FAC so this might be a sort of image review review on your part ;)

  • Is there a reason the caption quote from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story has weird margins? It feels out of place and more importantly is hard to read.
    • I had a blockquote using {{quote}}. But I restyled it to avoid the margin; let me know if you think that is better.
      • Ohhhhh got it. I think it looks fine now.
  • commons:File:Armenian monastery of s apostles in moush How do we know this is PD in Turkey? (no author date information)
    • It doesn't seem that the photographer is disclosed in the source so it should be PD in Turkey (anonymous publication + 70years). Updated image description accordingly.
      • Epic.
  • commons:File:Trends in official and quasi-official publications on the Armenian question, 1950–2005.jpg is good, definitely below the TOO when compared to, say, these
  • All images freely licensed and with alt text. Corrected a couple typos.
  • One alt text specifically cites "women and children" as the depicted victims, while the article text doesn't. Probably should have them be the same? Ambivalent on whether it's neutral to have it in, leaning towards it being fine, esp. given that it gives an example of the emotional appeal of the book.
    • That was actually incorrect alt text since there's no reliable source for what exactly the image depicts; corrected accordingly.
      • Awesome.

Otherwise looks good. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the image review! (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • And thank you for the implicit review review. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'll review this in the next day or two, and add some comments. Please ping me if I don't follow up in due course. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Kaiser matias Ping as requested. I am looking forward to what you have to say! (t · c) buidhe 08:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, see some comments below:
  • I'd suggest adding that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is also known as the Dashnaktsutyun; I'd argue they are more well-known under their Armenian name, or even just as the "Dashnaks".
    • Done
  • "In the meantime, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory in the Balkan Wars..." They also lost Libya in a separate war, which was also a big issue for them, being their last African-controlled territory (Egypt notwithstanding).
    • I'm aware of this but most books I've read on the Armenian Genocide barely mention Libya if at all, while focusing on the Balkan Wars as an important precipitating event. I just checked two of them (They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else and Denial of Violence); the former only mentions Libya once while spending several pages on the Balkan Wars, the latter does not mention Libya at all but does extensively cover the Balkan Wars. I believe this is because 1) many/most CUP leaders came from the Balkans and 2) there was a large number of atrocities committed against Balkan Muslims and consequently inflow of refugees to Anatolia; I have not heard about a large number of Ottoman civilians forced to leave Libya.
Fair enough, works for me then.
  • "Armenian soldiers and officers were removed from their posts pursuant to a 25 February order." Was this a political or military order? I think it would be prudent to clarify, and if I'm recalling correctly, it did stem from the government.
    • The order was issued by Enver, added to article.
  • The photo from the book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements says the photo is "claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims"; was this claim true, or is it a distortion?
    • It's not clear. Most sources cite this book as a work of government propaganda and genocide denial, i.e. not a reliable source. But, it is true that some atrocities were committed by Armenians against Muslims and it is possible that this photograph indeed depicts what it claims to. I can't access the page in Dündar right now but IIRC he does not address the question of whether the photographs are genuine.
Thanks for checking. Best to leave it then; ideally there would be some clarity, but can only work with what we have.
  • "Following the genocide, many survivors sought an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia..." I wonder if it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sevres called for such a state, and that the Turkish War of Independence put an end to that. What do you think?
    • Added
  • "Denial was consolidated during the early republican era." This sentence leaves me wondering what else was done, and really I think it would serve better to be moved to become the first sentence of the next section (ie. starting the "Causes" section that goes on to describe early republican activities. If so, I think the quote by Zurcher could be moved there too, but I'm not sure the best place yet; I'll wait for your reply and look at it some more.
    • As far as I can tell there was not active denial apart from strict censorship (briefly mentioned in "Destruction and concealment of evidence") done right in the 1920s as the issue appeared to vanish and only reappeared in 1965. Neither of the two sources cited give details.
  • Is "Behramzade Nusret" the correct name order? As far as I know Nusret is a given name and Behramzade looks like a Persian/Azerbaijani surname. I'm not familiar with the individual so could be off, but it just caught my eye.
    • Yes, this is confirmed by Judgment at Istanbul page 195. Before the surname law most Turkish Muslims did not have a surname, so this individual probably had two given names, Behramzade and Nusret.
Good, thanks for checking.
  • "On 11 January 1916, socialist deputy Karl Liebknecht the Armenian Genocide in the Reichstag..." Liebkhnecht did what? It looks like a verb is missing.
    • Fixed
  • Also regarding Germany during the genocide itself: Hovhannisian has noted elsewhere (in his 1969 Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918) that by 1918 the Germans were getting annoyed with continued Ottoman massacres of Christians, and the public's reaction to these reports, and that it was a factor in Germany's intervention in the Caucasus in May 1918. He doesn't explicitly mention the Armenians and so I don't know how relevant it is here, but it could be further show the shifting perspective in Germany between 1916 and 1921.
    • Hmm, I hadn't ever heard that in my reading about Germany and the Armenian Genocide.
Like I said it was really more an off-hand remark in his book and not really expanded on, so not anything pressing here. Just thought I'd mention it anyways.
  • Further on the German side of things, I wonder if it's worth noting the high number of people in Germany with Turkish heritage here; I get it strays from the overall message, and there is a related article already linked, but I'm curious if there's anything on how that impacted the German decision to recognize the genocide.
    • Added
  • Regarding the US: "Each year, the president issues a commemorative message on 24 April." Is there a date that started?
    • It appears that this has been going on at least since 1994:[32]. Added to article
  • Also, there is a mention of Turkey allowing use of air bases, but I also think noting the NATO connection here is worth doing; it is arguably a major reason why the US has not officially recognized the genocide.
    • Added
  • ICTY should be spelled out.
    • Done
  • The Khojaly massacre is noted, and I wonder if it would be worth mentioning here that Azerbaijan considers it a genocide, which is arguably in response to the Armenian genocide. Not an important detail, but it does show an effort to downplay things.
    • It did say that in the previous version, but I have expanded on it a bit to make it more clear
  • I didn't see any mention of Hrant Dink in the article. His death was a major event and gave widespread coverage of both the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denial of it (and has it's own article: Assassination of Hrant Dink). I'd encourage trying to find a way to mention him in there, as that was a key event in this story.
    • Added
  • A look through the sources shows that the major scholars on the topic are included, both on the Armenian and Turkish side, which is good to see. Aside from Hrant Dink (noted above) I don't see anyone major missing.
  • This is obviously a contentious article, and one that attracts a lot of attention. As it is something I'm quite familiar with and have studied, I focused on the content rather than the writing, which I'll leave to better-qualified individuals. I found it to be well-done and given the type of coverage a topic like this deserves, and look forward to seeing it promoted. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you! (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice, I'm happy to add my support to a well-done article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by MaranoFan[edit]

  • Linking civil war on its first usage might be helpful to some readers.
    • Done
  • "By the 1890s, Armenians faced forced conversions" -- Was this conversion to Islam? This could be mentioned more explicitly.
    • Done
  • Shouldn't the caption for the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story image demonstrate what is happening in it more clearly?
    • OK, I have swapped the caption.
  • "The Ottoman government replied, denying that massacres of Armenians had occurred, claiming that Armenians colluded with the enemy, alleging Armenian massacres of Muslims,[56] arguing that national sovereignty justified Ottoman policies towards Armenians,[56] and making counter-accusations of Allied war crimes." -- This sentence could benefit from being split.
    • Done
  • Is the full form of ASİMKK available?
    • Yes, it's Asılsız Soykırım İddiaları ile Mücadele Koordinasyon Kurulu. Added to the link.
The article is very informative and appears to be well-researched. I will be glad to support once these are addressed.--NØ 12:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you going to respond to these soon, buidhe?--NØ 06:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback and the ping. I must have too many things on my watchlist, I managed to miss your comment earlier. (t · c) buidhe 12:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I finally got the time to read the remaining sections. Here are the comments:
  • "One factor in explaining denial is Sèvres Syndrome, a narrative that portrays Turkey as besieged by implacable enemies" -- "Narrative" is too ambiguous, would it be fine to describe it as a "popular belief" like the article does instead?
    • Done
  • "Acknowledgement of the genocide is perceived as a threat to Turkey's national security" -- by whom, civilians, scholars or the government?
    • The last one, clarified
  • Taner Akçam is linked and introduced in the Causes section, then only referred to by last name in Destruction and concealment of evidence, then referred to by full name again in Turkish historiography. I would suggest being consistent.
    • Done
  • Two people named Kemal are included in the article, Mustafa and Mehmet, so it is a bit unclear which one is being referred to in the Turkish historiography section. Also, is there a reason "Atatürk" is being omitted from the former's name here?
    • I added the forename to the reference in Turkish historiography section. "Ataturk" was not his name until 1934, after the events described in this article.
  • "Most recently, textbooks have accused Armenians of perpetrating genocide against Turkish Muslims" -- More specificity would be better. Maybe "Early-mid 2010s textbooks"?
    • Added date
  • "In a 1995 civil proceeding brought by three Armenian Genocide survivors, a French court censured his remarks" -- Mention that they were "Lewis's remarks" here, I generally think it is best to not use "he/his" two sentences in a row. You could opt for "he" in the sentence after this one instead.
    • Done
I stand by my assessment that the article is very informative. I will note that I don't have access to any of the print media used, so I will leave the verification of that to the source reviewer. I do have an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All About That Bass/archive2 which is also a pretty lengthy article, in case you feel interested to offer any feedback there. Thanks.--NØ 06:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your review! (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi MaranoFan, does that mean that you support promotion of this article insofar as the criteria you have assessed it against are concerned? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After the changes made, I support promotion.--NØ 13:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Is there a reason why several works listed in "Citations" are not in "References"?
    • I put the full citation in citations if I only used the source once, in references if I needed more than one page. I believe that's the way Jo-Jo Eumerus does it.
This doesn't answer the question: your first sentence says what you do; your second notes that another editor also does it. My question is why do you do it? (And referencing Jo-Jo doesn't help your case, I once source reviewed one of their FACs!)
I think it works best with the number of direct quotes required. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Strictly in my personal opinion the splitting of works into three sections and then not even including some could be designed to make life difficult for a reader wishing to confirm a claim. It certainly did for me. However, the FAC criteria give a lot of leeway in this respect, so I will leave it at my personal preference.
  • There are some p./pp. errors. Eg cites 123, 125.
    • Fixed
  • Add the ISSN to Della Morte.
    • Done
  • And the DOI to Belavusau (2015).
    • Done
  • Why is Asbarez.com high quality?
    • This is an interview with Taner Akçam used for claims that he made.
Why does what you are using the source for excuse you from the FAC criterion "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"?
I would argue that Akçam is a high quality source as he is probably the single most well known and well regarded historian of the Armenian Genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure that this addresses the point. By that logic if Akcam were quoted in a blacklisted periodical notorious for fabricating quotes it would somehow become high quality. However, given who the interviewer is and that he is reporting on a public lecture, I think that we can accept that in this particular case the source is high quality.
  • Add the ISSN to Charny.
    • Done
  • Why is CivilNet high quality?
    • Also an interview Akçam, not used for any extraordinary claims.
The criterion in question does not allow for low quality RSs if the claims are not "extraordinary". (I am not claiming that Akcam CivilNet is low quality, just explaining that it seems - to me - straight forward that the criteria require all sources to be "high-quality".)
Civilnet.am is a well-respected Armenian news outlet and is cited in various academic papers such as [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] so I don't think it makes things up.
Fair enough.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Seattle Center Monorail[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at bringing Seattle's other space age icon to FA status. What's not to love about a functional monorail with only one stop in each direction, using the original 1960s trains, and prone to accidents every now and then? Since the last FAC, the article has gone through a fresh copyedit and some minor work. SounderBruce 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Renovations and preservation" section is too long. Can it be split into subsections? (As for what's wrong with the monorail, I can tell you: colossal waste of taxpayer money.) (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • All but the first and last two paragraphs of the section cover the renovation project, which I would rather keep together. I'll look into how I can balance it (maybe by spinning out a station article, if it meets notability), but it'll take a while. Maybe we should use those funds to fix up Main Street. SounderBruce 06:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed the previous nomination and all my comments were addressed. I was waiting to see how the other reviews played out before declaring support but by then it had been open for a while and was archived. Hopefully it'll get its star on the second attempt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Truflip99[edit]

Thought I would provide my comments as I did the previous one. Hoping you have some time to provide comments on my candidate below as well. I had two points in the previous fac that doesn't appear to have been addressed yet.

  • An emergency repair to the Westlake terminal was made in 1974 at a cost of $100,000 to replace metal shields under the platforms that caught debris. -- debris from what?
    • Seems to have been for stuff dropped from the platform by passengers.
  • Expansion proposals -- worth mentioning anywhere here that the proposed service expansions of the monorail (e.g. to Sea-Tac Airport) were ultimately fulfilled by Link light rail

Will do a full read of the article soon. --truflip99 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Added two lines for the Ballard/West Seattle project, but trying to fit in the earlier proposals is a bit of a stretch due to the lack of available sources. SounderBruce 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Truflip99: Would you like to continue the review? This nomination hasn't attracted all that many comments as of late. SounderBruce 06:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Supporting based on my previous one, and the changes made here. --truflip99 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent on whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals
    • Removed from the two citations where they were used.
  • Was this source considered for inclusion? Can you speak to the approach to searching for sources?
    • I don't have access to this paper through any of my database credentials, but based on the summary it seems to only cover a minor refurbishment that was already covered by local newspapers.
      • What was your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Generally, I skimmed through the local newspaper archives for all hits of "monorail" from 1957 onward, adding supplemental materials where I found them necessary. I also used two books that I have in my personal collection, but both had broader scopes and only mentioned the monorail for a few pages at most. The local library has dozens of results for "monorail" in the catalog, but most pertain to the 2000s expansion program or are not available for in-library viewing due to the pandemic. SounderBruce 06:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how the service's website is cited. (Personally I would argue for the simpler, publisher-only version). There seem to be quite a lot of references to this site - could any be replaced by independent sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Dropped SMS from those citations. They mostly cover basic information like schedules and ticketing that would not be updated by a secondary source in a timely manner, so I think it should be fine for uncontroversial and basic information. SounderBruce 06:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

This nomination has been open for five weeks and so far has just the one support. Unless it attracts more interest in the next couple of days it s liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Same-old method. Comments resolved, support. AGF on the sources, so just gonna focus on prose, infobox, image.

  • (LEAD) Link straddle beam monorail instead of simply monorail. Is the hyphen needed?
    • Don't think we need to confuse readers by linking to a redirect in the lead sentence, as the basic concept of a monorail needs to be covered first.
  • (LEAD) I believe Seattle and Washington (state) should be linked per relevance.
    • WP:OLINK discourages secondary links to the state when the city is already linked and is the main subject.
  • (LEAD) "The system retains its original fleet of two Alweg trains"-- what original? Is the predecessor the King County? If so, the King County should be mentioned prior.
    • As in the trains used from opening day; added a mention but using the year would be repetitive.
  • (LEAD) "The city designated them"-- the trains, or the monorail?
    • Fixed.
  • (SERVICE AND FARES) "and closed entirely on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas." Omit "Day", probably gotta link Thanksgiving.
    • The link was originally removed via the first FAC per WP:OLINK, as it is a common concept for NorAm readers, as si the use of "Day".
  • (SERVICE AND FARES) "Children four and under ride free." Poor wording. Perhaps "Children four and under are able to ride free."
    • Fixed.
  • (OPERATIONS) "In 2018, the Seattle Center Monorail carried approximately 2.022 million passengers, averaging 4,780 passengers on weekdays and 7,536 passengers on weekends. The service generated $4.3 million in fare revenue and received approximately $883,000 in capital funds from local and federal governments." Duplicate citation.
    • This isn't an issue. Citations can be duplicated between different sentences for clarity in verification.
  • (OPERATIONS) "90 percent of World's Fair visitors"-- perhaps link to the relevant "World's Fair"?
    • Not appropriate in this context, as it refers to the already-linked Century 21 Exposition and not the general concept.
  • (ROLLING STOCK AND GUIDEWAY) "named the "Blue Train" (originally Spirit of Seattle) and "Red Train" (originally Spirit of Century 21)". Why is the current name quoted, but the former's italicized?
    • The current names are common monikers, while the original names were proper names, hence the treatment. SounderBruce 06:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Will put more later. GeraldWL 05:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Are you planning to continue the review? SounderBruce 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from A. Parrot[edit]

Seems comprehensive, but I spot a few problems.

  • As pointed out in the previous FAC, the article says a trip takes about two minutes, but the video takes three. A minute is a sizable discrepancy in so short a route. But if the cited source is the only one you can dig up for the travel time, I suppose it makes sense to let "about" take care of the discrepancy.
    • The two-minute figure seems to be the most common.
  • The name of the company is sometimes given as Alweg and sometimes as Alwac or Alwec.
    • Fixed use of Alwac (the company name; Alwec was a typo), and am attempting to clear up the confusion with Alweg (the product line).
  • The sentence about the 5-mile loop proposal would be clearer if it started out by saying it was one of two competing proposals, rather than putting the "competing carveyor" on the end as almost an afterthought.
    • Fleshed it out a bit and split the sentence.
  • "…was closed again over the weekend because of protests in Downtown Seattle". The sources say nothing about the closure or the protests. I assume these were the George Floyd protests, which should be linked if mentioned.
    • The archived version of the second citation mentions the protests, which I have linked.
  • The first two sentences about the 1971 accident seem like they could be combined in a more intuitive order: state that the brakes failed, then that the train struck a girder, then list the injuries. A. Parrot (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @A. Parrot: Done. Thanks for the comments and other copyedits. SounderBruce 05:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

MAX Orange Line[edit]

Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review hoping to make it the third MAX Light Rail-related article to achieve FA after the Red Line and the Yellow Line. Hoping the process is a little smoother this time using the two FAs as models. The Orange Line is Portland's newest MAX extension, having opened in 2015. Its was built following two decades of failed attempts to expand light rail between Portland and Clackamas County. Part of the project saw the construction of Portland's newest Willamette River crossing, Tilikum Bridge, which is notably the country's first major "car-free" bridge (it only allows peds, bikes, and transit). This article has been extensively copy edited and reviewed and would make a great addition to WP's FAs. truflip99 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Whoops completely screwed up that nom. Fixing! Thanks, SandyGeorgia! - truflip99 (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    No prob .. I have moved this malformed nomination from WP:FAR to WP:FAC, and hopefully corrected all the pieces, including on article talk. Hawkeye7 will need to make sure I got everything and that FACbot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Image review
  • Images appear to be freely licensed
  • Stations image bar displays badly along with table (depending on configuration) for some readers. I would use just one station image, or if multiple are absolutely necessary, then use a horizontal gallery. Multiple images is also suboptimal in that it doesn't scale for the reader preference. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Removed. Thanks for the image review! --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

  • Add alt text to all of the images.
    • Done
  • The tables need row and column scopes, row headers, and captions per MOS:DTAB. To keep the same visual appearance, add "plainrowheaders" next to wikitable sortable.
    • Partly done; upon previewing plainrowheaders it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions?
  • I believe the line transfers coloured circles should have an alt attribute or be accompanied by text (like Amtrak/Greyhound); not just colour/symbol only.
  • Convert the dagger symbol to Template:Dagger and add alt text.
    • Done
  • Convert the down arrow to Template:Down-arrow and add alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Done
Thanks for the accessibility review, Heartfox. I've addressed all but one, which I'll need more time for. --truflip99 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You can add the row headers (!) and keep the same colour with style="background-color:#F8F9FA" I believe. The key table also needs scopes/row headers. You haven't added {{down-arrow|alt=}} yet. Heartfox (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Heartfox I just used the subst template suggested in the down-arrow template page, and when you save it it reverts to the icon only (shrug). --truflip99 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review, and reserving a place. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of dup links. Are they intentional?
    • I only typically do this for links that are created by templates. Could you provide an example? --truflip99 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I assume Gog is talking about Milwaukie/Main Street station and Southeast Park Avenue station. In the future, you could install something like User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js to find these. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
        • @Epicgenius and Gog the Mild: If the one on lead, one on prose, and one on the table -- then yes, they are intentional. But... are they incorrect..? Never mind, found and omitted. --truflip99 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Lead
  • Caption: "Most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan". Suggest 'Union Station/Northwest 5th & Gilsan where most southbound Yellow Line trains switch to Orange Line service' so readers are told what they are looking at first.
Done
  • "and runs southbound only within downtown Portland". Is "only" needed?
Omitted
  • "From there". From where?
Clarified
  • "it operates". Is this USvar? It makes no sense in ENGvar - it describes the line itself operating a distance(?)
Reworded
  • "The line serves 17 stations between Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue". The way you have described it, the 17 stations are exclusive of Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan and Southeast Park Avenue. Is this correct?
Reworded
  • "This MAX extension". Does "this" refer to the second or first phase? (Or both?)
Clarified
  • "Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station". Should "station" not have an upper case S? And in other similar cases?
WP articles for transit stations in the west lowercase "station" as it is often not part of the formal name/train announcement.
  • What is a "transit mall alignment"?
Reworded as "transit mall tracks"
  • What does "through-operates into" mean?
Through train, rail term that means a train changes name mid-operation
  • There should not be information in the infobox which is not in the main article.
This article is a child of the parent MAX Light Rail; I moved the stock param to the main, but I think some of the technical params are quintessential items that railfans look for. These params do not necessarily need to be expanded upon in the body of a child article, since they the same across all other lines for American light rail systems. The same cannot be said for other transit systems in other countries however.
My US Eng is usually passable, but I don't understand most of that. Is it in RAILvar? ;-) Regardless, the MOS requires that anything in the infobox needs to also be in the main article. Is this now the case?
Yes, omitted.
History
  • Should "Columbia Region Association of Governments" be linked to Metro (Oregon regional government)?
Done
  • "ultimately built with light rail". This reads oddly. Especially to non-US eyes. I assume it was built with cement and steel. Possibly rephrase?
Reworded
  • "regional government Metro". I don't think this is grammatical. 'The regional government, known as Metro, ...' or similar?
Omitted
  • "as well as proposed a conversion". "proposed" → 'proposing'.
Reworded differently
  • "Noting federal funds could only be spent on one light rail project at a time, Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) made the I-205 line its next priority after the westside line due to the existing I-205 Transitway right-of-way and the McLoughlin Boulevard line its third priority." This sentence is covering a lot of ground. Consider splitting.
Split
  • "Clackamas County officials went on to dispute the federal money." A little more detail here would be helpful.
Expanded
  • "Metro released an official regional transportation plan". Is "official" necessary?
Omitted
  • "and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members". Why the commas?
Introductory clause for the first one; nonrestrictive clause for the second (and third) one
My bad - comma after introductory time period. Those look so odd to me that I just didn't realise that that was what it was. Apologies.
  • "which TriMet officially called the "South/North Line"." Is "officially" needed?
Reworded to "formally"
  • " "nearly two-thirds" " I see no need to put this in scare quotes.
Omitted
  • "Three months later, 69 percent of voters in Clark County rejected increases" I think you need to briefly introduce the concept of local plebiscites in the US here.
How so? I don't see any more to it other than they voted and said no..
The concept of an electorate voting on a specific and detailed proposal such as this is alien to most of the democratic English-speaking world. Most of it elects politicians to make those decisions. Hence a word or two explaining that things are different there will be a great enlightenment for many readers.
@Gog the Mild: I've rewritten it, hopefully to better explain that the proposed funding sources for the project in question needed voter approval (not the project itself). I can't speak for similar projects in other parts of the US, however, so I will refrain from generalizing local plebiscites in the US.
That works nicely, IMO.
  • "69 percent of voters" or '69 percent of those who voted'?
Done
  • "Planning for the South/North Line later resumed when TriMet released". Is "later" necessary?
Omitted
  • "scaled back the line's northern half to the Rose Quarter". In what way was it scaled back?
by "eliminating its North Portland and Clark County segments"; reworded a bit
  • "and narrowly rejected it by 52 percent". One of "narrowly" or "by 52 percent" seems redundant to me.
Omitted
  • "which evaluated mode alternatives for each corridor." Honestly, I don't know what this is trying to say.
Reworded
  • "They later amended the first phase to include an extension of light rail along the Portland Transit Mall when planning for the second phase revealed a fourth service along the existing downtown tracks on Morrison and Yamhill streets, which were already served by the Blue, Red, and Yellow lines, would push that alignment to maximum capacity." This seems an over busy sentence. Split?
Done
  • "The LPA also reaffirmed decade-long calls". Optional: consider rephrasing. I am not sure that "reaffirmed" is the best word, and a decade-long call brings an odd mental image to my mind.
Reworded
  • "amid the placement of Measure 3-401". What does "placement" mean in this context?
Reworded; "placed on the ballot" is a term we often use
  • "a special election ballot". Would it be possible to have an in line explanation of what this is?
Beyond the scope of this article, it's when a politician's seat is vacated and needs to be filled
Writing the article in generally understood English is not beyond its scope. Either don't use specialist/parochial terms or explain them in line. So an anti-light rail initiative was placed on a ballot to fill a vacant political seat? You what?
I've omitted special elections to avoid confusion and did some rewording. But whenever an election occurs in the US, you can include proposed legislation in the ballot.
  • "begin purchasing right-of-way and construction materials". What are "right-of-way ... materials"? Or do you mean 'begin purchasing rights-of-way and construction materials'?
Fixed
  • "Construction began later on June 30". Delete "later".
Deleted
  • "Right-of-way preparation work". I assume that this is a USvar phrase. Would it be possible to rewrite in a more generally comprehensible way?
Reworded
  • "As part of construction" → 'As a part of construction' or 'As part of this construction' or similar.
Fixed
  • "safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, allowing them to be designated quiet zones". This seems vague. Do you mean 'safety improvements were made at several street-level crossings in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie, which allowed them to be designated quiet zones'?
Yes
  • "the project had been completed by 50 percent." This is not grammatical.
Fixed
  • "18 new Siemens S70 vehicles". Could there be a little more detail as to what these "vehicles" were? I am guessing that my confusion comes from meaning something in USvar which it doesn't to me.
light rail vehicles
  • " previously elimiated project elements". ?
Whoops
  • "totaling $3.6 million". Do you mean 'at a total cost of $3.6 million'?
Done
  • "the first trips with around 500 passengers,". Do you mean that, or should it be 'the first trips, with around 500 passengers,'?
Reworded
  • "ran at regular operating speed" → 'ran at the regular operating speed'.
I believe 'the' is correct, at least in US Eng.
I believe 'the' is correct too. Does that mean that you are going to include it?
Sorry, I meant to say incorrect. Saying "the regular operating speed" would suggest that that specific speed was established prior to this phrase, which it wasn't.

I am going to pause here to allow the comments above to be addressed. I also strongly recommend a copy edit of the remaining sections prior to my coming back to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the thorough review thus far. I've addressed everything requested and did another CE of the following sections. I had this reviewed by GOCE... not sure what happened there. --truflip99 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I haven't looked at your responses yet, I'll do that once I have finished the rest of the article. GoCE is usually pretty good - but I've copy edited half a million words for them, so I guess that I would say that - but can be patchy, depending on who you get as a copy editor. Still, some of what seems to have been missed is disappointing. I shall try to get the rest done tomorrow, and review your responses by the end of the week. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Route
  • "The Orange Line serves the 7.3-mile-long (11.7 km) Portland–Milwaukie extension. The Orange Line begins farther". "The Orange Line ... The Orange Line". Some variation?
Changed
  • "the line enters the Kellogg Bridge". I'm not sure that a line can enter a bridge.
Changed
  • Caption: "A geographic map". It may be me, but "geographic" seems redundant; what other type of map might a reader think it is?
Just to say it isn't a schematic map as is often associated with transit. But I can get rid of it.
Ah. OK. No, that makes sense.

And that would seem to be all. Could you ping me once these last three issues are addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Again, really appreciate you taking the time. Sorry it took me a minute with your nom as I've been rather busy lately. --truflip99 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. However, the coordinators may be watching the clock so it would be best to keep this moving along. For example, you may wish to prompt Sounder Bruce. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Sterling work is addressing my comments. A few responses from me above. If I haven't responded you can assume that I am happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Thank you! I've responded to your responses. --truflip99 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
A good and detailed article. Looks to me to meet the criteria. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally forgot about this. I'll leave comments within a few hours. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

  • second part of the two-phased South Corridor Transportation Project that in its first phase expanded - I suggest something like "second and final phase of the South Corridor Transportation Project, the first phase of which expanded". If there were only two phases, then the phrasing "second part of the two-phased" is unwieldy.
    • Revised
  • From PSU South/Southwest 6th and College station, the Orange Line through operates into the Yellow Line as a northbound service of the transit mall on 6th Avenue, terminating at Expo Center station in North Portland. - It took me a bit to figure out what was going on (even though I understand through services). For this sentence, I would suggest "operates through to" instead of "through operates into". Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I've reworded it accordingly, but I just took that phrase from the Through train article.

@Epicgenius: Thanks for remembering! --truflip99 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

History

  • In 1975, the Columbia Region Association of Governments (CRAG) proposed a series of "transitway" corridors in the Portland metropolitan area amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region - I suggest moving "amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region" to after "In 1975". Right now, the lack of punctuation is weird. E.g. "In 1975, amid calls to transfer federal assistance funds from the canceled Mount Hood Freeway project to other transportation projects in the region, the Columbia Region Association of Governments..."
Done
  • with the exception of a light rail corridor running from downtown Portland to Oregon City in Clackamas County with a spur line from Milwaukie to Lents, which would occupy the old Portland Traction Company rights-of-way - This sentence is also long and I think this can largely be its own sentence.
Done
  • Indecision about the exact use of the transfer money, as requested by the Federal Highway Administration,[7] led to a delay in acquiring the funds - I also suggest using active voice.
Done
  • this bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, ran physically separate from but parallel to the freeway - Also its own sentence, probably. I'd also rephrase to avoid "separate from but parallel to", which is a clunky wording, e.g. "This bus corridor, which would be called the I-205 Transitway, was a physically separate route running parallel to the freeway." Just out of interest (not required), did it run in the median or elsewhere?
Done. It does run in the median along the MAX Red Line segment!
  • Several months before the inauguration of MAX, Metro—the successor to CRAG— - Not required, but when did CRAG get replaced by Metro? I would suggest "CRAG's successor, Metro,..."
Expanded
  • proposed converting the partially built I-205 Transitway between Portland International Airport and Clackamas Town Center from a busway into another light rail line - I'd consider splitting this too. It is quite a long sentence.
I think it's fine, just a compound sentence.
  • went on to dispute - How come this isn't just "disputed"?
Just timeline wording to say that they disputed afterwards
  • and in September 1989, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield and Washington Senator Brock Adams, who were members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, - They seem to be U.S. senators from these respective states, so it would more appropriately be "U.S. Senators Mark Hatfield from Oregon and Brock Adams from Washington". Whereas "Oregon Senator" and "Washington Senator" may seem like it's referring to state senators.
Good call
  • Planning for the South/North Line resumed when TriMet released a revision - When did this happen?
Clarified
  • revised the package but in November, - comma after "package"
Done
  • and it would have terminated another mile north of Lombard Street in Kenton. - This part of the sentence sounds strange. Maybe "so it would terminate another mile north..."
Done
  • the TriMet board elected to reaffirm voter support - This is also clunky, if you mean the TriMet board decided to hold another vote on a new draft measure.
Reworded
  • In October 2000, the committee narrowed the range of alternatives in a report that outlined building either both light rail lines, a combination of a light rail line and an improved bus service, bus rapid transit, or dedicated bus lanes - This sounds awkward because it seems like this really should be two sentences. "In October 2000, the committee published a report that narrowed the range of alternatives. The report outlined constructing..." Also, "either both" sounds strange, even though it's pretty clear what you're talking about.
Reworded
  • a two-part expansion, the second phase of which - This feels a bit repetitive, only because you already mentioned the expansion only has two parts.
Reworded
  • While planning for the second phase, analysis showed - This is a dangling modifier, i.e. who was planning?
Clarified
  • TriMet designed the new bridge to be "car-free", banning private vehicles and accommodating only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country - This also seems a little repetitive, in that if "only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians" could be used on the bridge, you don't need to mention that it's both car-free and that it bans private vehicles. One or the other would suffice, or even neither: "TriMet designed the new bridge to carry only transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians—the first such major bridge in the country".
Reworded
  • due to Measure 3-401 - Did the measure force the amount to be reduced? Or did TriMet make the decision after seeing the measure proposal?
Yes and yes
  • 50-percent completed - I would suggest just "halfway completed".
Done
  • these were designated "Type 5" - Should this be before the semicolon? E.g. "The agency purchased 18 new Siemens S70 light rail vehicles, designated "Type 5"; the first car arrived in Portland that September."
Done
  • up to $40 million under budget. - This is also a strange sounding wording, because "up" and "under" aren't usually juxtaposed. How about "as much as $40 million under budget"?
Used "around"
  • the first train ride, which carried 500 passengers - Usually, trains or scheduled trips carry 500 passengers, not train rides.
This is probably to clarify that it was the first train to carry the public along the extension. I changed it to "public train ride".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, Epicgenius! Comments addressed. --truflip99 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Route

  • Orange Line service begins farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station near Portland Union Station in downtown Portland - I would suggest adding a comma after "farther north of the Portland–Milwaukie segment", since the phrase "at Union Station/Northwest 5th & Glisan station ..." is a distinct idea.
It is not a distinct idea actually
  • following an intersection with Naito Parkway. - This wording could probably be improved. Does the alignment follow the intersection physically, or does it come after the intersection? I assume it's the latter, but "follow" is usually interpreted as the former when you're talking about alignment.
Done
  • The line then crosses the Willamette River on Tilikum Crossing - Do both lines use the bridge?
Yes, nice catch
  • the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge, an elevated viaduct that carries it across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue. - "Elevated viaduct" may be unnecessary because this is typically what a bridge is. E.g. "the line traverses the Kellogg Bridge across Kellogg Lake to 22nd Avenue".
Done
  • Many stations along the Orange Line have public artwork, erected as part of TriMet's public art program - Usually, at least in my experience, artwork is "commissioned" rather than "erected".
I could not think of that word for the life of me. Thank you!
  • as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system - I would move this to immediately after "In 2015". e.g. "In 2015, as part of a future pilot program to test the Hop Fastpass automated fare collection system, TriMet proposed installing turnstiles..."
Done

Service

  • which extends up to 30 minutes in the early mornings and late evenings - I would rephrase this, as 30 minutes is considered a decrease in service, even though it is an extension of the headway.
Done
  • On a side note, I see there are really only 2 Orange Line night bus trips on weekdays and 1 night bus trip on Saturdays and Sundays. That level of bus service is basically a chartered trip, not even an actual route, which I found funny.
That's TriMet for you.

@Truflip99: These are all the comments I have. Once these are addressed I will most likely support this nomination. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

These comments have been addressed. Thanks again, Epicgenius! --truflip99 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. I would also like to note that I will claim this review in exchange for points in the WikiCup. Epicgenius (talk)

HF[edit]

I'll also take a look at this soon. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 05:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • "It carried an average of 11,500 daily weekday riders in September 2019" - Is this figure just the extension discussed in the sentence before this in the lead, or is it the total ridership for the whole Orange line? Lead implies the former, body and infobox the latter
    • Done
  • "Despite the South/North Line's cancellation, North Portland residents and city business leaders continued to push for light rail." - Earlier in the paragraph, we're told that North Portland residents generally opposed light rail, so the use of "continued" seems odd to me
    • It is not stated that North Portland residents ever opposed light rail, but I did change a word to make it less confusing
  • "In August 2009, the transit mall reopened with light rail service from the newly rerouted Yellow Line.[58] The I-205 MAX extension opened the following month with a new Green Line service." - This appears to be out of chronological order compared to the material surrounding it
    • I have rewritten this to hopefully make it more clear, but this sentence just supports the statement before it, which talks about the first-phase project and the transit mall light rail addition. I deemed it appropriate to put here just to finish talking about it because both phases were planned simultaneously and the first phase is its own topic.
  • "FTA to approve the addition of switch heaters, catenary ice caps" - What's a catenary ice cap? This needs a link or a gloss or something, as its going to be confusing to most readers, including myself. In fact, the vast majority of hits for "catenary ice caps" in a Google search I attempted to try to find out what this means are from mirrors of this article. This phrase will be confusing for the vast majority of readers without an explanation of what these things are.
    • I'm going to eliminate that part for now, as it seems to lack notability
  • Link the Yellow Line in the body
    • Interstate MAX and MAX Yellow Line are synonymous, as are I-205 MAX and MAX Green Line. Should I link both?
      • I think the fact that they are equivalent could be made clearer in the article. For instance, I took "which led to the Interstate MAX and Yellow Line opening in 2004" to be referring to two separate things.
        • @Hog Farm: sorry, I misspoke. They are not synonymous. One is an extension and the other is a service. I try to explain this in MAX Light Rail#Network. I will link both per MOS:RDR.
  • If the Portland State University connection is important enough to be included in the lead, why is it not mentioned in the prose section of the body; just the table?
    • Because the Orange Line only serves the stations at PSU, but those stations were built not as part of this Portland-Milwaukie project, but as part of the first-phase Portland Transit Mall project (which is also covered in MAX Green Line#Portland Mall reconstruction).
  • "The total length of Orange Line service, which includes a segment of the Portland Transit Mall, is undetermined" - I'm not a fan of the use of "undetermined" here. That can mean that they whole length is not known or calculated, while the source just doesn't mention it, which is different than stating that something is "undetermined"
    • Reworded
  • " As of 2020, these plans have not been enacted" - We need another source for this statement. The current source is from 2015 and refers to 2016 and 2017 in the future tense, so it's not going to be useful for what has been done by 2020
    • Added some refs, but had to change it to 2019
  • Do we have a citation for the list of station names?
    • Added
  • "Fewer trains run during weekends" - This seems to be an oversimplification, IMO. Pulling up a current to Milwaukie weekday schedule and a current to Milwaukie Saturday schedule, the difference appears to be two trains in the 7am-8am span, unless I missed something. Two fewer trains in a service of that size doesn't seem to be a particularly large drop, and the un-nuanced "fewer trains run during weekends" would imply a bigger drop.
    • I've simplified it because the schedule gets updated sometimes. But I've gone ahead and removed that sentence.
  • This makes it seem a little significant that the line doesn't link to the Milwaukie bus hub, is that worth mentioning?
    • I've not mentioned it, because TriMet insists that it does
  • We seem to have a comprehensiveness issue: the topic of public art along the line has some coverage such as [39], [40]. In fact, we even have an entire Category:Sculptures on the MAX Orange Line. I find it hard to believe that this topic shouldn't be mentioned at all.
    • It was decided a while back that these topics should be covered on the individual stations which house the public art pieces. I will work on that eventually.
      • There still seems to be enough coverage of these that I would at least expect a sentence or two along the lines of "Many of the stations along the MAX Orange Line have public artwork ..." or something like that. Agree a list or full detail is probably undue, but at least some sort of mention seems warranted here. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
        • I have added this blurb. --truflip99 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That's my first round of comments. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm thank you, I really appreciate it! --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Support on WP:FACR 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c, and 4, did not check the others. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

These aren't necessarily part of the FA criteria, but I think these should be cleaned up while we're at it.

  • Bower (sculpture)
  • MAX Gold Line
  • Flooded Data Machine

These are not mentioned in the article. Either they're significant and represent non-comprehensiveness of the article, they're mispointed, or they're just junk, in which case WP:RFD is needed. Hog Farm Talk 05:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

These for now have been redirected elsewhere. Although I've never heard of the MAX Gold Line, I'll have to request a deletion for that. --truflip99 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I've sent MAX Gold Line to RFD. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Will conduct one in a bit, seeing as I still have access to the Multnomah Library's online resources. SounderBruce 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting notes:

  • Ref 16 should mention the University of Portland Library (perhaps using the via= parameter)
  • Ref 21 should link Carl Abbott (urban historian)

Otherwise, the formatting is neat and I don't see anything that jumps out. I will do a spotcheck later today. SounderBruce 19:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SounderBruce. It's actually Portland State University for the first one. Anyway, I've addressed both. --truflip99 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak[edit]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about astronaut Lisa Nowak. As an astronaut, she is noteworthy, and her tabloid history makes her prominent in the public consciousness. Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work. Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  • If Hawkeye7 is the co-nominator, you should adjust the nominator parameter to reflect that; "Also, Hawkeye7 consistently does excellent work." doesn't mean that. Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Tag. :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sources Since there is a recent academic biography of this person (the Moore book, published by University Press of Florida), why is it only cited 6 times? (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    The article was written before it was published in 2020. It isn't as comprehensive as Fanning's 2007 biography, but it is an important source for events that happened after 2007. Despite the publisher, it isn't an academic biography; Kimberley C. Moore is a journalist who covered the case. Her newspaper articles are used in fn 101, 104, 110 and 117. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    Seems reasonable (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Accessibility review please add alt text to the images per MOS:ACCIM. Heartfox (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Buidhe, just checking whether this should be considered a source review, or was just a comment on that source? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • no, I did not do a thorough source review. (t · c) buidhe 11:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • she was selected by NASA with NASA Astronaut Group 16 --> "she was selected by NASA for NASA Astronaut Group 16" Would that be appropriate?
    I guess so. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • she stayed on at Patuxent River --> "she remained at Patuxent River" Once again, I may be wrong and just familiar with the military lingo.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • pepper sprayed U.S. Air Force Captain sea of blue
    Moved one link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • link Washington, D.C.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Her parents thought that Brown was the better choice --> "Her parents preferred Brown" more concise
    It would be ambiguous though, as to whether it meant for them or Caputo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • clssrooms --> "classrooms"
    well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure what is going on with the images in the Astronaut training section (missing a "]")
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

More later. ~ HAL333 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • she transferred to the Restricted Line as an Aerospace Engineering Duty Officer, and was selected to attend the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at NAS Patuxent River Is the comma needed after "and"?
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty, although he continued to fly in the United States Naval Reserve. is a it of a run-on.
    Split the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I got. :) ~ HAL333 00:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi HAL333, I was wondering if you were intending to either support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. I'm happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately, I will not have the time to do a full review for this, but I have three quick questions about the "In popular culture" section.

  • Is there a reason that this information is presented as a bulleted list rather than as prose? I have mostly seen information presented in prose rather than as a list so this section sticks out to me.
  • Do you think the Lucy in the Sky part would benefit from some minor expansion? I remember during the film's release, there was a lot of press about the film's connection with Nowak, like comments about it not including the whole adult diapers thing. I suggest this as I think having a little more information would make this seem less trivial.
  • Continuing off my second point, what makes these entries non-trivial and relevant enough to be included? I have never personally worked on a section like this, and I know there are Wikipedia essays like Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content specifically about this. I'm not saying that these parts should be removed (as I believe the coverage around Lucy in the Sky makes it non-trivial for instance), but I was curious on your point of view about this.

Apologies for the drive-by comments. These are just a few questions I had about a specific section. I am glad to see this in the FAC space as it is such a huge part of pop culture and recent history. And I'm a native Floridian so something about reading about NASA-related subjects is oddly nostalgic for me. Anyway, I hope this is somewhat helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologise! Short reviews are always welcome! Especially from editors who aren't part of the usual suspects. (They deserve a break,) To address the issues you raised:
  • I originally did have the section in prose. MOS:PROSE: Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain. However, WP:TRIVIA says: This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format but MOS:POPCULT says: If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. In any case, it was changed to a bulletted list by PCPLUM118 with this edit
  • Thank you for the links to the different areas in the Manual of Style. I always enjoy learning more about different areas of Wikipedia, and I appreciate that you took the time to add in the links. I will leave the prose/list part to your judgement. I wanted to ask as it was something that drew my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't finished watching Lucy in the Sky; the Saints game was on. Lucy was disturbing to me, as several of the things presented in the show would have prevented the real-life incident from ever taking place. Like being interviewed by the shrink after a flight. In fact, the last time any of Nowak's class fronted a shrink was for the job interview ten years before. (The film made $55,000 from 37 theatres in its opening weekend, which was described as "terrible".)
  • It is certainly a very odd film and I am honestly quite confused on how the film was trying to handle its connection with Nowak or its tone n general. I was just curious if you think it would be helpful to add a sentence or two to expand on how the film was a loose adaption to provide some context to this. But since the other parts of this section are only one sentence each, it may put undue weight on this one pop culture reference. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The short answer to your third point is that other editors thought them worthy of mention. I hate Popular Culture sections, and will ruthlessly purge anything that is not properly referenced. For more commentary on them , see WP:POPCULTURE and xkcd

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I think this is a point that still generates a good deal of discussion. Since the citations are from third-party, reliable sources, then I think this part should be okay. Thank you for the explanations for each of my points. That clears it up for me at least, and I think the section should be fine as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the article looks good to me. I support the article for promotion as it looks ready to me and HAL's support above also encourages me to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

  • The lead looks a bit heavy on the links. May I suggest you drop links for "aeronautical engineering" and the second California link?
    Dropped the link to "aeronautical engineering", but there is only one "California" link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I would move "Born in Washington, D.C." to the second paragraph, to keep the first one focussed on the key items.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • August 2010 --> since this date is different from the others, it drew my attention to dates .. is it really neceassary to have the exact date 3 times in the lead? It somehow makes it seem realy important to me if you say February 5, 2007. Like September 11, 2001. I would think February 2007, March 2007, November 2009 are sufficient.
    Reduced the dates in the last paragraph lead to month/year or year only, matching the first two paragraphs Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In the January of her junior year of high school -> I'm not a native speaker, so it may very well be just fine, but to my foreign ears this "the January" sounds odd
    It's fine; leaving the article out would be incorrect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • those women that did so were often resented by men who were passed over --> I don't have access to the source, but just checking if this is the author summarising research or the author's opinion?
    She doesn't have footnotes, but is summarising published research. The whole thing blew up in what is called the Tailhook scandal, which generated a great deal of material. There is no evidence that Nowak was personally affected, but it would be far more surprising if she wasn't. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In February 2006, it mission was rescheduled --> the mission I presume?
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • a host of problems --> that doesn't strike me as the right tone here. Maybe just problems?
    Changed to "multiple". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • prelaunch and pre-launch are both used. I would go for pre-launch
    Standardised on "prelaunch". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • 8.0 million kilometers (5×106 mi) --> I couldn't see on MOS:NUM that this is the right way to do it. I think "8 million kilometers (5 million mi)"
    A matter of fiddling with the {{convert}} template. Changed to "8 million kilometers (5 million miles)"
  • Nowak (center) and the rest of the STS-121 crew inspects --> no final s
    The final s is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • that caption also needs a full stop. Three of the other captions as well, they seem full sentences to me.
    Full stops added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

  • at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida --> Florida was already linked
    Corrected, along with a couple of other duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • suit case --> suitcase?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • a well thought out plan --> I'm guessing there should be at least one hyphen somewhere
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A pre-trial hearing was held on July 17, 2007 --> not sure why we're going back in time now
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ex girlfriend --> hyphen?
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I reached the end but shall have to look at the sources another time. I found the article interesting and easy to read. Well-written and informative. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources: a few questions:

  • #26: LinkedIn is misspelled. For which part of the sentence is it needed? (Sorry, I don't have access to #27 so can't see for myself)
    Reorganised so the relevant piece is separate. It reads: "Her husband was a Naval Flight Officer who operated systems on the Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, an electronics warfare aircraft, with Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 124 (VAW-124) from January 1996 until April 1998, when he left active duty." It is sourced from his LikedIn profile. Per WP:RSPSRC: "should be avoided unless the post is used for an uncontroversial self-description".
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is probably more strict: I'm thinking more along the lines of the spelling of one's middle name. Job titles and job descriptions are most prone to be embellished, and in this case, with prestigious NASA, even more so. I welcome views from more experienced FAC source reviewers, but if they fail to materialise, I would suggest that if you either try to find an alternative, more reliable source, or you simply drop this sentence. I don't think that would weaken the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    My interpretation of uncontroversial self-description is less strict. In this case, all it provides is exact dates. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • #141: Vice.com is listed as No consensus on WP:RSPSRC. Is there a better source?
    Added an additional reference from Dazed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • #143: appears to be a user-generated site. Is there a better source?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise sources seem ok. I hope to do a spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Edwininlondon: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I am. A fine piece of work. I Support on prose. Once I have dealt with the comments on my own nomination I will do a spot check of the sources. I believe that is still needed. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources spot check: I don't have access to the Fanning and Moore books, so I just picked a few other random ones:

  • #67: (Orlando Sun): ok
  • #76 (CNN): "handwritten" is mentioned but it was not the request that was handwritten. I didn't see anything that confirmed "Shipman referred to Nowak as an acquaintance of her boyfriend, but did not identify Oefelein".
    It is in the next reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • #72 (NYT): does not mention "senior active duty Naval Officer in the NASA Astronaut Corps", and "Chief of the Astronaut Office". It also says that it was the state's assistent attorney who argued the facts.
    Also appears in a following reference. Probably separated when someone interpolated an edit. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • #81 (orlando Sent): it only says "second bite out of the apple". I don't think we can say "unhappy that Nowak had been granted bail, pressed more serious charges solely to keep her in jail." based on just this source
    Same again. Inserted correct reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • #82 (AP): ok
  • the second paragraph in Altercation has 6 sentences, but all of its references are at the end. Can you distribute them a bit better?
    Actually, only two of the four cover the paragraph; the other two are primary documents added for the reader. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll stop here. I think you need to check each sentence of the Airport Incident. I suspect all the sources are there for the story as a whole but it may be you need to add more references per sentences. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
OK. I checked the whole second paragraph in Altercation. All fine. Also checked #77,#104,#120. All ok. Spotcheck passed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Lawrence Khoo[edit]

  • Generally well sourced, and neutrally written.
  • The lead sentence lists 5 different jobs. Some of those roles may not be notable, and a couple may be redundant. Please review WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on what to list in the lead sentence.
Nowak is notable as an astronaut, although if she were not, she may have still been as a test pilot or naval officer. These are noteworthy and covered at length in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Since all these roles are covered in the lead, I think they should stay. However, I think she's most notable as an astronaut, so I would put that role first. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Drive by comment I was asked to take a look at this but as the matter appears resolved will not opine.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Would you be willing to do a quick review? The review has lots of comments but only one formal support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A sentence in the last paragraph of the lead about what she is doing today, would not be amiss.
Unfortunately, all we have is that she works in the private sector. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

LK (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Lawrencekhoo: Are you happy with the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Still having problems with the lead sentence. If I understand correctly, "naval flight officer" and "test pilot" were roles she held as United States Navy captain. As written, it implies that those are 3 different careers. Suggest something like "... is an American aeronautical engineer, former NASA astronaut, and United States Navy captain, working as naval flight officer and test pilot." LK (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
They are indeed different careers. She never actually performed them while she was a captain because she was promoted to that rank after she became an astronaut. Still trying to think of a wording that works. Note that the rank is different from the USAF one. I would have written "US Air Force Capitan" but then we have the problem of three blue links in a row again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thinking about it, I feel she is best described as a "former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain", as those other roles were undertaken as part an parcel of being NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain. The other roles can be expanded on subsequently. Something like "... is a former NASA astronaut and United States Navy captain, who worked as aeronautical engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." How's that sound? I think it's best to avoid making it seem like she had 5 different careers. LK (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It's very clumsy, but it may work. Changed as suggested. As long as it is understood that she did have five different careers: naval flight officer, test pilot, astronaut, navy captain and aeronautical engineer, in that order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to say that she had five careers. For example, if a person only ever held one job, such as Professor of Sociology at a public university, but as part of her job, she wrote academic papers, authored books, sat on administrative committees, and lectured classes, one would not say that the person had multiple careers. One should not state that the person was a Professor of Sociology, a writer, an author, an administrator, and a lecturer. See WP:ROLEBIO for the guideline on this.
I'd note that for the Nowak article, the article body currently divides her career into two sections, Naval and NASA. Since the lead should reflect the content in the body, I think it's appropriate for the lead sentence to imply that she has had two careers. LK (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is the right place to hash it out, but the current lead sentence is a mess. If I understand the situation correctly, she has only ever had two employers, the US Navy and NASA. The Navy employed her as an aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot. NASA employed her as a flight controller (not notable) and astronaut. She was fired from both jobs, and will not return to those roles. Her post discharge career is not notable, so we needn't mention it in the lead paragraph. The question is, how to accurately reflect that in one sentence. My preference would be for "... is a former NASA astronaut and former US Navy captain, who worked as aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot." Alternatively, she can be described as "... a former astronaut, aerospace engineer, naval flight officer, and test pilot, who was NASA mission specialist and US Navy Captain." This implies that she had four notable careers, and notes the two highest ranks she held. LK (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
NASA did not employ Nowak as a flight controller; it employed her husband as a flight controller. She was only seconded to NASA and remained a naval officer the entire time. The Navy did not employ her as an aerospace engineer; that has been her post-Navy career. It is not notable (ie worthy of an article in its own right) but it is noteworthy, and another editor argued strongly for its inclusion. As noted already, Nowak is not a former aerospace engineer; she is currently one. The Navy employed her as a naval flight officer and then as a test pilot. This is not part an parcel of being a naval officer; few naval officers pursue these career paths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
So, would it be accurate to state that "Lisa Marie Nowak ... is a aerospace engineer, and former NASA astronaut and US Navy captain. While in the Navy, Nowak worked as naval flight officer and test pilot. ..." Is that correct? I'll edit the article to show you what I mean, feel free to change as necessary. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That wording is fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
US Air Force doesn't need to be linked. In fact, looking at it, the lead is a little overlinked. Per MOS:OVERLINK, words that most English speakers would understand usually should not be linked. LK (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Clearly "captain" is not one of them, so changed to "U.S. Air Force captain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noticed the bullet point list "In popular culture" section. MOS discourages trivia sections populated with bullet point lists. See MOS:CULTURALREFS and WP:POPCULTURE. It suggests folding the content into the body of the article, and writing about cultural references with flowing text. If this is too much trouble for now, the bullet list could be moved to the talk page and formatted for inclusion in a properly written Cultural References section. LK (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#What this guideline is not applies here. As noted elsewhere on this page, I wrote it in prose with flowing text, and it was rewritten into its current point form by another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be rewritten as prose? Since FA's are held to a higher standard, I believe they should not include sections formatted in a way that MOS advises against. LK (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye7: Any response to LK's comment immediately above? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I waited until the issue below was resolved. Rewritten as prose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • All issues I have raised have been resolved. I endorse. LK (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
For BLP privacy reasons, I highly suggest that this article not be added to the today's featured article queue, even if promoted to FA. Since the subject of the article is no longer a public figure, it would not be appropriate to throw the spotlight on her again. LK (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and while attracting a reasonable amount of comment has only one support. I will add it to urgents, but it may be an idea for you to contact those who have commented so far to see if they are able to support promotion, or have further comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Perhaps given the limited length of Google previews, and the brief period many of our readers spend here, the opening paragraph should contain some hint of her notoriety for the circumstances that got her sacked as an astronaut, since that is what probably she is best known for. I do not wish it, of course, to overshadow a distinguished career in the service of the United States to that point.
    What do you suggest? Something like "Was dismissed from NASA after an incident in 2007"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Added a sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "she watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing" was the landing televised? I thought what people saw was Armstrong walk on the Moon.
    Hmmm Looks like it was recorded on 16 mm. Changed to "Moon mission". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The STS-121 mission was originally scheduled for March or April 2005, but was postponed to July. During the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery for STS-114 in July 2005, debris had separated from the external tank, which previously had caused the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia." The timeline here feels a little unclear.
    Tweaked the wording a little. The chronology is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was more challenging to operate than the one of the Space Shuttle, since it was larger and had an additional joint.[57]" I might change "of" to "on".
    Changed as suggested. I think I used "of" because it was not always carried. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Early police reports claimed that she wore Maximum Absorbency Garments during the trip, but she later denied this.[69][70]" "Claimed" implies disbelief, and we only have Nowak's word. I would suggest "stated".
    Changed as suggested. Disbelief is indeed what I have, although I didn't write it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • " with concerns expressed about NASA's astronaut selection and screening process and planned 30-month missions to Mars.[88][89]" This is awkwardly phrased.
    Deleted the phrase about Mars to tighten the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Policies at NASA were changed in a variety of ways: flight surgeons would receive additional training in psychiatric evaluation, and although there was an unofficial code of conduct in place, an official "Code of Conduct" would be written up for employees.[94]" I'm rather surprised by this as according to the congressional hearings into the Apollo 15 covers incident, NASA promulgated Standards of Conduct applicable to all employees including astronauts on October 21, 1967.
    Doesn't match the source so rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "plastic gloves, contacts, cash, an umbrella, and black sweats." Does contacts mean contact lenses?
    The source says "On 'Flight controller’s Log' note paper, Nowak listed more than two dozen items, such as black sneakers (8-9), plastic gloves, contacts, cash, umbrella and black sweats."
  • "On May 11, 2007, authorities released a surveillance video from the Orlando International Airport terminal purporting to show Nowak waiting for nearly an hour, standing near the baggage claim, then donning a trench coat and later following Shipman after she retrieved her bags.[100]" The underlying source does not say purporting. It identifies Nowak definitely.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nowak retired from the Navy with the rank of commander on September 1, 2011.[123]" I thought she was discharged other-than-honorable?
    Correct. Changed to "She retired from the Navy with an other than honorable discharge and the rank of commander" 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • The article relies quite heavily on the Fanning book for details of Nowak's life prior to "the incident", and then on news sources for details of the incident and aftermath. Can you explain the approach to sourcing?
    It reflects the way the article was developed, which was in three phases. Originally it was based on NASA sources, the standard ones about any astronaut, along with an interview with Nowak. After the 2007 incident, editors added a plethora of information about it from news sources. Finally, I came through, expanding the other sections of the article to give it a proper balance. Much of this was based Fanning's book; Moore's was not yet published. This is normal for biographical articles; only the most famous people have more than one biography. The workings of the Matthew effect mean that the ones with biographies already are likely to get more, but those lacking are likely to miss out. I did not want to rely too heavily on Fanning, so used other sources where available. Much of the incident section could also have been sourced from Fanning too, but it was all properly sourced, or so I thought, so I left it in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Are there differences in either details or weighting between Fanning and Moore? Had the "incident" section been written after these publications, would that have changed how it is described? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Fanning's book is more richly detailed. There has been no reappraisal or reinterpretation of the events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • FN63 should use the more specific date available
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN70 is missing publisher. Ditto FN101, check for others
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding citations to court documents, see WP:BLPPRIMARY
    It is not used to support anything at all. Supported by the otherc supplied sources. Added just so the reader can read the originals if they choose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Florida Today is a work title and should be italicized. Ditto Statesboro Herald, check for others
    Italicized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Still issues of this type, eg. HuffPost. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Italicized. I thought it was a web site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Technically website names (but not publishers) do need italicization, since they are work titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Associated Press or The Associated Press? Time or TIME? Check throughout for consistency
    Consisted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN97 is malformatted
    Corrected
  • FN131 includes publisher and location, but other similar refs do not - should be consistent
    Newspapers should have location unless it is evident.
    This isn't consistent. For example you have two references to Navy Times, one of which includes location and the other of which does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As per this RfC, pop-culture entries should include secondary sourcing indicating the significance of the reference. Pearls Before Swine is missing that.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • FN138: don't duplicate publisher in title
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Paste a high-quality reliable source? Vice? Dazed Digital? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Paste is professionally produced magazine and notable enough to has a wikipedia article. There was an RfC on its use for political coverage, which was closed with no consensus Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#RfC: Is Paste a generally reliable source for politics-related topics?. Here we are only dealing with the far less contentious music section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Vice is professionally produced magazine and notable enough to has a wikipedia article. No consensus at WP:RSP. Again, only being used for the music section, nothing likely to be contentious.
    • Dazed is yet another professionally produced magazine with a wikipedia article. Nothing on it on WP:RSN. Used to source some uncontentious information about a movie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
    Being notable does not speak to the source's reliability. What are the editorial policies of these sites? Particularly where there is no consensus on basic reliability at RSP, we're going to need more to establish high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Neopeius: @Hawkeye7: Were you intending to respond any further to Nikkimaria's comments re source quality? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild: Like, I'm just a reviewer, man... :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    Apologies, but you are listed as a nominator - see the top of the article: "Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild: I have no way of determining what the editorial policy of any site is. It is up to you to define what the editorial policies are at FAC. WP:Verifiability defines reliable sources as:
    • University-level textbooks
    • Books published by respected publishing houses
    • Magazines
    • Mainstream newspapers
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Hawkeye7. "It is up to you to define what the editorial policies are at FAC." In this respect I suspect that you are thinking of FAC criterion 1c, which reads in part "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). It is for reviewers and nominators to agree between them that the FAC criteria are met. I would point you towards the first three reasons for archiving a nomination, which is where it is up to me to do anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have added additional sources, the Boston Herald newspaper and Stereogum, which was listed as a reliable source on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#thatgrapejuice.net -and- stereogum.com. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Consensus at the RSN is that the sources are acceptable, although there is the perennial concern that Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content borders on trivia. I already pruned it of passing and insignificant mentions, leaving only works entirely about the subject. You have three choices:
    1. Leave the sources as they are
    2. Accept the additional sources and remove the old ones
    3. Delete the content.
    Your choice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Reviewing that discussion, I would suggest deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Were you intending to also removed Dazed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I did. Another editor promptly put it back again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Lawrencekhoo: Did you have a rationale for why these ought to be considered high-quality sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    IMO, I don't think that every single source needs to be of the highest quality. For something like cultural references, I think it's OK to rely on Dazed, as there is no reason to believe that they would incorrectly report on this particular issue. In any case, it can be removed, as the Vice reference is good enough, so I'm going to go ahead and remove it. LK (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Lawrencekhoo: It's actually part of the FA criteria that the sources used be high-quality. What leads you to believe that Vice meets that standard? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    Removed Vice too, although the WP:RSN felt that it was reliable. I note that you have failed to establish any case that it is not. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see why Vice magazine, with a circulation of nearly a million, subsidiary of Vice Media, with revenue of over a billion a year, should be considered less than reliable. That a magazine covers entertainment news and not "serious" news does not make it unreliable. In any case, commenters at RSN have deemed Vice, and even Dazed reliable. LK (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Lawrencekhoo and Hawkeye7: You seem to be missing the point. Whether or not a source is reliable is not the issue. The question here is [always] does the article meet the FAC criteria. In this case the requirement that all "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis added). Evidencing that a source is reliable is fine, but there is also a requirement for all FA sources to be high quality. Can you establish that the sources being challenged are high quality? If not they shouldn't be in an FAC. And the onus for establishing that each and every source used in an FAC is high quality is entirely with the nominator; if they are not confident that they can do so for any, they should not be using them. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    The term "high-quality" is undefined and largely meaningless, and cannot be positively established. As you yourself pointed out above, it is not "entirely with the nominator", but is determined by the consensus of the reviewers, which we have both here and at RSN. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not married to that particular statement, and I believe neither is Hawkeye7. If you think Vice should not be used as a source in a FA, let's just remove the statement and be done with it. Although, I'd note that Vice has been used in FAs (as in Gwen Stefani). LK (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    @WP:FAC coordinators: It is not in the article! And nobody has said it is not acceptable. Responsibility for determining whether "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" is not the responsibility of the nominator; it is the responsibility of the coordinator. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It is more than eight weeks since this was nominated and it seems to have reached an impasse over sources. Unless this is broken over the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The sources in question are not used in the article, and no one has said there is any problem with the sources that are used. The consensus here and at RSN is that the sources in question are indeed reliable, but I emphasise that they are not used in the article at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, sorry to bother you again, but given the assurances that any sources which have had their bone fides as high quality (being reliable is, obviously, a given) questioned are no longer used I wonder if you could run your eyes over this again. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Missing full citation for Moore 2010
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Still seeing inconsistencies with regards to locations - for example it's included for Navy Times but not Military Times (although the Military Times link goes to Navy Times...?)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem to have been? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually it looks like there may be other links that go to a source different from the one named in the citation - eg FN107 credits Central Florida News but links to Florida Today
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Still some issues with naming inconsistencies - eg New York Times vs The New York Times. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Accolade (company)[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision, and going on to create several notable franchises. Article is very complete, thorough, and well-sourced. I'm happy to work on the prose and formatting to bring it up to quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I have made some copy edits as I went. Flag up here any you don't like or don't understand.

  • "before facing more difficult competition in the following years." More difficult that what? You haven't previously mentioned competition.
  • "consolidated into a singular Infogrames brand". Why "singular" rather than 'single'?
  • "The Accolade brand has since been revived in 2018". The grammar of that doesn't quite work. Maybe 'The Accolade brand was revived in 2018'?
  • Infobox: "Merged out" is jargon. Although I am stuck for a better brief description. Just 'merged' maybe?
  • The first quote box - I suggest deleting "Retro Gamer feature".
  • "Activision became the first ever third-party game developer". Delete "ever". First is first.
  • "After the large devaluation of their stock". Do you mean 'After a large devaluation of their stock'?
  • "Miller and Whitehead left Activision to form Accolade in 1984." No need to repeat "in 1984".
  • "They also hoped to take advantage of the emerging medium of floppy disks compared to the more expensive cartridge format seen on consoles". You are talking about two different things. It may work better as two different sentences.
  • "not to mention the licensing fees that console brands were charging developers." Again, perhaps a separate sentence?
  • There are a lot of duplinks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and changed some of those sentences. Hopefully I'm on the right track. I didn't see any duplicate links outside the normal standard of linking once in the lead and once in the body, but let me know if there's anything I can modify. Happy to keep working on this once you have more notes. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
To take just the first four of many: Porting; Mean 18; Adventure game; and Steve Cartwright. If you ask at Wikipedia:Help desk they will tell you how to load the dup link checker tool. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "multiple dialog options to be seen in later games." "to be" is a little clunky. Could it be tweaked? (Maybe 'multiple dialog options which later became common in games' or similar?)
  • "which led to HardBall! as his Accolade debut." Perhaps mention which sport features in this game.
  • "and also introduced new features". Delete "also".
  • "It became of Accolade's best selling games". Word missing?
  • "Accolade aimed to balance their role as both developer and publisher". 'roles'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Still chipping away at this. Keep it coming. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "with external groups handling ports so that Accolade". "ports" is jargon and needs either a different word or phrase, or an in line explanation.
  • "selling 500,000 units on a budget of less than $80,000." "budget"? Sales budget?
  • "previously helped Accolade with ports". "ports" again.
  • "towards a market they previously abandoned." → 'towards a market they had previously abandoned.'
  • "Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed that" → 'Accolade CEO Allan Epstein expressed the opinion that'.
  • "The company soon released several games on the Sega Genesis" Open question: should "on" be 'for'?
  • "was that Accolade would meet a quota of games for Sega" . What does "meet a quota of games" mean?
  • "as a way for Sega to preserve its advantage over other consoles", How did it do that?
  • "Despite Accolade earning an agreeable court ruling and settlement". I am not sure that "earning" is the best word, and if "agreeable" is not a typo, it looks like one.
  • "lost somewhere between $15 million and $25 million". Profit or revenue, and why/how?
  • "As the company rushed to fulfill its mandate to Sega" I don't understand this at all.
  • "feeling that he lost interest in the diluted quality of their games." The grammar has gone wrong here Do you mean 'stating that he had lost interest in their games because of their diluted quality.'?
  • "As the company transformed". This is the first mention of a transformation.
  • Cite 80: 16 pages!?
  • "including their soccer game Pelé! and football game Mike Ditka Power Football". Anyone outside north America will wonder why you are using two synonyms for football.
  • "while fighting the injunction in court". Suggest "the" → 'Sega's'.
  • "the company hired former FAO Schwarz head Peter Harris as CEO in 1994" 1. Abbreviations should be give in full at first mention. 2. What is a "FAO Schwarz head"?
  • "to attract new investment." How did hiring Harris do this?
  • "and largely doubled down on existing series." I am unsure what either half of this means. Perhaps express it more formally?
  • "releasing the game on-time." Why the hyphen?
  • "The unstable release would ..." What unstable release?
  • "hurt the reputation of Bubsy series" → 'hurt the reputation of the Bubsy series'.
  • "as well as Accolade as a company." Did it hurt "Accolade as a company" - which is what you say here - if so, how and why? Or did it also hurt Accolade's reputation? (In which case 'as well as that of Accolade as a company.')
  • "at the same budget". At the same budget as what?
  • "did not enjoy the acclaimed legacy of the first two games". I am not sure if this is gamer speak, USVar, or if I am just feeling sleepy, but what does it mean?
  • "as well as the release of Deadlock that same year". Do you mean 'as was the release of Deadlock that same year'?
  • Explain what "E3" is in line.
  • "By that fall". See the MoS on seasons "Avoid ambiguous references to seasons, which are different in the southern and northern hemispheres."
  • "Accolade cancelled their plans" → 'Accolade had cancelled their plans'.
  • "Development also completed on Redline" → 'Development was also completed on Redline'.
  • "to acquire Accolade's employee base of 145 employees". Can we avoid employee twice in five words? Maybe 'to acquire Accolade's 145-strong employee base'?
  • "brands such as Major League Baseball". Why the italics?
  • "were published as Infogrames North America starting in 1999." Do you mean something like 'were published by Infogrames North America starting in 1999.' or 'were published under the Infogrames North America brand starting in 1999.'?
  • "What followed were a series". "were" → 'was'.
  • "The game was met with negative reception" → 'The game was met with negative reception'.
  • "where Metacritic aggregated "generally unfavorable reviews". I don't think that "where is correct, and what is "Metacritic"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed most of those. The legal stuff is particularly complicated, but hopefully it's clear that (a) Accolade shifted strategies to consoles, but (b) it backfired with the courts enjoining them from developing or selling the "unauthorized" games, and (c) while they won on appeal and settled with Sega, (d) they still lost millions of dollars due to the interruption, which (e) led to a scramble to make new games and attract new investment, and (f) the change in strategy rippled into the company's leadership. I don't mind taking another stab at it if the rephrasing has introduced new errors. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I have made some minor copy edits as I have gone through. If you don't like any, could you flag that up here? The article looks to be in good shape and I am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The copy edits are great and make things more clear. Thanks for the review and the help. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


Image review[edit]

  • I removed one of the images that did not comply with WP:NFCC. The others appear to be appropriately licensed. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If there's no objection, I'd like to re-add it. The article definitely mentions the historicity of Hardball, with the statement "The game was the first to emulate the behind the pitcher viewpoint seen on television, and also introduced new features such as coach-mode and player data." Unless I misunderstood your rationale that the article doesn't describe the gameplay of Hardball. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there's no in-depth coverage of the gameplay of this particular game, such that it's not the case that the screenshot's "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of the article topic (Accolade) as required by NFCC. Using in both the game article and the company article also goes against minimal use IMO. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood. I know that the WP:NFCC standard is deliberately more strict than fair use, which is sort of frustrating for the non-commerical use of an image of a game from 1985 that isn't commercially available, published by a company that no longer exists. It is hard to find relevant images, so let me know if you find a good image to improve this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine. A common mistake is adding too many images to an article that doesn't really need them. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review[edit]

  • Add alt text to all of the images per MOS:ACCIM.
  • Add a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers to the gameography table per MOS:DTAB.
  • Convert <br> to plainlist or unbulleted list per MOS:PLIST. Heartfox (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. Let me know if you see any other errors or omissions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  • You can add logo_alt to write alt text for the infobox image.
  • The table still needs row scopes and headers (! scope="row" | SunDog). You can add "plainrowheaders" next to "wikitable" to avoid bold centred text. Heartfox (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Should be done now. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Great! Heartfox (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "The Accolade brand was later revived in 2018, when their former assets were acquired by Hong Kong-based holding company Billionsoft, leading to new Bubsy games published by Tommo. " The text states 2017 and mentions an announcement but not any new publications
  • Source for headquarters being in San Jose?
  • FN2: author name doesn't match source
  • FN4 is a dead link
  • Accessdates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • What makes Saltzman a high-quality reliable source? Hardcore Gaming 101? Retrovolve? VGF? Lendino? Allgame? Sega-16?
  • FN20 is malformatted
  • Gamespot or GameSpot or gamespot.com? Check throughout for consistency
  • FN30: where does this page range end?
  • Some inconsistencies on what's listed as a work title vs publisher - eg. Kotaku is listed as both in different refs. Check throughout.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • Fn41 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other refs
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN73 is malformatted. Ditto FN81, check throughout
  • FN96 is incomplete. Ditto FN108, check throughout
  • FN98: what kind of source is this?

Lots of formatting cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Added another source for the Bubsy revival, and for the location being in San Jose. I managed to clean up most of the other references and thanks for catching those.
I went ahead and removed VGF and Sega-16 to be safe. But the other sources should check out very strongly. Saltzman is a prolific journalist for major publications in and outside gaming, and the passage is about Chris Taylor, who he interviewed directly. It passes the highest standard for WP:RS with flying colors, as well as the lower standard at WP:SELFSOURCE for uncontroversial claims about the interview subject. Hardcore Gaming 101 is considered a reliable source among the Video Games Wikiproject and Kurt Kalata is a highly reputable authority as the editor -- their site says "Contributors of articles may not be professionally affiliated with the developer or publisher of any of the games covered. All submitted articles are subject to fact checking and editing by staff." Retrovolve is an interview with the developer Michael Berlyn, quoting his experience with the game's production, so I think this is a WP:SELFSOURCE situation. Jamie Lendino is a reputable author among gaming publications and is really only there to verify the title of the game and its existence. AllGame is similarly only there as a database, and should be as reliable as AllMusic which is in frequent use around Wikipedia. It's since ceased operations due to budget issues, but should be reliable by every standard.
Let me know if there are any lingering issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the fact of being an interview doesn't automatically make the source reliable. Regarding HCG101, FN20 is not attributed to Kalata - why would this specifically be considered high-quality? AllGame is listed at RSP as questionable. I'm also on a quick look still seeing considerable formatting inconsistencies. For example, FNs 85 and 86 are to the same title on the same site, but have different date formats, different dashes and different italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right about the date formatting, and I hadn't been as thorough checking the accessdate field. I'm hoping I've caught them all now, but you can let me know if you spot any other inconsistencies. I'm happy to keep chipping away.
The HG101 source is for sure edited by Kurt Kalata, especially considering it's the site's official top 200 list. To be safe, I found this longer form published book that's attributed to Kalata as editor, and this is the "top 200" book that the article is summarizing and referencing in its contents. As for the Retrovolve interview, the important part are the statements from developer Michael Berlyn, which give important context about the company's development challenges. They are important but non-controversial claims, and I was able to verify a similar statement to another interview so that there is no doubt about the authenticity, as per the WP:SELFSOURCE section at WP:RS. I did read the consensus about AllGame being questionable, so I went ahead and replaced those with more reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Still seeing lots of formatting errors and inconsistencies here. Please go through and make sure that similar sources are formatted similarly, and that the same information is provided where available for each. A few more quick examples, emphasizing that these are examples only rather than a comprehensive list: Computer Gaming World is unitalicized and unlinked in FN79 but both in FN80; Kotaku has a retrieval date in FN20 but not in FN35; Gamespot has a publisher in FN140 but not FN131; FN36 is missing pages and has the edition statement as part of the title. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, Nikkimaria. I went through them again and tried to dig into the guts of the citation templates. I fixed several more, including the few that you highlighted. There's a lot of references for this lengthy article, and they're from a variety of media (magazines, websites, newspapers, books). Hoping once again that I noticed the last bunch, but I will continue to chip away if you see any other issues. Your help is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
... believe me, Nikkimaria, I am trying my best. To your suggestions, I tried to (a) add access dates to all "cite web" templates, (b) replace all ranges with the emdash format, (c) fixed the misplaced italics markers, and (d) replaced all "publisher" and "magazine" fields with "work", except where the field is truly just the name of the publisher. I believe that's everything but once again I appreciate any pointers. This is still my first FA nomination but hopefully we're getting close. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I worked through another round of edits. I did a quick scan for quotes within quotes and found one other, which I fixed. Scanned dates and fixed two or three of those. I made the SF Chronicle cites consistent in name and form. I went through the author field for commas / first-last format. Checked the page(s) field to be consistent. I found just one more place where an ndash is appropriate. I removed the new Sega-16 interview, which was only to confirm the accuracy of another interview saying the same thing. Let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Some of the remaining issues are inconsistencies rather than errors, so they're things that need deciding. For example, some periodicals currently have publishers and others don't - neither is wrong, but we need to pick one or the other and run with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little outside my element, so I don't know which sources count as periodicals or not. But my guess is it would be easier to just remove the publisher, assuming that there is still enough relevant information to identify the source. Where should I be looking? Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Periodicals are magazines, journals and newspapers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Took care of that to the best of my knowledge. See anything else? Shooterwalker (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
In what cases are you intending to include retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been trying to use an access date for anything with a URL, and just went over it all again for consistency. It should include a mix of web sources and magazines that are archived online at certain urls. Double checked the book references and found they should all have publishers. Also linked to pages for magazines that have Wikipedia articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate your patience, Nikkimaria. I checked once more to make sure the "cite book" templates have "publishers" and not "works". Is there anything else that you see? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Should be the last issue: FN102 is missing page(s) (and check that it doesn't need combining with FN124). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed both of those. Let me know if that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep! Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

  • This has been nominated for over three weeks and has only attracted one general review. If it hits the four week mark without a further detailed review or two I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That's annoying. I'll see if I can scare up some interest from the video games WikiProject. Do you have any ideas to address the lack of reviews? I don't mind doing some QPQ if that's consistent with normal practices around here. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild, wasn't SandyGeorgia attempting to fix this issue? I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere. Panini🥪 00:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Don't feel the least bit guilty -- the review is still helpful and a lot of the other issues were caught by other reviewers. I incorporated all your suggestions, including a clearer lead. Thanks for the review and hoping this means the article is suitable for FA status. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and other related. Panini🥪 11:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • Can multiple dialog and three-click system be defined?
  • I think the 1999 header should reflect that the company ended in 2000. Heartfox (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed both those things. Very motivated to get this article into shape, so let me know if there are any other fixes needed for you to feel comfortable supporting. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I read the whole article and my comments above were all I had. I know nothing about the topic and haven't done any in-depth stuff but given the supports above and my reading of the prose, I can support promotion :) Heartfox (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominator note[edit]

By my count, three people now support promoting this to FA, with a few more neutral comments which I addressed through constructive editing. My hope is that's enough, but if not I would appreciate another chance to solicit more comments. I know I'm biased, but I'd be shocked if there were any significant issues left with the research, prose, or formatting. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm recused, but @WP:FAC coordinators: should attract my fellow coordinators, in the event that they have not already taken note. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Namcokid47[edit]

I noticed that this was sitting in the FAC backlog for a bit, so I decided to have a look. Unfortunately, I've chosen to oppose this nomination, primarily for the writing. This page feels very half-baked compared to Sega, which is a featured article and more comprehensive and well-written than this. Games are introduced with no context as to what their importance is for the company or the industry itself. Some information feels more like trivia than something that should be included (ex. "Because Accolade had focused their success around sports games, they accidentally placed a sticker on the box of Star Control II calling it the "Best Sports Game" of 1992", I don't see how this is worth mentioning). There's a lengthy list of games that feels more appropriate as its own page than something in the article. The article doesn't really do a good job at explaining the how and why for certain events and game releases, and lots of it just feels tossed in. I get that trying to summarizing the entire history of a company is hard (I encountered this multiple times with Namco), but it still isn't that great. There's other issues as well, such as several links lacking archived versions and some information feeling biased (how exactly was Bubsy a "breakthrough hit"? I'm not seeing it in the citation), but the writing is my biggest issue with this. Namcokid47 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Namcokid47, I'm all for putting more work into this one and I've been trying to get more feedback. Were there more issues than the ones you mentioned? A comprehensive review is always appreciated, and I'd like to find a way to integrate any comments in a constructive way. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Johnny Owen[edit]

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

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

Image review - pass

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

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

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

Accessibility review

  • The boxing record table needs a caption, row and column scopes, and row headers per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Heartfox: Think I've taken care of that now. Kosack (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    Great. Heartfox (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox/lead don't appear to be explicitly cited anywhere - for example the "Merthyr Matchstick" appellation
    I've sourced the Merthyr Matchstick nickname, other than that everything seems to be appropriately sourced. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly while the Professional boxing record table is broadly supported by the text, some of the specific details are not - eg the precise date of the fight with Hanna
    Added ref for the table. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dictionary of Welsh Biography is a work title
    Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes BoxRec a high-quality reliable source?
    BoxRec is the go to source on Wiki for boxing really and is used on pretty much every article we have. It's gone through several FACs in the past that I know of. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on why it would be considered high-quality? See this guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, only just spotted this. The site is used pretty widely by other reliable sites as a source for boxing info, for example Bleacher Report, South China Morning Post, Bloomberg, World Boxing News, etc. The Athletic also has a pretty lengthy piece on it HERE which notes that the site is the official records keeper of the Association of Boxing Commissions, which I didn't even know. Kosack (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include location for books
    Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Formatting of Bibliography entries should match that of books cited in full inline
    Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • FN103: work title doesn't match source.
    Done. Kosack (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

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

Prose review - Lede and Early life

  • "Three further victories led Owen to challenge for the British bantamweight title in only his tenth professional fight." Remove "only"
  • "becoming the first Welshman in more than 60 years to hold the belt." I assume "hold the belt" means "win the title"? Clarify or rephrase this.
    It does. It's a pretty common term in boxing, I've wikilinked belt to Championship belt to help make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "He defeated the experienced Australian on points" Define or wikilink "on points"
  • "Owen went on to win seven consecutive bouts in the space of a year" Replace "in the space of" with "within"
  • "losing a torturously difficult contest by way of a twelfth round knockout." Replace "by way of" with "with"
    With doesn't quite fit right I think, you can't really lose with a knockout so to speak. Kosack (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "of 25 wins, 11 by knockout, 1 draw and 2 defeats." Is the 11 knockouts included in the 25 wins? If so, it should be in brackets.
  • "Edith Owens (née Hale).[3][1]" References should be in numerical order ([1][3])
  • "The Owens family hailed from Llanidloes but had moved south," Remove "had"
  • "Will worked in an ironworks and was also an amateur boxer." Remove "also"
  • "His mother had also been born in Merthyr" Rephrase: "His mother was born in Merthyr"
  • "council house" Should be wikified, this not a commonly used term outside the UK.
  • "when the family was struck down by a flu virus," Replace "struck down" with "infected"
  • "Owen's father had worked as a miner for 13 years" Remove "had"
  • "However, his wife had suffered complications during the birth of the couple's" Remove "however"
  • "In his desperation, Owen's father nearly placed his children into care in order to be able to continue working but eventually reversed his decision after receiving assurances over his job safety." Remove "In his desperation", "in order to be able", "eventually". Replace "over his job safety" with "that he would not lose his job". (job safety is UK specific prose)

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

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

Prose review - Amateur career

  • "coming to idolise fellow Merthyr born boxer Jimmy Wilde." Replace "coming to idolise" with "idolising"
  • "Broadbent describes how, by age ten, Owen had developed "some rudimentary" Remove had
  • "competing against other youth clubs from Wales and England." Delete other
  • "noted how Owen struggled to make achieve the weight" Delete make
  • "journey to try and make weight." Replace make with gain? Might be a UK way to say this...
    Make weight is a boxing term in relation to the pre-fight weigh-in where a fighter has to cut (or in this case gain) weight quickly before being weighed to meet the requirements of a certain weight class. I can try to rephrase if you still think necessary. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "where he began to hone his ring craft with one of his coaches, Idris Sutton, modelling his fighting style on Eddie Thomas." This sounds a little puffery, change to "where he trained with Idris Sutton and modelled his fighting style on Eddie Thomas."
  • "Griffiths though would later win a rematch between the pair." Remove though
  • "When Dick himself was unable to take training" Remove himself
  • "Wales and Scotland saw him draw praise in the local press." Replace "saw him draw" with "drew"
  • "After defeating his opponent, John Raeside, in the second round during their bout in Pontypool" Remove "defeating his opponent"
  • "he was chosen to represent Wales against Sweden in February 1975" What is he representing Wales in? Another tournament?
    The source doesn't really say what it was so I've added "a contest" to try and clarify slightly. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Owen began fighting as a bantamweight soon after," Replace "began fighting" with "fought"
    I'm not sure of this one as it sounds a little like it was a one off rather than dropping to the weight that he would spend the rest of his career at. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Professional career

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

British bantamweight title

  • "Owen's championship win immediately resulted in him" Remove immediately
  • "and his belief that the referee" Replace with "and he believed the referee"
  • "nearly floored Maguire." What does floored mean? This needs to be defined or wikilinked.
    Reworded to knocked down. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Such was Owen's dominance that Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight." Rephrase "Maguire's promoter Mickey Duff threatened to end the fight because of Owen's dominance."
    While I'm not averse to the change, this would leave the previous sentence and this one with "Maguire. Maguire's" which is a little repetitive. Kosack (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In response, the champion rallied in the ninth round but, when Owen opened up a large cut above his eye in the following round, Maguire's fight was over. Less than 90 seconds into the eleventh round, the referee stopped the fight as blood poured from Maguire's eye." These sentences should be merged as "The champion rallied in the ninth round but the referee stopped the fight in the eleventh round when Owen opened a large cut above Maguire's eye."

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

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

Commonwealth bantamweight title

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

European bantamweight title

  • No concerns

Rematch with Rodríguez

  • No concerns

Final bout

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

Death

  • No concerns

Fighting style

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

Legacy

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

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

@Z1720: I've finished up those last points. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Kosack, are you feeling able to either support or oppose this nomination yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild: I'd like too, but this is my nom :) I think you meant to ping @Z1720:. Kosack (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, I cut and pasted the wrong editor name.Apologies to you both. Z1720? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I will take a closer look later today. If I don't respond in 24 hours please post a note on my talk page. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Second prose readthrough

Just a few comments:

  • I added some non-breaking spaces to dates throughout the article. Please revert if they are not helpful.
  • "The two fighters possessing near identical records;" Change possessing to possessed
  • "While some Welsh fans had travelled to support Owen although they were said to be "outnumbered 100 to 1 at least"." Delete "while" or "although"
  • "The documentary won two BAFTA awards, including one for best documentary drama." If the doc won two awards, why is the other one not named?
    The other award was for Best Direction which seems more like a technical award rather than directly related to Owen. Kosack (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    I think since we are talking about the documentary here, which was about Owen, we can include both awards. If it won five awards, I would understand limiting the number we name but it seems weird how one award is mentioned but not the other. Also, the BAFTA website mentions it won Best Doc in the Cymru (Welsh) section. Should this be mentioned so it is not confused with BAFTA Award for Best Documentary? Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Z1720: I've added in both awards and made a note of the Welsh section. Kosack (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

All of my comments above have been addressed. I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

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

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

Lead

  • I would suggest summarizing the titles he has won as the third sentence (similar to the first paragraph of Miguel Cotto for instance).
    The titles are already mentioned in the lead so creating a sort of introduction to the lead itself seems a bit odd. There aren't many examples to choose from, but the existing boxing FAs (Michael Gomez and Susi Kentikian) use a similar format as here. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Relatedly, if you do that, I would suggest breaking off the rest of the first paragraph and starting the second paragraph with "Owen began boxing at the age of eight..."
  • Owen would beat Sutton ===>>> Owen beat Sutton
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Welsh Area bantamweight title ===>>> bantamweight title of the Welsh Area (only to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I'm not 100% sure if that makes sense?)
    Sea of blue does mention "when possible", and in this case, it's the official name of the title, so rearranging seems counter-productive to the article. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • including a defence of his British title against Wayne Evans <<<=== I might instead mention the number of defenses, unless you are highlighting this one because Evans is also Welsh in which case I would specify that.
    It was his only defence of the title, that's why I singled it out as the other fights were non-title bouts. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • WBC champion ===>>> World Boxing Council (WBC) champion
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • his version of the world bantamweight title ===>>> his world bantamweight title ("version" makes it sound like it's not real)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • torturously difficult contest <<<=== "torturously" seems a bit editorialized. I'd rather you instead mention or add why the contest was difficult. (maybe the only three knockdowns of his career?)
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you need some of the numbers (in particular, "in his sixth professional fight", "Three further victories", "recorded five further victories"). The years might make more sense at times, as the second paragraph currently doesn't have any dates.
    Trimmed a couple. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If his death concretely led to boxing fights being shortened, that's worth mentioning in the lead.
    Although the ESPN article does link it, the boxing hierarchy would probably never admit it was concretely down to that. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Early life

  • the fourth of a family of eight children ===>>> the fourth of eight children OR the fourth child in a family with eight
  • had Irish ancestry. <<<=== Are you specifying that his mother had Irish ancestry or his mother's father? (maybe separate into another sentence)
  • in a rented council house, <<<=== you don't need the comma
    Done. Kosack (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Amateur

  • Welsh amateur championships <<<=== Is this a junior or youth championship?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • a local nuts and bolts manufacturing factory owned by Suko ===>>> a local Suko nuts and bolts manufacturing factory (to make it sound like Suko isn't a person)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • His job would however cause him health issues ===>>> His job however caused him health issues
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Griffiths would later win a rematch ===>>> Griffiths later won a rematch
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • after reaching the final of the competition on 4 April ===>>> just "on 4 April" OR explain the competition a bit (usually boxing is only one bout at a time?).
    I'm not sure we need to explain a basic tournament, knockout competitions are pretty standard across any sport. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • who refused to accept ===>>> ", albeit he refused to accept it." OR split sentence in two (too many "who"s, and add a comma)
    Reworded. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Owen's father was becoming <<<=== this doesn't seem to specify a "when"
    Well it's more of a generalisation, there's not really a definitive date. Kosack (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Owen began fighting as a bantamweight <<<=== What did he fight at before?
    Added. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • , while representing Wales against an army team <<<=== either replace the comma with a semicolon or start a new sentence
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • the fight went ahead with Owen winning on points ===>>> the fight went ahead and Owen won on points
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • amateur boxing career taking ===>>> amateur boxing career, taking (add comma)
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • He suffered 18 defeats in his amateur career and won the remaining 106. <<<=== It seems unusual to state the number of losses before the number of wins. I don't know if you need to mention the number of wins. It's certainly fine to, though.
    Switched, I've kept both figures as a draw is possible, though rare in boxing. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • a disappointing note ===>>> two disappointing notes
    Done. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Professional

  • I'd suggest titling this part as a subsection called "Welsh bantamweight title"
  • although this was dissuaded as being ===>>> although he was dissuaded from this option because it was
  • Owen's initial hopes were low, Kelvin stated ===>>> Owen's initial aspirations were low, with Kelvin stating
  • Owen was driven ===>>> Nonetheless, Owen was driven
  • Owen's stock <<<=== "stock" seems informal. Maybe "standing"?
  • Irishman Neil McLaughlin in his opponent's home nation <<<=== Just checking: Is McLaughlin from Ireland or Northern Ireland? And is he Irish or Northern Irish? I thought they were separate back then?
  • The card suffered several interruptions; ===>>> The card suffered several interruptions:
  • He finished his first year ===>>> Owen finished his first year (and then, start the next sentence with "He")
  • Promoter Heddwyn Taylor raised the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title after his victory. ===>>> This led promoter Heddwyn Taylor to raise the idea of Owen challenging George Sutton for the Welsh bantamweight title.
  • Despite Owen having already beaten Sutton ===>>> Although Owen had already beaten Sutton
  • With their hopes knocked back ===>>> Unable to challenge for the title,
  • found themselves short ===>>> found themselves in need
  • Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout and ===>>> Even though Owen and his trainers voiced their displeasure over the bout,
  • before Owen rocked Sutton ===>>> until Owen rocked Sutton
  • he "bionic bantam" <<<=== should this be capital? (it is in the lead.)
  • Was the title vacant or was Sutton the champion? Should specify if vacant. If Sutton wasn't the champion, why was he the one Owen needed to challenge?
All done in this section. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

British

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

Commonwealth

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

European

  • being rearranged ==>>> and it was rearranged
  • home-town ===>>> hometown (like the rest of the article)
  • challenger's camp ===>>> Owen's camp
  • sat waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training that took up hours of time of Owen's sessions. ===>>> waiting at the gym for Rodríguez to finish his training, taking up hours of Owen's sessions.
  • What is the issue with wintergreen oil?
    It causes severe irritation to the eyes if applied. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • went further and describes the decision ===>>> "went further and described the decision" OR "goes further and describes the decision"

Rematch

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

Final bout

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

Death

  • He remained in a coma, although his doctor believed his condition was improving, until 4 November when a second bout of pneumonia ultimately ended his life ===>>> Although his doctor believed his condition was improving, a second bout of pneumonia on 4 November ultimately ended his life.
  • Owen left £45,189 to his family and had earned less than £7,000 ===>>> Owen left £45,189 to his family, having earned less than £7,000
  • being fought over 12 instead of 15 rounds ===>>> being shortened to 12 rounds instead of 15
    I think fought over is more fitting. Shortened sounds more like an adjustment than an actual rule change. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fighting style

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

Legacy

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

Overall

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

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

@Sportsfan77777: Thanks for taking up the review. I've implemented the majority of the points above with a couple of comments thrown in too. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Supporting, good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti Mountains[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Esculenta[edit]

I tend to agree with Buidhe about the length of the Flora and fauna section. I appreciate that it's there (it's usually the first section I look at in articles like these), but at the same time it's quite long, somewhat listy, and at the same time quite incomplete – no mention, for example, of lichens and very little of bryophytes. How do you feel about spinning off an article Flora and fauna of the Tibesti Mountains? Esculenta (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree that section wasn't good. In fact, some of the sourcing in the fauna subsection was off. Back when I wrote it (like 2013), I'm guessing I wrongly used the WWF source as a proxy for the other sources listed in the WWF document. Anyway, I trimmed up both sections and fixed the sourcing, so hopefully they read better now. I also added information on bryophytes and lichens (although lichens are quite sparse in the Tibesti). Thanks a lot for suggesting that. Let me know if it needs more work.
Re splitting to a new article – I don't know. I think in theory a lot of the sections could have their own articles, but I'm not sure any of them desperately warrant it yet. The Tibesti Mountains have not been heavily studied, so there's not a lot of information out there. Moreover, I have absolutely zero expertise in biology, and I don't think I've ever written a biology-type article, so my confidence is not exactly high in terms of writing a decent one. That said, I'm not at all opposed to the idea in theory. Brycehughes (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The section is now better. However, there’s still a lot of Latin in the flora section. I wonder if it might worth considering cutting some of this back by trying to use common names where possible and linking to the Latin name. This won’t be possible in all cases, and it might be difficult to make a judgment call on what common name to use when there’s more than one option available. But reading text like "sea rush and toad rush" is generally easier and more interesting than "Juncus maritimus and Juncus bufonius". Similarly, how about saying “the most common grass” rather than “the most common Poaceae”.
  • Done, where possible. Brycehughes (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Some more comments on this section:
  • ”such as Enneri Yebige, which is virtually unexplored.”; “Although the lake appears rich in phytoplankton, it has not been thoroughly studied.” These statements are cited to sources that are over 20-25 years old; any updates since then?
  • 25 years is like yesterday in Tibesti exploration time. The region has been rife with conflict for nearly 60 years now, keeping most scientists away and limiting exploration to satellites. See the "Modern history" and "Scientific exploration and research" sections for a summary of that. I check somewhat regularly to see if there has been any new research or exploration, because it's like finding a diamond, but sadly no, there has not been to my knowledge. Brycehughes (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”Acacia nilotica grow near these water basins.”; “while Tamarix nilotica grow at similar elevations” It sounds pretty odd to me to use "grow" instead of "grows"
  • Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”20 to 60 cm (7.9 to 23.6 in) “ too much accuracy in the output compared to what was put in, especially since the first set of numbers looks like a rough approximation anyway
  • Done, but had to handwrite it because you can't set significant figures independently on a ranged convert template converting it to integers worked. Brycehughes (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”and do not exceed one meter.” should have a convert for that too
  • Done. Brycehughes (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • fix "At the highest elevation elevations"
  • Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • please add a picture or two of the most common plants, to help break up the text, and so I know what to look for next time I visit!
  • @Buidhe had removed the images (which I'm fine with) in this edit, along with the edit summary "Only use plants that have been photographed in or around the mountains", which, given that this is the Tibesti Mountains, is exactly zero. I wonder if it's okay to use an image or two with captions making it clear that this is an example of the plant but not photographed in the Tibesti? If not, we might be stuck on this one. Brycehughes (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be opposed to that if the caption is clear. The issue is massive galleries of flora and fauna photographed in a different location. (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. I added File:Acacia laeta ms 2460.jpg, File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG and File:Canis aureus revivim2.JPG (@Buidhe not sure if you care to review). I don't think File:Abutilon fruticosum 1.JPG needs a detailed caption because the image is restricted to the flower. Brycehughes (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

  • "Nevertheless, the positive effects of the gold discovery should not be underestimated." This phrase sounds quite odd in Wikipedia voice ... Esculenta (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Does it? How would you rephrase? Brycehughes (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I only read the flora and fauna section, and my suggestions have been addressed, but I can't really commit to a full support. Esculenta (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chipmunkdavis[edit]

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

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

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

  • "there is no relationship between the age of the volcanoes and their dimensions, geographic distribution or alignment, similar to the Hawaiian–Emperor and Cook-Austral seamount chains"— shouldn't this say "in contrast to" instead of "similar to"?
  • Fixed. Excellent catch. Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do the sources specify why it's possible to identify the Toubou with the people mentioned in ancient sources like Herodotus and Julius Maternus? Ethnicity is a slippery phenomenon, and while I'm not familiar with Maternus, Herodotus's understanding of the world beyond Greece was… inconsistent, shall we say.
  • Regarding Herodotus, the severely colonial (to put it mildly) Chapelle 1982 (first published 1957) devotes a paragraph to the matter (in French), which I have copied to the talk page here. First he quotes Herodotus, roughly translated as, "From Awjila, then ten more days away, there is a mound of salt, water and palm trees. ... The people of Garamantes live here, and they hunt Ethiopian troglodytes using four-horse chariots. ... They speak an unusual language that sounds like the cry of bats." Chapelle then goes on to argue that these "Ethiopian troglodytes" are indeed the Toubou, roughly translated and paraphrased as: "We can reason that these 'Ethiopian troglodytes' are the Toubou. Troglodytes are by definition cave dwellers, and thus they could only have lived in the mountains near the Fezzan, either the Tassili n'Ajjer or the Tibesti. The terrain of the Tassili n'Ajjer and its neighboring ergs are not suitable for chariots, while the regs that stretch between the Fezzan and the Tibesti would have allowed four-horsed chariots to pursue the troglodytes who came to plunder the palm groves. Besides, the language of the Toubou does sound like the cry of bats." (He does reference a source in his argument [Behm, E. (1862). Le Pays et le peuple des Tebu.] but I have no idea where one would find that.) Do you think I should summarize this in the article, perhaps in an endnote? Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, a brief note would be good.
  • Done. Brycehughes (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding Maternus, Oliver 1975 does not give a why, but he does say (p. 290), "And there is no reason why the Garamantes should not have shown their goodwill by allowing a Roman such as Maternus to take part in one of their expeditions (including camelry) against the southern 'Ethiopians' (in all probability the people of Teda [a Toubou people] and Tibesti and their neighbourhood)." Does that suffice? I could note the "probability" qualifier if necessary. Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
It should be fine with the qualifier.
  • Done. I used "almost certainly" as equivalent to the source's "in all probability". Brycehughes (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Less significantly, saying that Herodotus "portrayed" (as opposed to "mentioned") the Toubou sounds odd, and given the ambiguity of ancient uses of the term "Ethiopian", it seems worth linking to Aethiopia, which explains those ambiguities.
  • Done and done. Brycehughes (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I had momentary difficulty parsing the sentence about al-Maqrizi and Leo Africanus. "Recognized", again, sounds odder than "mentioned" or "referred to", and "that is to say" is wordier than "or" or "meaning".
  • Fixed per your suggestion. Brycehughes (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The section on the Chadian Civil War uses the qualifiers "basically" and "largely", but these are the kinds of words that can often be cut (though it depends on what the sources say).
  • To paraphrase, the article says, "The Tibesti area was basically ungovernable and thus the French left it largely alone". The key passage in the source (Nolutshungu 1995) is: "General Edouard Cortadellas had to admit the impossibility of subduing the Toubou in their own area. ... He concluded, 'I believe that we should draw a line below it and leave them to their stones. We can never subdue them.' Subsequent French policy never strayed far from that view." Accordingly, I've deleted "basically" since I suppose "impossibility" is pretty definitive there, but I lean towards keeping "largely" because "never strayed far" does allow some wriggle room for French interventions. Brycehughes (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
OK.
  • "Where mosquitoes do not abound, they support several villages…" If people don't settle in the most mosquito-ridden areas, it's better to make that explicit, and ideally say why (because the mosquitoes spread disease or are just a nuisance). A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The source (Hughes, Hughes and Bernacsek 1992, p. 20) is pretty vague on this: "Where these oases are accessible, and not infested by mosquitoes, their natural vegetation of Acacia, Ficus, Hyphaene and Tamarix, tends to have been replaced by Phoenix dactylifera. Communities have developed at several sites ...". I suppose I'd argue that we're pretty safe in letting the reader infer that people avoid mosquito-infested areas because mosquitoes are universally known to be, at the very least, bloody annoying, and I worry about any extrapolation going outside the bounds of the sourced info. What do you think? Brycehughes (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
If that's all the sources say, that's all they say, so you can leave it as is. A. Parrot (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Source review[edit]

Version reviewed

  • The lead says the Toubou first "appeared" in the range in 5th century BC, but the text says "settled" - I would say those are two different claims
  • Good point. I reworded both to "were settled in the range by the 5th century BC", in that they were first described as living in the range by Herodotus in the 5th century BC. I suppose they could have appeared there earlier. Brycehughes (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Tarso Tôh, which includes 150 cinder cones, two maars and several basalt lava channels" - source?
  • Added: "Tarso Tôh". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
  • "The range is 380 km (240 mi) in length, 350 km (220 mi) in width,[11]" This source agrees the maximum width is 350k, but gives a much longer length
  • Typo. Fixed. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Peaklist a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed, along with the endnote it was supporting. It was a compendium of data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission but it was only supporting a somewhat frivolous endnote, so I think the path of least resistance is removal. Brycehughes (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "more rarely, the Northeast African cheetah". Cited source mentions cheetah but not this specific species nor that it is rarer
  • I removed the subspecies and added a source for the rarity: "Bien que peu commune, l’espèce est distribuée en Afrique méridionale et orientale dans le Sahara central, et au Tibesti" in Camps-fabrer, H. (1999). "Guépard" [Cheetah]. Encyclopédie berbère (in French). 21. Édisud. pp. 3231–3234. doi:10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.1810.CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • " Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), of which it has the largest population in the world.[64][73][74]". I see that FN74 says it has the most important population, but it doesn't say largest
  • I removed the claim. I don't know what they mean by "plus importante population". I did some more research and it doesn't appear anyone really knows how many sheep live there. Brycehughes (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "20 CFA franc postage stamp issued by Republic of Chad in 1961" - source says 1962
  • Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What kind of source is Baroin 2003?
  • I suppose it's essentially a thesis, and so I've updated the citation template. Although it's a little strange, because Baroin was quite accomplished by 2003, having published multiple books (including one, Baroin 1985, that this article cites) and journal articles over previous decades.
  • Would this thesis be of the kind that would meet Wp:SCHOLARSHIP, or are you basing its inclusion on Baroin being a subject-matter expert? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It may well meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm going to argue from subject-matter expert. Baroin is a long-time expert in Saharan/sub-Saharan anthropology, and with regards to the Tibesti and the Toubou, she is one of the very few anthropologists with a focus on the area and its people. To support my claim, I've put together a sample of her work on the talk page to show that she is cited in works by high-quality, authoritative academics, journals and publishers as a subject-matter expert. The Tibesti does not get a lot of attention from scientists, due to its isolation and danger. Baroin is a rarity. Brycehughes (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Radio France Internationale is sometimes italicized, sometimes not - should be consistent
  • Fixed. Brycehughes (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Buzzati: as per this RfC, are there any secondary sources indicating the significance of this reference?
  • There's this one, which devotes several paragraphs to the story on pp. 13–14 that I believe establish its significance. I had already used the source as a reference in an endnote; I've now added it to the end of the Buzzati paragraph as well. Brycehughes (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The hostage incident, known as "L'affaire Claustre" served to further destabilize Chad". This seems very close in wording to the source: "This hostage crisis "L'affaire Claustre" further destabilized Chad"
  • Rephrased and added source: Henderson, David H. (April 2, 1984). War since 1945 Seminar: Conflict in Chad, 1975 to Present: A Central African Tragedy (Report). Marine Corps Command and Staff College. Archived from the original on August 28, 2020. Retrieved March 21, 2021.CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  • Similarly "the French leader of the intervention force, General Edouard Cortadellas, admitted that the Tibesti area was ungovernable" versus the source's "the French leader of the intervention force Gen. Edouard Cortadellas conceded that the Toubou areas were basically ungovernable"
  • Rephrased. Brycehughes (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Have you checked for other instances of wording that may be too close to the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • See my wording review on the talk page here, which reviews each instance aside from the two we already worked through above. (Hopefully it makes sense but please let me know if you need any clarification.) As a result of this, I have changed the wording of four further instances because they paraphrased the source too closely. Brycehughes (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed a number of other works, which led to these changes here. I've written a short overview on the talk page here. Brycehughes (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Fisher and Fisher seems an odd source for what it's citing; can you explain? Ditto Leclant - why not cite the actual work instead of the review?
  • Re Fisher and Fisher: it's supporting "his expedition was fiercely opposed by the Toubou". For example, the "violent threats" discussion on page 36 and the "the intrusion into the Tibesti of an unauthorised and unwelcome foreigner" on page 37.
  • Re Leclant: I don't have access to the reviewed work. I'm stuck on an island in the middle of the ocean (thanks, pandemic), we don't have Amazon, etc. (plus, it's expensive), and according to WorldCat I'd have to travel to North America or Europe to find it in a library. It is searchable on Google books, and I have a hunch where the info might be, but Google Books isn't giving me access to the full pages in search, only useless snippets. So, I've sourced it from the review. Brycehughes (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What about using WP:RX to get the relevant pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • After all that blubbering, I found it. It's on page 228. I replaced Leclant with the original work. Brycehughes (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Does Hagedorn have an ISBN?
  • Added. Brycehughes (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes GlobalTwitcher a high-quality reliable source?
  • Rephrased info and replaced source with: Ginsberg, J.R.; Macdonald, D.W. (1990). Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, and Dogs: An Action Plan for the Conservation of Canids (PDF). International Union for Conservation of Nature. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 5, 2016.
  • Huß is missing publisher
  • Added. Brycehughes (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Mahjoub includes publication location but most sources don't - should be consistent. Also the link mentions a translator who should be credited
  • Removed location and added translator. Brycehughes (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Tubiana & Gramizzi also has location when most sources don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. Brycehughes (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. Brycehughes (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The specific issues identified above have been resolved, but just noting that Buidhe also found some text-source integrity issues - would strongly suggest going through to look for more of these kinds of problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Source checks[edit]

I checked several cites and found that a majority were not backed up by the cited source. In particular, there was an issue with generalizations made with original research. See talk for details. (t · c) buidhe 11:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, many thanks for the review. I've responded on talk. Once you've had a chance to look at the responses, I'll proceed from there. Thanks again, Brycehughes (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Just pinging here, Buidhe, I would be very happy if you could find the time to look at my responses in the next few days, but if you're busy, I absolutely understand. Brycehughes (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- if there are issues with a spotcheck after the nom's been open almost two months my immediate inclination is to archive and ask that rework be done outside of FAC; since Bryce has responded to the concerns, I'll give Buidhe a bit longer to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I am striking my oppose because reconsidering the responses, I am not sure if this is a systematic issue. However, I think the article would benefit from more source checks. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Heh, I think this has probably been left to bleed out on here long enough, and so you can archive it. At a certain point it just gets embarrassing. I do however want to sincerely thank Buidhe, Esculenta, Chipmunkdavis, A. Parrot and Nikkimaria for putting the time in to review this article, and I also want to sincerely apologise to you all for not being able to get it over the finish line. I started work on this article nearly a decade ago, initially translating it from the French article in 2013. I’ve never had any grand designs on getting it featured. (Once upon a time back in 2016 when I was, uh, not sober and not even really devoting much time to Wikipedia I nominated it at FAC… I knew not what I was doing… sorry about that.) But working on this article over the years has brought me a great deal of joy, and when an admin recently accidentally nominated it at GAN and the GAN reviewer strongly recommended I put it in for FAC I thought, why not? You only live once. I’ve enjoyed almost every minute of this FAC review process, and I remain in utter admiration of the editors, reviewers and coordinators that bring articles on this free website up to an almost-beyond encyclopedic standard. Although Tibesti Mountains won’t get its star, I believe that it is a very good article—especially now, after FAC. For an almost unexplored mountain range with very little media/research coverage in literally the farthest reach of Africa, only Wikipedia could thoroughly sketch it in such an accessible forum, and that I believe is something we can all be proud of. Brycehughes (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bryce, this is the thing with spotchecks, I've been in Buidhe's position myself as a reviewer: if one finds specific issues and they're all addressed then that's great, but they are just a subset of all the references and there's the nagging doubt about the rest unless the nominator goes through all the other citations to ensure there are no similar issues, after which we'd want to run another spotcheck of a few citations that weren't part of the original check. If you don't feel you can invest that time then yes we should close this -- pls just let me know that's still the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ian, I suggest closing not based on the spot check nor due to time constraints, but rather this has been open for over two months now and has attracted relatively little attention. It lives, somewhat pathetically, at the bottom of the FAC stack. (Even a "Source review – Pass" wouldn't yet be sufficient for promotion.) Whether there's a star in the corner of the article or not has little bearing on the reader experience; due to the efforts of the reviewers, it is now a very high quality article and should remain that way; and I think there is at least some onus on my part to suggest we keep the FAC highway moving. Brycehughes (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Waiting for reviews certainly is no shame. It doesn't necessarily speak for the quality of an article, but often a subject can seem daunting to many reviewers (I've often waited weeks and weeks for reviews during FACs that eventually got promoted). I was considering reviewing this, and if left open, I will soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Well. Christ... I already gave the concession speech ha. Alright, I suppose in that case I am somewhat obliged to keep this going. Thanks, FunkMonk. I'm looking forward to your review. (I also look forward to a time when I don't consistently humiliate myself on this website!)
So, given that I now need to tackle this source check, please see here on the talk page (esp. Buidhe... would really appreciate your input there when you get a chance.) Brycehughes (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • Some preliminary points first. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Terms linked in the intro should also be linked at first mention in the article body, such as Sahara.
  • Stratovolcano, caldera, fumarole, and other such unfamiliar terms could be linked in the article body.

John Richard Clark Hall[edit]

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

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

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

  • Images are freely licensed. Although I personally think that signatures have no encyclopedic value. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Buidhe. Wish we could find a photo of the guy himself! --Usernameunique (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Other work on Beowulf included a metrical translation in 1912" - text says 1914, which is correct?
  • 1914, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Even after Bosworth's work was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's in 1898, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary continued to serve prominently as an introductory resource" is cited to an 1898 source, which seems too early to draw that conclusion
  • Added a 1932 source as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Tingle's father, an accountant, was in Drammen (before the rest of the family arrived) during the great fire in 1866, and published an article about it, "A Town in Ashes", in All the Year Round." What is the relevance of this here?
  • "A Town in Ashes" isn't attributed to Tingle in All the Year Round, so I was trying to find a place (that's not an obscure, century-old and out-of-print book held by only seven libraries) to attach his name to it. But you're right, it's a stretch here. I moved it to Drammen. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "John Hall spent parts of his childhood (perhaps weekends)" - is the weekends bit in the source, or is this speculation?
  • The first page of the source (visible here) says that "I first made [Herbert Tingle's] acquaintance ... when his family came to live in the road in which mine were then residing, on the outskirts of Peckham. ... The road has long since lost its mild air of suburban gentility, and the houses it contains have become 'weekly property'." This suggests, without stating definitively, that Hall's house was "weekend property," so to speak. It's a borderline case though, and I can take it out if you think it's too close to speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It does seem too speculative. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, Buidhe. Removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "An uncle, Joseph Hall, lived in Golcar Hill." Significance?
  • It suggests something of Hall's roots, and presumably he spent some time there. It's not a huge point, but we have so little about his background that we may as well keep it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Hall's obituary termed him a "protestant reformer"" - this need not appear twice
  • Removed the second. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some citeref errors in Bibliography, and some inconsistencies/errors in formatting - for example, University of Toronto Press is a publisher, not a work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed the citeref errors. The University of Toronto Press website is actually being used as a source to show that A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary is still in print as of 2021. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Nikkimaria, just touching base to see if you have further comments, or would be interested in weighing in on the nomination. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Not at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note[edit]

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

Support fromComments by Chiswick Chap[edit]

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

  • The article should, given Clark Hall's nationality and his work on Old English, be in British English (and the appropriate invisible tag be added at the top of the article). This will make little immediate difference as the article is mostly in that form of English already, but I notice that "as Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" would be "as the Bishop of Oxford Hubert Burge wrote" in BE; and "spelled" would be "spelt".
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "essay on "the duty of kindness to animals," " – should the essay title not be capitalised?
  • It's the essay topic, not the essay title. Here's how the source refers to it: [Hall] obtained the second prize in May, 1871, for the best essay on "The duty of kindness to animals," given by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was competed for by students in about 120 schools in London. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "studied Roman law and constitutional law and legal history." – suggest "studied Roman law, constitutional law, and legal history." (unless this is using the Oxford comma, in which case omit the second one).
  • The way I understand it is that "Roman law" is one subject, and "constitutional law and legal history" is a second subject. Indeed, the source puts Hall's studies under the umbrella of "Roman Law and Constitutional Law and Legal History". Meanwhile, other students were placed under the umbrella of "Constitutional Law and Legal History". Perhaps it would be clearer if phrased studied both Roman law, and constitutional law and legal history? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh I see. Yes, that'd be fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "takers of an exam" – suggest "candidates".
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "was revised by Thomas Northcote Toller's": not sure how to parse this. Suggest we drop the "'s" as unnecessary.
  • Done. Pretty sure that was just a typo. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "This was itself reprinted" doesn't need "itself".
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Contemporary Review, called it" contains a stray comma.
  • Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "advocating for the "parochial comprehensiveness" of the church" – on reflection, I've no idea what this might mean (nor why "for" is needed). Perhaps a word of explanation is called for here, in which case the already rather long sentence should be split up.
  • Yep, I'm sure I knew what that meant when I wrote it, but trying to parse it out a year later, I had no idea. Moved it to a footnote where I added to and clarified it, and linked comprehensiveness to Anglican doctrine#Interpretation of doctrine. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "wondered much how it reached there." should I think be "wondered much how it had reached there."
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilink Kingston Russell; you might add that it's adjacent to Long Bredy.
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we need to know the name of the rector at Hall's wedding?
  • He was the local rector for four decades, and I think a nice touch to add. But it's hardly a necessary point. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly, "he left a £16,762 estate." should be "he had left a £16,762 estate."
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The multiple editions of his Dictionary and of his Beowulf are formatted with the author's name masked for second and subsequent appearances. However those use a bullet as well as a long dash; I'd suggest to suppress the (indented) bullets so we have bullet points only where "Hall" is printed.
  • Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Thanks very much for the careful review and good points, Chiswick Chap. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Good work! all the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Looks interesting. Here's what strikes me:

  • I might split the long second sentence of the lead that is now joined by a semicolon.
  • Done.
  • Why is the book by Hall bolded? Is there a MOS reason for it?
  • A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary directs to the article, so is bolded per WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses: "Use boldface ... for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article ... which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section (for example, subtopics of the article's topic ...)."
  • "along with a senior certificate from the latter, earning him the title Associate in Arts at Oxford.[4][5][18][19]" This is, I assume, Oxford University?
  • Linked both Oxford and Cambridge.
  • "St. Olave's ... Mr. R.B. Allen ... Ph.D. ... Mr. Braginton" Just making sure that since this is in British English, that the dots after St, Mr, etc are intended and proper. I note later you have both Dr. Clark Hall and Dr Clark Hall. I understand those are quotations, but is that the sort of thing we are allowed to tidy up?
  • Those are true to the sources, except for "Ph.D.", which I have now changed to "PhD". Meanwhile, only the Dr./Dr Clark Hall are parts of quotations; I'd be happy to remove the other periods if you think that's better for British English.
Possibly other commenters will weigh in. I'm not certain if usage has changed over time.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Some of the reference strings are out of numerical order, such as ".[45][2]". Is this intended?
  • Reordered.

That's it. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • The lead seems a little short for an article of this length. The "Christianity" subsection doesn't appear to be summarised there at all.
  • Good point: expanded. I hadn't included it because Hall certainly isn't notable for it—those three works are quite obscure and hard to find—but given that it has its own section in the article, it should be in the lead also.
  • A link to Beowulf in the lead would seem appropriate.
  • Done. Looks like there used to be one, but it got taken out with a trim here.
  • Seven explanatory notes in just over 2,00 words seems excessive. Are they all necessary? Note 1 doesn't seem to have anything to do with Hall; the first half of Note 2 fell irrelevant, and the second half should be in the prose if it's important; not sure what Note 3 has to do directly with Hall; Note 4 seems like trivia; Note 5 should be in the prose so we're not burying criticism; Note 6 should be in the prose; Note 7 should be shortened and incorporated into the prose.
  • (Old version with numbering convention referred to above.) Taking these in turn:
1) Can't argue with you, and I've deleted it (see review above re: A Town in Ashes for how that footnote came to be).
2) There's a link between "the duty of kindness to animals" and the humorous "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Insects".
3) This is about the photo caption, which refers to "Folio 158r"; it is to clarify that "Folio 158r" is so-numbered under one convention, but has a different numbering under a previous convention. The footnote is modelled after that in the featured article Gevninge helmet fragment. Incidentally, Hall published a note on four lines which appear on this folio, which is why it's the folio shown here.
4) This is intended not as trivia, but to place a clarification somewhere so that the two John Hall's don't get confused.
5) Done.
6) I think this is pure footnote material. The privately published pamphlet is very likely to essentially be a short draft of the book published the next year.
7) This actually started off in the text, and was then expanded and put in a footnote (see review above noting "parochial comprehensiveness"). I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I don't want to elevate a one-paragraph letter to the editor above a 170-page book; such a letter is truly a footnote compared to such a book. On the other hand, it offers some useful tidbits into Hall's thinking on the subject.
  • "railways and parliamentary elections... You need a ref straight after a quote.
  • There's a citation at the end of the sentence.
  • "the duty of kindness to animals," punctuation outside quote marks per MOS:LQ. Check for others.
  • Done, and removed one other. The others are only where full sentences are quoted.
  • "At last", wrote The Guardian The grauniad was known as the Manchester Guardian until 1959. I see you refer to it as such below and link it there. The link should be on the first mention.
  • This is actually a regional paper called The Guardian, which was published at the same time as The Manchester Guardian. Presumably it stopped publication—and thus freed up the name—before The Manchester Guardian changed it's name to The Guardian. As noted in the good-article nomination, I've done some digging on the regional paper without finding out much more information.
  • Tell the reader Allen Mawer's expertise if we're quoting his expert opinion.
  • Ditto Marijane Osborn. And E. Thurlow Leeds.
  • My general rule of thumb is to introduce those who don't have Wikipedia articles, but not for those who do. Having an articles 1) implies relevance, and 2) gives an easy way to figure out who the person is, making the introduction less needed.
  • according to Marijane Osborn;[68] a 2011 survey Suggest replacing the semicolon with a full stop. There doesn't seem to be a direct relationship between the two facts.
  • Done.
  • suggested that "[i]n attempting No need for square brackets if you're just changing the capitalisation of the first letter and other superficial changes.
  • Looking at The Chicago Manual of Style on this point, it says that it is "generally permissible" to silently change capitalization as so (§ 13.7), but that "[i]n some legal writing, close textual analysis or commentary, and other contexts, it is considered obligatory to indicate any change in capitalization by brackets" (§ 13.21). To be fair, Wikipedia is probably a field closer to the former than the latter. Personally, however, I dislike unremarked changes and would never use them. As a compromise here, I've changed it to suggested that by "attempting...
  • Ditto [a]ny way we are glad.
  • Here, I think the alteration—which effectively combines two sentences—is significant enough that it needs the signal which the brackets provide.
  • I haven't looked at the sources in the detail needed for a full source review, but I'm concerned that the personal life section seems to be based entirely on primary sources.
  • Although four primary sources are cited, they almost exclusively sit under secondary sources in that section. For example, the information about Hall's marriage comes from this newspaper article; his death and probate information was published in The Scotsman; his son Cecil Hall's information is backed up by three secondary sources (most expressly by this book); and his son Wilfrid Hall's information is courtesy of Who Was Who. The main point of the primary sources is that they substantiate the secondary sources, and provide more information for anyone who wants to click over.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, thanks for the review! Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Harry, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Woops! Slipped off my radar. I'll try and get back tonight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I still feel the footnotes are disproportionate to the length of the article but won't push the point. I do feel that the reference needs to be closer to the quote I pulled out above; end of sentence is usually fine but you have nearly another full sentence after the semicolon so I feel the reference belongs after the semicolon. I won't argue on the square brackets. And last, I feel the people need a short introduction and not just a link per MOS:LINKSTYLE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, HJ Mitchell. Added the introductions, and the citation. Normally I'm being told that I've added too many citations, so this is a nice change. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • LGTM. Support on prose/MoS etc. Haven't looked at sourcing/references in great detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bajadasaurus[edit]

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

A quite spectacular dinosaur, described only recently. I tried hard to make it as accessible as possible, and look forward to comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • I did the GA, so for now I only have some suggestions for additional sources. And then I wonder if, since you mention the semicircular canal head posture theories, if it should be stated some studies have doubted this idea? I'll come back later if it needs further reviews. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Added some ambiguity, let me know if you think we need more. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's this probably useful conference abstract: TOOTH FORMATION TIMES AND REPLACEMENT RATES IN BAJADASAURUS PRONUSPINAX[41] FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, added a paragraph now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Here's a Spanish press release about it by conicet[42], which may have some additional info. This one in English also seems to have interviews with the authors:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing new inside it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Regarding size estimates, I assume that the "Dinosaur Facts and Figures" book[44] is new enough to have an entry on this genus, but I don't remember whether we concluded it was reliable enough or not? FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not consider this as a high-quality reliable source, because it is obviously a book for children. I wonder what does @Nikkimaria: think about this; can this book be used as a source in Wikipedia? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A major problem with these books is that they create a precise estimate, to the meter if not decimeter, for EVERYTHING. This includes isolated teeth, unguals, and the like. I seem to remember that their willingness to tooth-scale sauropods was one of our main reasons for deciding that these books weren't reliable sources (although they've unfortunately taken over much of the dinosaur size page, it seems). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Using a children's book as a high-quality source is always going to be questioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I gather this is a clear "no". Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This article[45] states it "hit the headlines" for it spines, which could maybe be a way to cite that it became well-known immediately after its description? Personally I think it's interesting to note how the press reacted to the discovery, and that almost every headline mentioned its "mohawk". FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Very good point, added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One thing I asked at the end of the GA which I'm not sure I ever figured out is whether info from the supplemental pdf has been included too? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I took that into account, but there is barely any useful info inside there. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - might as well give my formal support since this seems to have stalled. I GA reviewed the article with FAC in mind, and it has only been improved since. FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Esculenta comments[edit]

This is a placeholder; I'll come back for a full review later. Some quick MoS-related comments:

Thanks for taking a look! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • the citation formatting could use a bit of tidying. Some examples:
  • lacking page numbers: Ref#2, #9
  • inconsistency with formatting of author initials; compare “Hallett, M.; Wedel, M.” to “Harris, JD; Dodson, P”
  • are book titles in title case or sentence case?
  • doi missing for Ref #8
  • specify language for Ref #15. Esculenta (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I did a general clean-up now. Hope I got everything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this; now that everyone else has had a look, I'm finding only small nitpicks: Esculenta (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • ”The eye openings of Bajadasaurus were exposed when the skull is viewed from above” I know what this is trying to say (i.e., it’s a rewording of “dorsally exposed orbits” from the source) , but the way it’s written it sounds like they weren’t exposed when not viewed this way? (same issue later on in the article as well)
I now switched back to "in top view", as I had originally (and changed per reviewer suggestion), to avoid this issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Spanish (language) and Greek are linked, so for consistency one might want to also link Latin
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”referring to the long and forward curved neural spines” -> forward-curved
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”the discovery of Bajadasaurus was widely reported on by international news media.”
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”The neural spine of the axis was narrow and not bifurcated; it differed from other sauropods in being vertically oriented (an autapomorphy of the genus); triangular in cross-section; and tapering towards its apex.” I think those final two semicolons should be commas
Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • suggested links: morphology; keel; divergence, common ancestor; basal; display; maybe pipe “whip-like tails” to flagellum?
Thanks for pointing those out. Done all except for the last; it is not a flagellum. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ”A subsequent analysis by Whitlock and Wilson Mantilla” Whitlock’s first name is not mentioned in the article text
added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • this source says that CONICET "said Bajadasaurus could have had a fleshy hump between the spines that served a similar role to that of a camel", which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article
Thanks, but I think we need to restrict ourselves to the peer-reviewed scientific articles when it comes to speculations like this. News articles are generally highly unreliable in such contexts, and this quote does not even make sense and seems to be highly oversimplified at best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Esculenta: Sorry for the wait, I was quite occupied in RL. I hope I solved all issues you raised. Thanks for reviewing, especially for the link suggestions! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Support I think the article meets the FA criteria. Esculenta (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Could we be told how old the genus is in the opening paragraph of the lead.
  • sure, added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "from the Early Cretaceous epoch"; " from the Early or Middle Jurassic to the end of the Early Cretaceous". Both from the opening paragraph. Appears 1. repetitive, 2. inconsistant.
  • Hmm … just removed that part, since I felt that it gets a bit off-topic.
  • "bifurcated". Possibly follow with '(two-pronged)'?
  • Thanks, I generally don't know which terms are easy to understand for native speakers and which are not. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link gracile.
  • done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The only specimen was excavated ..." As this is the start of the main article, I feel that a proper reintroduction may read better. Perhaps something like 'The only specimen of the dinosaur genus Bajadasaurus was excavated ..."?
  • Sure, done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The site of discovery". Should that be 'The site of the discovery;>
  • According to Google Scholar, "site of discovery" has 1.760 hits but "site of the discovery" only 1.100. But maybe that is science jargon? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Either could be correct, depending on the rest of the context. Nevertheless, I am surprised at that ratio. Regardless, IMO, skipping the definite article is poor grammar.
  • "near the western banks". Is that in US English? "banks" plural reads oddly to me.
  • changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link anteriorly.
  • replaced with "front". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link process at first mention.
  • done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "As all sauropods". Should that be 'As with all sauropods'?
  • ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "roughly reaching sizes of present-day Asian Elephants". 1. Maybe 'roughly reaching the size of present-day Asian Elephants'? 2. Lower case e.
  • Yes, done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Long bifurcated neural spines" Again, a bracketed explanation of bifurcated may help many readers.
  • added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Caption: "whose similarly elongate neural spines". Should that be 'elongated'?
  • My English isn't good enough here – changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase" reads oddly, especially as the start of a section. Perhaps 'The fossilised skull', or something else to clarify that you are not writing about Bajadasaurus skulls in general.
  • Say "the preserved skull" now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Its overall built was gracile." "built" → 'build'.
  • Corrected by Dunkleosteus77. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was wider than high". Optional: → 'was wider than it was high'.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus." → 'Its rear surface was not wider than its neck, which was different from Amargasaurus and Dicraeosaurus.'
  • Changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "likely had 44 teeth in total." I am struggling to add the numbers to 44. Either in the article or in Gallina et al. Could you help me out?
Heck, of course! I can't count it seems. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "as typical for dicraeosaurids" → 'as is typical for dicraeosaurids'?
Ok, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link surangular
    did that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "characteristic for the group". Perhaps 'characteristic of the group'?
    changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "due to its unstable position"> Perhaps a word or two of explanation as to what this means?
    reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "vertically oriented neural spine of second neck vertebra" → 'a vertically oriented neural spine of the second neck vertebra'.
  • corrected to "spines". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Moderate damages would result in the break-off of the horny tips". 'damage' singular, I think.
  • of course, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "while the sight of most other sauropods" Maybe "sight" → 'vision'?
  • changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "furthermore" → 'further'.
  • changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "At its top, it is separated by the overlying Agrio Formation". Should that be 'At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation'?
  • Of course, yes, corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "mya". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page ..."
  • done.
  • Several references lack identifiers. Eg ISSNs or JSTORs.
  • Added all I could. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a thoroughly good article and an enjoyable read. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy to hear that – thanks for reading, and the review! All of these are addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
One minor point above, but I don't see why that should hold up my support of this fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Gog! That minor point is fixed now as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Further thoughts[edit]

I stopped by to see why this was still on the list and am now kicking myself. The Rambling Man has identified some good points, several of which I read straight past, I assume because I understand them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#General points on linking style says, among other things:

  • Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
  • Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.
  • The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.

There is obviously room to disagree over what constitutes "unnecessarily", “highly technical”, “appropriate”, “understand” and “sense”. But the general message seems clear.

TRM seems to have done a good job of picking out possible issues re this bit of the MoS; so far as I can see, the unresolved ones are:

  • Braided river
  • stage
  • phylogenetic analysis
  • specific name
  • braincase
  • prefrontal
  • surangular
  • Features

There are more ways to skin a cat than putting it in parentheses. So purely as optional suggestions for your consideration I offer:

  • Perhaps “These sediments were mostly deposited by braided rivers” ‘These sediments were mostly deposited by networks of separate river channels, known as braided rivers ...' or similar?
Here I wonder why an explanation is necessary in the first place. The word "braided" is not needed to understand the general meaning of the sentence, it is just an additional bit of information (specifying the type of river). I fear that a short explanation like this does not do it justice, and people will get a wrong picture into their heads (they have to understand that these are small, very shallow river channels diverging and uniting, not what you think of when you hear the word "river channel"). With your suggestion, we would also introduce an awkward repetition ("river channels" is repeated later in the sentence). To sum up, I would argue that the general reader does not need to understand this term, and those who want to are better served with the designated article on that topic that is linked. But I am also not strictly against adding an explanation, I'm just wondering if it is really the best solution. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "dated to the late Berriasian to Valanginian stages of the Early Cretaceous". I am not sure that a technical term is necessary here. Could a less technical word be used? 'era' perhaps? (And linked to stage. And yes, I am aware of Era (geology).) Or 'epoch' or 'period'?
In fact, we add the word "stage" to this and other dinosaur FAs to achieve the opposite: To add a bit more context, indicating that Berriasian and Valanginian are some sort of time intervals. It is supposed to help the general reader. In a technical article, we can just simply omit such words. I am open to remove them, but I'm not quite convinced this would really improve the situation for a general reader (because Berriasian and Valanginian are left without this context). "Epoch", "period", "era" all have different definitions, and using them instead would simply be wrong. We could choose something like "time intervals" instead of "stage", but that seems awkward to me (especially because "Early Cretaceous", which follows, is also a time interval). Please let me know if you feel this word should be removed, but in this case, it could be that TRM will complain about the then unexplained terms "Berriasian" and "Valanginian". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The specimen was formally described as the holotype of a new genus and species". Maybe something like 'The specimen was formally described, and this description was used as the "holotype", or defining example, of a new genus and species' would give a casual reader sufficient in line information without reducing the article to baby talk?
This is another example of a term that is not needed to understand the sentence (as I also explained in the discussion with TRM below). Explaining it will suggest to the reader that this is something important that they need to know and remember in order to continue with the rest of the article, when in fact they can just ignore and forget this term. Explanations, therefore, can make reading articles more difficult; this is another reason why I have my personal issues with providing explanations that are not pertinent for the article. But to resolve this issue (and to illustrate my point), I just removed this term completely from the article. This, now, is no longer in-line with other dinosaur FAs and will only work as long as there is only a single specimen, but for now, at least, we got rid of one potentially confusing term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "In their phylogenetic analysis". Any reason why 'In their analysis of evolutionary relationships wouldn't work?
In this case, I agree that understanding this term will be important. I took your suggestion, which didn't came to my mind when I first pondered about it while addressing TRM's suggestions, so thanks for this. It might be true that people with a bit more knowledge about the topic might need to think a second to understand what we mean with this unfamiliar circumlocution, but then, again, I agree that our general audience should get priority. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "specific name" IMO needs a footnote.
But what is, if I may ask, the practical advantage of a footnote over a wiki link? Both require a click. I now tried to solve this issue with a small fix: adding pronuspinax, to demonstrate that it refers to this part of the name. Do you think this makes it reasonably clear already? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Clever. Given that the previous sentence starts "The specimen was formally described as a new genus and species, Bajadasaurus pronuspinax" yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "braincase" seems a normal and understandable English word to me, especially in context: "the skull roof and braincase". Ie I don't personally see any reason to further explain this.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that "orbit" has already been explained, "The upper-front corner of the orbit was formed by the prefrontal bone" seems a perfectly adequate in line explanation to me.
Agreed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Surangular bone seems a tricky one. Possibly a footnote?
But we already explain that it is a bone in the hind part of the lower jaw; what else would the reader need to know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Features" seems to be being used in the normal English sense: "anatomical features distinguishing the group from related taxa".
Yes, indeed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what the unrecused coordinators will make of your not addressing these points, or only addressing some of them, but I am a fan of encyclopedia articles actually explaining their subjects to as broad a range of readers as reasonably possible. Any how, see what you think.Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Gog, and thanks for your suggestions. Like you, I also aim to explain terms as best as reasonably possible. You made some excellent suggestions I did not think about before, which I implemented. For the others, please see my detailed reasoning below your points. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I am not really the audience, that would be The Rambling Man. You would seem to have addressed all of the issues they raised, it is now over to them to decide if you have done so to their satisfaction. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
In passing, your comment re holotype now being inconsistent with other dino FAs. Ha, you should grumble! Face-wink.svg In my Featured Topic Crécy campaign, I don't think that any two are wholly consistent: the joys of having a different set of FAC reviewers each time. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Support by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • "Bajadasaurus sported bifurcated, extremely elongated neural spines extending from the neck vertebrae" I didn't realize you meant it had giant spikes coming out of its neck until I saw the reconstruction scrolling down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to "extending from the neck" to give the hint, does that make it better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
How about something like "Bajadasaurus sported elongated pairs of spines running along the nape, extending as far as 58 cm (1 ft 11 in) towards the head of the animal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "which formed the front margin of the orbit" it's unclear what front means   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The foremost side", or "anterior". I thought "front" would be more accessible than "anterior". Is there another alternative? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you show the cladogram from the 2019 study instead of the 2020 one?
That's a good question. (I think that I was thinking that, but forgot to ask.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not feeling strongly about this. But newer is not necessarily better, and in this case, the 2020 paper includes some controversial taxa that influence the topology of the cladogram as a whole, but not everybody agrees that they belong within the group in the first place. I thought it might be nice to have the cladogram of the original description. But ok, will replace it later. And many thanks for the reviews, will get to those comments soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about Dunkleosteus77, but I was asking an open question, not trying to hint that you had made the wrong choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps both cladograms could be shown side by side, like in Elasmosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, added the second cladogram now. Unfortunately that will not last long, a new one may appear each year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • By the way, once you get past 12 inches, it's better to convert to ft   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know anything about inches, but I just relied on the conversion template here (I didn't even specify inches, it prefers this unit, and converts to feet only at larger values). I think this issue should be fixed in the template directly if we want to have any consistency between articles. I refrain from changing it manually because it would be inconsistent to other articles that use the template. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Inconsistency among template inputs is not important, their primary purpose is accessibility, and 4 ft is more digestible than 48 inches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
If this is the general rule we follow, I think we need to change the template accordingly, rather than fixing individual articles manually. I personally don't see any problem with using inches here, and if converting to feet gives me something like "19 ft 9 in" I really dislike it as it adds (in my eyes) unnecessary clutter. And I do feel that consistency between articles is very important. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77: I switched to "58 cm (1.90 ft)" now instead of the mixed units (for which I don't even know how to tell the template to use them), is this acceptable as well? Another option would be to remove the conversion entirely, as it is not required for scientific articles according to WP:MOS. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Almost all Americans can't understand metric system, me included. If you leave it as just 58 cm, then I don't know what you're saying. Also ft in is more understandable than decimal ft. It doesn't look cluttered to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
In this case, you can certainly understand my annoyance and ignorance of a foreign unit system as well! Since we have only one such conversion in the article, I now think I could live with providing mixed units. However, after studying the template documentation for some time, I am not even sure the templates supports such a conversion? If you know how to do this, please feel free to change the conversion yourself. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Slate Weasel[edit]

I'm not sure if I'll have time for a comprehensive review, and I'm still getting the hang of FAC reviews, so I don't know how long this section will be. I do know that I added about a paragraph to this article once, but that was awhile ago, and it has been re-written and expanded since, so I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved with the article. Here are a few things that jump out at me:

  • The Paleoenvironment section is only one paragraph long. This is awfully short for an FA; I'm wondering if this could be upped to two? Surely there's info out there on the non-dinosaurian biota of the formation?
I did search for it, and searched again today, but nothing about the non-dinosaur fauna appeared. This formation appears to be understudied, and only the dinosaurs got some limited attention so far, and only fossils from the type locality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, if sources are lacking, I suppose that, unfortunately, there's not much we can do. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Early Cretaceous epoch" - While technically correct, this is rather unusual for dinosaur articles, perhaps change to "the Early Cretaceous period"
I just added "epoch" to indicate to the reader that the Early Cretaceous is a time interval. "Period" would be technically incorrect since the period would be the Cretaceous as a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps we'll have to change the standard then! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The genus is classified as a member of the Dicraeosauridae," shouldn't this be "The genus is classified as a member of Dicraeosauridae," (without the "the")?
Hmm, Google Scholar tells me that both forms are in use for family names (I checked with Tyrannosauridae). Native speakers tend to prefer the "the" though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and its environment resembled a braided river system." Was it not actually a braided river system?
Good point, fixed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can add more about the article body over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On the history section:

  • Perhaps spell out what CONICET means?
Done.
  • I wonder if the information about the formation could be located next to the information about the locality, and that about the museum next to the part in the lab. It feels a bit awkward right now.
Good suggestion, done! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Dinosaur and genus are not linked on first mention. Then again, I don't think that anything would be lost by removing them here.
Now linked. I had added those following a reviewer suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get in something on description tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, as well as" I think an "and" is missing here
I don't see it, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be located before "the pterygoid bones", although that does sound a bit clunky. The problem is, at the moment, "as well as" is being substituted for "and" in a list, something that I'm not sure is possible, and making it seem like the skull roof & braincase could be the pterygoids. Perhaps "The preserved skull includes most of the skull roof and braincase, the pterygoid bones of the palate, parts of the upper jaws, and the lower jaws, and and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date." might work? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Crown (tooth)
Yes.
  • Angular should be linked (perhaps also glossed, same with surangular)
Linked. They are explained already I hope (saying "bone", and "of the hind part of the lower jaw")
Might be good to specify that the angular is the lower bone, though, and the surangular the upper. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention keratin in the text?
Done.
  • "the probably sixth of Brachytrachelopan," The probable sixth?
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this yesterday. Here are some notes on classification:

  • "which is named after the whip-like tail" Perhaps pluralize tail?
Corrected.
  • Link US and Tanzania
added.
  • It might be good to mention Dyslocosaurus, possibly also Dystrophaeus
I intentionally restricted myself to the genera recognized by the two studies discussed. Those two genera have been proposed as Dicraeosaurids by a single study but this does not seem to be widely accepted yet. I'm not sure if it will help the reader to include this detail that is not pertinent to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair, these two taxa are rather tenuous. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues." This makes it sound like this study's definitive, but I doubt that this will be the last word on the subject, considering that Gallina et. al.'s topology had been recovered by many previous analyses. Perhaps add "in their study" after "Dicraeosauridae" to clarify?
Sure, this was not indented. Reworded.

And palaeobiology:

  • Optional: "soft part anatomy" -> "soft tissue anatomy"
Hmm, "soft-part anatomy" is the common term used in the field, and as long as readers can understand it, I would prefer to keep it.
  • "horn sheath" Shouldn't this be "horny sheath" like elsewhere, as these structures weren't horns?
Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gallina and colleagues suggested that the spines of Amargasaurus and Bajadasaurus might have been 50% longer than indicated by their bony core." - Was there any particular reasoning for this figure? Since the previous examples were 100% and 25%, this just seems random at the moment.
They cite an upcoming paper, which has not been published yet. I adjusted the wording slightly, including the word "speculating".
  • "Due to its forward bent" -> "Due to its forward bend"?
Of course.
  • "how frequently teeth are shed and replaced" Perhaps specify that this is specifically about Bajadasaurus. Also, "are" should probably be changed to "were", given the context.
Added.
  • Optional: "in the dentary; these values are similar" -> "in the dentary. These values are similar"
Changed.

Hopefully this is helpful! Palaenvironment will come either later today or tomorrow. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure it is! Thanks for those throughout comments so far! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While still redlinks, the Quintuco and Picún Leufú Formations could probably be linked, given that Mendoza Group is, too.
Ok, linked.
  • Link Agrio Formation
Done.
  • "At its top, it is separated from the overlying Agrio Formation by an unconformity (sedimentation hiatus) that has been dated at 134 mya (million years ago)." What exactly does the date here refer to, the Agrio Formation, Bajada Colorada, the unconformity or something else? Also, it seems like a unconformity's a boundary between layers, not a layer itself.
Very good point. I don't think you can directly "date" a unconformity in the first place. I guess those dates were rough estimates. I think it is better to remove that date, and did so. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "tetanurans" currently links to a genus of fly
fixed.
  • Link theropod
done.

And that's all from me! It's mostly just issues with links for this section. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, you found a lot of ugly errors. All done now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Slate Weasel and thanks for the review. Are you feeling able to either support or oppose yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I forgot about this! My only remaining criticism is that it could be made clear the angular's the upper hind mandibular bone and the surangular is the lower, but other than that, I have no qualms. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Slate Weasel. Having thought about the remaining point, I would prefer to keep the explanation as concise as possible. The situation is actually a bit more complex; the angular overlaps the surangular, so it is not really "the lower" of these bones, it only looks like this in side view. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good to know. I'll support then. (I've never actually supported an FAC before, so hopefully this is the correct way to do it!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from TRM[edit]

  • The following terms are inaccessible to a non-expert reader:
    • gracile
    • Braided river
    • stage
    • Holotype
    • phylogenetic analysis
    • specific name
    • braincase
    • prefrontal
    • flagellicaudatans
    • surangular bone
    • features
      • I explained what was possible (gracile, prefrontal, flagellicaudatans). The other things are concepts that are a bit to complicated to explain in-text (in this case, the link should be enough, as far as I gather from the current discussion at FAC). Note that in all these cases, the reader does not need to understand the terms to get the general meaning of the sentence.
  • Duplicate links need fixing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Found just one, which I fixed. Note that there are a lot of dublicates just because of the cladograms.
  • Image captions, complete sentences need full stops.
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would expect to see citations in numerical order e.g. "deinonychosaurians.[18][2] -> deinonychosaurians.[2][18]"
Puh, this would be quite a tedious effort, and after moving sections around we would have to do the same again. In principle, this is something that the wiki software should take care of, if we want it. I usually order them so that the most important (which the reader should look up first) comes first. I find this more practical than the alphabetical order, whose benefits seem to be limited to aesthetics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Author initials are sometimes spaced, sometimes unspaced, I would expect that to be consistent.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find any initials that are separated by spaces, can you help me? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Paul, G. S. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how I could miss that. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Cheers. Sadly I can't agree that some sentences with highly technical terms do allow readers to get the general meaning. Like you, I'm happy with linking, but there needs to be a consistent approach to this whether it's a dinosaur, a legal matter or a football match. Like "Long bifurcated neural spines were a common feature of the group" and "Cladogram by Gallina and colleagues" are just two examples that are meaningless without clicking on the links. So I'll have to oppose on this now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
    I accept your opinion, but I don't think I can add any more parentheses without cluttering the text too much. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Reading through now, please feel free to revert and discuss any copyedits. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "single large block of rock and bone wrapped in plaster." unless I'm much mistaken, it was extracted as a single block of rock and bone, and subsequently wrapped in plaster; suggest rewording; also, plaster is worth linking.
The plaster is indeed applied before extraction. You first dig around the block to separate it from surrounding rock as best as possible, and then you apply plaster to the top and sides of the block. When it is hard, the block can be heaved up (and separated from the basement) with heavy equipment, and the plaster will make sure it won't break apart. I reworded to make this a bit clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I suggest scaling up the Nature figure; the map isn't legible. Also, wondering if it would be best cropped into two images, as the labels aren't very legible either.
I scaled it up. However, I would argue that with default thumb size, images in Wikipedia are almost never legible, you always have to click to read something (the other images in this article included). Splitting them up, maybe yes, but then they will take more space and I'm not sure where to put them! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel very strongly about it; most figures in science articles try to cram a lot into a small space, which is often not ideal for WP. Here, it's not enough of a problem for me to make a deal of it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wondering if "Bajada Colorada locality" is a phrase used in the sources; if not, you could omit "locality" and make the sentences about it more concise.
I'm worried that without "locality" it will be confused with the rock unit "Bajada Colorada Formation", so keeping "locality" improves clarity I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a reasonable explanation. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • On my screen, the Nature figure and the reconstruction stack, leading to a very oddly placed section header; could the nature figure move (assuming you don't split it, as I suggest above)?
Moved it up, hope it is better know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "bifurcated" needs clarification in the text, but as you've received a comment above asking you to put it in, I won't hold you to this.
removed to avoid excessive amounts of glosses; Wiktionary link should do the job. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As above, "gracile" needs linking or explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "top view" have a specific meaning in paleontology? If so, it should be linked or explained; otherwise, "viewed from above" or similar would be more idiomatic, I think
"Top view" is some awkward term we "invented" to avoid the actual technical term, which is "dorsal view". I took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • " featured a rearwards extending process" unless I'm mistaken, "process" here is not the common English usage, and should be linked or explained.
linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Of the first neck vertebra, the atlas, only the upper elements, the atlantal neurapophyses, are preserved"
Is this sentence unclear? I don't see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I intended to comment on this sentence and then fixed it myself, but neglected to remove this comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Purely out of curiosity; why do we refer to many traits as autapomorphies of the genus, rather than synapomorphies among the species in the genus? Not a problem, just curious if there's a technical subtlety I'm missing.
Because in paleontology, we usually work with genera as the terminal taxa. In dinosaurs, species can rarely differentiated, and are almost always somewhat controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, that makes sense; thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • When discussing the spines, you switch from singular to plural; " it was only comparable", "their base..." - be consistent.
It was actually speaking of the halves (plural) of the spine (singular). Reworded now to make that clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gallina and colleagues recognised seven additional dicraeosaurid genera" This raises more questions than it answers...I'm assuming they're doing this by reclassifying previously known fossils, but it's not obvious if they are instead describing them. Also, how many genera were previously recognized?
I added one more introductory sentence to make this clear. The number of genera varies from study to study, and in Gallina's study, its eight genera which they think belong with the group. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't like "advanced" as an explanation for "derived"; unless I'm much mistaken, folks try to avoid that term these days; how about "more recently diverging from a common ancestor", which is wordy but less prone to misinterpretation?
I don't like that either actually, took your wording now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "synapomorphies (anatomical features shared with other members of the group)" this isn't a sufficient explanation, surely; they're shared derived features?
Good catch. Reworded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "In this analysis, Bajadasaurus therefore occupies a slightly more basal position within Dicraeosauridae than indicated by Gallina and colleagues" confused by this too; I haven't read the sources, but relying on your versions of the cladograms, Bajadasaurus doesn't seem to be more basal in either; the 2020 tree simply includes more taxa, relative to which Bajadasaurus is basal; but unless those taxa are placed elsewhere in the 2019 tree, is it not incorrect to say that the trees are placing Bajadasaurus differently?
The source specifically says this. And Bajadasaurus is indeed more basal in the second cladogram I think, as it is basal to Suuwassea and Lingwulong, unlike in the first cladogram. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
This is entirely a misreading on my part, apologies; I thought I had carefully compared the taxa used in each, but I did not, evidently. This is fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll defer to others on this, but the classification section seems to me a little too heavy on background; not much of it is specifically discussing the placement of Bajadasaurus; it's instead a discussion of the phylogeny of the family.
There is nothing more to add, but we can shorten of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you could look into shortening where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I removed one sentence for now that could be regarded excessive detail unrelated to Bajadasaurus. I'm reluctant to remove more, because 1) I think the general information helps the reader as it provides background, and 2) a reviewer above requested that I add even more such stuff, which I declined; it appears to me, therefore, that opinions differ here. Let's wait what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "acting as what was compared to a fence to deter predators" very awkward wording...how about "and could therefore have been a barrier to predators"?
Took your wording. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That's everything from me; I found this quite interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the comprehensive review, and the copy edit (I adjusted a few of your edits, hope this is fine, if not lets discuss). Please let me know if there is anything else to do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to support, all my comments have been addressed. Your adjustments look fine. I have one suggestion to consider going forward, about the classification section, but that doesn't preclude a support from me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • I see the "~140–134 Ma " claim in the lead and infobox, but those specific numbers don't appear in the body and don't appear to be sourced
Added to the body now. This is simply a translation of "late Berriasian to Valanginian", for readers unfamiliar with the geological time scale. The official numbers are published in a table [46], which we could cite, of course. However, we would need to cite that same source in literally every paleontology article, and I don't quite see the benefit. Please let me know what you think here; it will be easy for me to add this source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind; now found a direct source and added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN5: could you provide any more information on the original source for this?
Added detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FN16: is a link to this source available? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, added. Thanks for the source review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll be taking a look. Might claim points for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 04:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "sauropod family Dicraeosauridae." - MOS:SEAOFBLUE issues, three links in a row.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "and is therefore the most complete skull of a dicraeosaurid known to date" - Begs for an as of here, as a more complete skull of that type may one day be found.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It sticks out to me that we're never given any indication of size. I understand that the skeleton is likely too fragmentary for the sources to be able to figure out overall length and whatnot, but do they at least give indications of how large the skull is or the capacity of the braincase?
Not explicitly stated in the reliable sources (discounting the children's book mentioned by the first review above). The paper gives dimensions of individual skull bones, but not sure if that helps. Their skull diagram includes a scale bar (we have that figure in the article), but again, deriving an overall skull length measurement from that would already be WP:OR I think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "This pair of rod-like elements measures 58 cm (23 in) in length " - Is this measurement the length from the vertebrae base to the end of the spine, or the length of the rod-like elements from the split to the tip? At least to me, the phrasing seems to leave both interpretations open.
Specified, it is the neural spine at a whole. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe this is considered self-proving, but it seems to be that several of those clades in the infobox need citations.
Hm, no other article about life forms does this as far as I know. Changing the templates (which then would affect hundreds of articles) is above my ability in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Did Gallina et al. attempt to determine if the specimen was adult or juvenile?
Probably adult given the fused neurocentral sutures, but not mentioned in the paper, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond that, it looks okay to me, although I'm very much a nonexpert. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Let me know if there is anything else I can improve. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Support on criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, 1b seems to be met from a nonexpert's perspective as well. Didn't check for the other criteria. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Coord comment - @FunkMonk, Esculenta, The Rambling Man, Nikkimaria, and Dunkleosteus77: Anything further to add? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I did the GA review, so I refrained from doing a full FAC review, but I think the article looks better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Crispclear[edit]

I didn't check the sources to see if they were accurately cited or if the article complied with the house style, but it is generally well-written, comprehensible to a lay reader, and seems about as comprehensive as it can be for a few old bones. It does track away to more general theorizing in places but I think that's helpful for context. Crispclear (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

  • @The Rambling Man: can I get your opinion on this oppose, please? Ealdgyth (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    Apparently "I accept your opinion, but I don't think I can add any more parentheses without cluttering the text too much" means no further action will be taken to address my actionable oppose, so it's still an oppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    I do not consider this oppose actionable, because 1) TRM stated that he himself thinks that wiki links are enough in some difficult cases, but that "rules are rules". It does not make much sense to me to make a change that we both think will not necessarily improve the article. 2) I don't think that the article is actually violating this rule; the rule says "explain when feasible", and so I did, but explaining "phylogenetic analysis" (a central term in biology) would necessitate a whole new sentence of its own, which clutters the article to such a degree that I am likely to violate other rules instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    An example: holotype is used and linked but there's no explanation as to what a holotype is. To find out I have to click to another article. Also, it's not reasonable to allow "central terms" in one particular subject a free pass to go unexplained, but not in other subjects I'm afraid. Especially when they are far more likely to be widely unknown in challenging fields like biology. Either this nuance of MOS is enforced, as it has been previously, or it is not enforced, in which case it should be acknowledged that that is now the case for all other candidates. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    This is indeed exactly what wiki links are for. And same story with holotype; explaining it will get wordy, and no other dinosaur FA I can think of tries to explain it. It is also not pertinent to understand this term in order to understand the article; you just have to know it is a category of specimens. It is really a side note added for completeness sake, and providing extensive explanation here would draw the attention away from the important bits of the article. Consequently, people might argue that with such excessive explanations, the article will fail, or at least not fully comply with FA criterion 1.a "well-written"; at least I would see it this way. Hence I consider the oppose not actionable. I'm happy to take suggestions how to word an explanation concisely so that it is in adequate proportion to the significance of the information it aims to explain; but at the moment I don't see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    No, it's definitely actionable. You (like me) are choosing not to action it. I understand that the "well-written" criterion conflicts with this (I have no idea how a cricket FAC would ever pass nowadays), but I don't make the rules, it's just important that they are followed evenly across FACs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Ealdgyth: It doesn't look like TRM and myself are arriving at any resolution in this discussion here. Would you please take a look again? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree. I'm looking for standards to be consistent at FAC, so I will be very interested to see how this goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
    This seems like a doctrinal discussion and probably has wider significance than just the award of FA to this article, but my 2p-worth is that you have to strike a balance between explaining every slightly unusual term and allowing the writing to flow. I think this article gets it about right. It's fairly stodgy subject matter for non-specialists and, with the best will in the world, most people are going to gloss over the majority of it without worrying about holotype, gracile, etc. Specialists, of course, should already be au fait with the terminology. Crispclear (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    When I reviewed this, I thought this was an extremely understandable article, and that the writer did an excellent job in many places of balancing linking/glossing with not making the text so cluttered as to be hard to read. I understand why TRM has concerns, but I personally think this meets that criteria. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, and others think it's fine too, but as I've been informed, it's not a vote. So while your personal opinion is interesting here, this is about my opinion, and an actionable oppose based on standards set earlier this year still stands. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the article does a good job of writing clearly without excessive jargon. I respect TRM's work but I increasingly think these opposes are WP:POINTy and should be disregarded by the coordinators. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    Well thanks for the personal attack. This isn't about "pointedness" this is about consistency. If it's expected of some articles to explain plain English dictionary definitions and opposition is maintained as a result, there's even more reason to object to the tacit acceptance of highly technical words that aren't used in plain English (such as holotype). Once the standard has been set by a co-ord and then steadfastly maintained by the other two co-ords, I don't understand why this article with its unexplained and context-free use of jargon (albeit linked) should be exempted from that standard. Or perhaps someone can explain the difference? Consensus of others certainly didn't carry any weight previously, just the actionable oppose, of which this still remains one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

TRM, I don't think your nomination established that technical words need to be explained with plain English dictionary definitions or that unexplained jargon should be avoided. If you didn't withdraw that nom, it could have very well passed without adhering to those "expectations", which would have suggested the opposite is the expectation. Similarly, if you strike your oppose for this article and it passes, it would help establish that the opposite is expected in FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry, I disagree. The nomination had nine supports and one oppose based on that very issue. One of the coords refused to promote it because of one "actionable" oppose. It was not going to pass, especially when another reviewer came along asking to have terms like "equalise" explained. Funny how that attracted so much attention and the nine supports were completely ignored. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Folks, as this is a technical article, it is necessarily littered with technical terms. For example, there are eight (!) unexplained technical terms in the very first sentence of the lead alone. How would that first sentence look if I would explain all of them? Explaining all terms in this article is entirely unreasonable, although I did my best to explain as many of the crucial ones as possible (including most of the examples listed by TRM). Please, let us return to common sense now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm all for common sense. But we either apply the same standards to all candidates (technical articles or otherwise) or we don't. Holding less technical articles to higher standards makes absolutely no sense at all. If anything it should be the other way round. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree this is getting silly. We can't split hairs forever in a single FAC if we think the general standards are inconsistent, or if we have been wronged in another FAC. That is pretty much WP:point. It needs to be a central discussion, not at a specific FAC. But in the end, it's a judgment call, and there will never be one way that everyone will agree on, leaving it up to the individual writers. I don't think we should be too rigid, and my impression is that TRM doesn't either, but feels it must be enforced elsewhere because it was demanded of him in one FAC, so now we're stuck in limbo until that is somehow resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It's really straightforward: I'm just looking for consistency. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Support from Wretchskull[edit]

I have kept an eye on the article since January. I have some concerns about the technicality of the topic, but with all the improvements that it has received, I believe it deserves to be a FA. Excellent job! Wretchskull (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: will this be closed soon? Therapyisgood (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)
Shortcuts
  • WP:FAR
  • WP:FARC

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

William Tecumseh Sherman[edit]

Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.

  • Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
  • Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
  • The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances

While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who missing episodes[edit]

Notified: Hammersfan, Some Dude from North Carolina, Angmering, Kelvin 101, WP Doctor Who, WP Television, WP England, WP BBC, DrKay in August 2019 and me in March

This FA, which hasn't been reviewed since 2007, has a litany of issues - uncited text, questionable web sources, and an accumulation of crufty tables. DrKay raised concerns on the talk page way back in 2019, but they remain largely unaddressed. Did not notify top editor, as they are an IP who has not edited this article since 2015, so I think the chances of a notification reaching the right person are slim. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire[edit]

Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history,‎ WP Karanatak, ‎ WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      Ok. Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
  • Source:FA
"Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
  • Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
"Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
  • Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
"There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have try to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address[edit]

Notified: Kaisershatner, Donaldecoho, Tedickey, BartBenjamin, North Shoreman, WP American politics, WP Pennsylvania, WP US Presidents, talk page notification 2020-11-29

This 2005 promotion was last reviewed in 2008. It has uncited text, poor sources, dead links and incomplete citations. It has good bones, and a tune-up might see it through FAR if someone takes an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh goodness. I can try to take on some of this, but I'm not the greatest and writing about literature. I also have some weighting concerns - why is the section speculating about platform research as long as the legacy section? I also have some concerns about OR in the platform location section, why I have tagged. That section will likely need nuked and rewritten in a shorter form. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Layout needs a lot of work as well. I cut a couple off-topic block quotes, and that just makes things look even worse. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry[edit]

Notified: Gimmetrow, WP Heraldry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, 2020-12-27

This August 2006 promotion has not been reviewed since and has significant amounts of uncited text. While some work occurred in mid-December, things have stalled since then, and it will take some heavy work finding the exact references used and making sure things haven't crept in. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul Stastny[edit]

Notified: Maxim, Serte, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject Ice Hockey, Noticed 2021-03-14

I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Career" section needs to be summarized (specifically the Colorado Avalanche section), the "Style of play" section does not cite sources published post-2007, and there are some statements that need citations. Edits have not been made to the article since it was noticed. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this re-review and will be working to improve it. Not only does the Avalanche section need work but his ~4 season St. Louis Blues career is discussed in one paragraph! It definitely needs a lot of work on the more recent section but I believe I have added sources for everything.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick note to acknowledge that I've seen this FAR. I don't have a particularly strong motivation or interest to work in the topic area. That said, I'm very glad to see that HickoryOughtShirt?4 has taken an interest in the article. Maxim(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I've worked on a few FAs recently. This is a good article but not quite up to FA standards at the moment. There are a number of bare references and CS1 maintenance errors which I'm happy to sort out for you. There's one permanently dead link. Those are the things I've noticed on first pass through but I'll have a closer look today, make a few edits, and post my comments here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've made a few improvements to the article. There are some MOS:NUMBER and MOS:DUPLINK errors that I can fix, as well as CS1 parameter fixes. In the meantime, please see my comments on Talk page. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Anna Laetitia Barbauld[edit]

Notified: Carbon Caryatid, Bmcln1, Iridescent, WP England, WP Bio, WP Children's literature, WP Poetry, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, 2021-02-28

This is a 2007 FAR whose main editor is deceased. When noticed for a FAR at the end of February, the article had uncited text and original research.[47] I asked other editors if they had the sources to begin repair, but found no one able to take on the task. Subsequently, other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected. [48] A new editor fixed some of them, but the article still has uncited text, original research, and now missing page numbers. Salvaging this requires access to a number of sources to sort out original research from citable text, and get the page numbers correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This statement in the third para of the lead is lacking context: “Barbauld's reputation was further damaged when many of the Romantic poets ... “ The lead could benefit from expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, improved, but still has uncited text, original research, and the lead has not been corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC There were improvements to the lede, but no progress towards citation needed and original research concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Victoriaearle: I see you've been working on this; do you feel the issues raised are things you would be able to address? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Hi Nikkimaria, it's a bit early to tell. Because the Hemingway articles need tending right now, (thanks for your help in that regard!), I've been around more than I'd like and I started idly picking at it. One important issue has been resolved in the body (not the lead yet), but I'm not sure how invested I am, whether it's possible to resolve the other issues w/out access to the literature, or how much citation/accessiblity, etc. work needs to be done. To be honest I'm on the fence as to whether it should just be delisted, or to put in the work for a decent salvage job. Is it okay if I report back in a few days after assessing a bit more? Victoria (tk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    Whatever happens, thanks for trying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Could someone add citation tags to the uncited text? I can only see one at the moment. Also, where can I find what caused "other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected"? SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin I believe that Victoria has addressed most of the cn and or tags; I don’t believe any more tagging is needed. Victoria deleted the mention of Wikipedia from the article, but you can see it still on the talk page in the Press mentions box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    I can only see one page of the source, where it seems to say that the WP article reflects what was generally believed at some point. I can't see the next page. This is the version that was promoted. Does it deal with that issue poorly? SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    after edit conflict: Hi Sarah I removed and will explain on the talk page why. But I just got in and am very tired so will try to do so tomorrow. Short version is that prior to 2008 it was believed Barbauld stopped publishing at age 68 after receiving really vile reviews for her poem "Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" based on a biography written by her niece (I believe I have the family connection correct). Barbauld did in fact continue to write poetry but not publish, based on recent research published since 2008. In my view the article as written at the time fully reflected the literature available. I've rewritten the section that accused Wikipedia of perpetuating the myth that the poem's reviews ended her career, because 1. I couldn't access the sources and found another (and in my view better one), and 2., because the section needed rewriting. I do intend to move it to the poems article, but not immediately. At first I trimmed that section in this edit, and and again, and then commented out.
    Then rewrote here,here,here, and here. There is still some work to be done, and this is now far from the short version :). Furthermore, I've not found any original research, but that's for a separate post. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Victoria, take your time, there's no time pressure at all. This was an odd FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. There were three supports over two days. It was promoted by a bot six days later. How can that have happened? SarahSV (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't know, maybe Sandy can explain. Basically the issue at hand didn't exist in the literature in 2006 and Awadewit had a statement (I believe in the lead but no longer there; I'm still searching for it) that Barbauld's career ended in 1812. Newer researchers have proved that to be wrong and have said the lie/myth extended even to Wikipedia. It's impossible to guess, but if Awadewit hadn't died there's a chance she might have updated. She did update extensively with a book published in 2008. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    No, it was a standard promotion for 2007 procedures. Back then, the bot did not indicate who archived or promoted, but also back then, it was always Raul. Raul promoted [49] and Gimmebot did the bookkeeping only.
    Separately, the OR problem seems to be that Awadewit tacked on concluding summaries that contained content that may or may not be found in sources— that is the dilemma on this and the rest of her articles. I’m particularly wondering how we will deal with similar in other Awadewit articles, and digging for the sources is a lot of work; once Victoria has finished up here, will be interested to her her opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    I've been able to cite all the OR tags I've looked at and there haven't been discrepancies between the concluding summaries and the sources. I'm thinking that if Sarah or you think I've gone about this incorrectly, then please go ahead and revert back any or all edits. I've plenty on my plate with the Hemingway suite currently, and hadn't really even meant to be editing, so am happy to bow out let it be delisted. Victoria (tk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    I am not a literature type, but I think you’re doing fine :). There are still three tags in the article, and then the lead needs to be addressed. If we can salvage this one, great; if not, you have improved the article ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    I had no idea that articles were promoted in 2007 after two days' worth of comments. Or perhaps I did and I've forgotten. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    It was six days I think; it was nominated on the 16th, and promoted on the 22nd [50] Yep, that was pretty standard back then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Three comments over two days: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. Promoted without further comment four days later. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    Hi Nikkimaria, apologies for the delay. To answer your question, I won't be able to address the issues raised. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Paul Kagame[edit]

Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page

I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.

One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - whoah Buidhe, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, Buidhe. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • On hold to allow for more time for discussion at talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
  1. Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
  2. In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
  3. Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
Obviously I'll be keen to hear Buidhe's views on what the next steps should be as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do:

Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether?

When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade.

Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)

Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)

Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why:

As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest"

With regards to vote-rigging he states the following:

Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control.

In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections [51](you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states:

Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power.

There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994"[52] by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper

Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including [53][54][55] (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) `
  • Amakuru in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC. Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ack Amakuru, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War[edit]

Notified: Gaius Cornelius, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject United Kingdom, 2021-02-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and sentences, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the format of references is inconsistent and short paragraphs needs to be merged with other sections. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a note that there is significant ongoing work to improve the citations. I'm hoping this one can be saved, given a bit of time - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Since Dumelow is also engaged in War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR, can we put this on hold until Fifth Coalition is complete? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR stage- significant work is being done, and with the Fifth Coalition winding down, there may be more available energy to throw at this one soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: G'day, I am trying to help out as best I can, but unfortunately I am limited to online sources as I am away from home. One of the hamstringing aspects of this is that often I can only get a snippet view of some Google Books entries. I have found this: London's Armed Police: 1829 to the Present - Page 105[56]. It might reference the paragraph ending "Thames division had the smallest rifle allocation with 61, and "S" Division the largest with 190. Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade, and Port of London Authority Police", but I can't tell how much of the paragraph it references because I can only see the snippet. Also, I am a bit concerned that our article might paraphrase the source a bit too closely. Can anyone see more than a snippet to check? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert, I suspect I can only see the same snippet as you: "Thames Division had the smallest allocation - 61 rifles and ' S ' Division the highest with 190 . Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade and 100 to the Port of London Authority Police . As training ammunition was not available a..."? It was added by User:Police,Mad,Jack, who might be able to help, though they seem to only be sporadically active since 2010. I've been thinking about this paragraph and reckon it should probably be trimmed back a lot. It deals only with London: in September 1939 there were 40,000 police officers in other forces including the important southern and eastern coastal regions. What were their preparations? I think a brief summary that the police took over as armed guard at some locations, releasing troops for anti-invasion duties, would suffice. Also, if we can find anything discussing their proposed role in an invasion, our article implies they would join the fight alongside the armed forces - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, yes, that is all I can see -- was hoping that it might have been a geographic limitation on Google Books -- sometimes those in different locations can view more than I can. I think your suggestion to trim this paragraph would be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The book was reasonably cheap (in the UK anyway!) so I've ordered a copy, I'll take a crack at that section when it arrives, for now I've chucked in some more info on the orders given to police nationally in case of invasion - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The book arrived and I've cited and rewritten the police section - Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Did anyone want to take a crack at the uncited section on the RAF? I don't have much interest in aerial warfare but it seems pretty non-contentious, and hopefully easy to cite - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My wife sent me some scans from my copies of Hough & Richards' The Battle of Britain and Parker's work of the same name; unfortunately, while they imply some of these points, they don't really explicitly support most points in this paragraph. Sorry, there probably isn't much more I can add here. I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is quite a mess. Who is still working on it? Citations need a lot of work. Also, MOS:DTAB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I've hit a bit of a dead end with sourcing and enthusiasm on this one, unfortunately. Unless anyone else has more resources I think this is one we may have to let go - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
And needs a proper lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting that War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR closed a few days ago. I hope someone steps forward with sources to help rebuild this article, as there has already been some great edits to fix this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Chetwynd, British Columbia[edit]

Notified: KenWalker, Maclean25, WP Cities, WP British Columbia, WP Canada, WP Canadian communities, 2020-10-25
When closing, note for recordkeeping purposes, this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There is uncited text, MOS:CURRENT issues, and portions that need to be updated-- a couple of samples only:

  • It has recently been renovated and now contains a rock climbing wall, indoor walking track and fitness center.[citation needed] Smart Growth BC ranked the town as one of BC's most livable municipalities in 2004, due mainly to its large park spaces.
  • The current mayor, Allen Courtoreille, was first elected in 2018. He was preceded by Merlin Nichol (2011-2018) and Evan Saugstad (2003-2011). The city funds a volunteer fire department, which services the town and nearby rural communities. It also maintains the sewer, water, local road, sidewalk, street lighting, animal control, building inspection, park, and recreation services.

Citations need to be cleaned up and standardized for missing information and date consistency. If someone will take on improvements, this should not be hard to restore, but the deficiencies have stood in spite of a notice last October. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • As the principal author, I will strive to make worthwhile edits but I am not seeking to retain FA-status. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Maclean25 and Mattximus: thanks for the considerable work. [57] Is this ready for a fresh look, or is there more to come? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the demographics section is not comprehensive enough to be at featured article standard. There should be a few sentences on language/ethnic groups, basic demographic things. Also I checked the first source but it failed to provide the number quoted in the sentence. The second sentence is unsourced and I cannot find that reference using google. It's certainly not horrible but that section does need a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
        • OK I rewrote the second paragraph and added information which I now think is comprehensive enough for a featured article (I hope the wording is correct). I still have the two outstanding sourcing issues from the first paragraph that I cannot solve, but now the content of that section is essentially complete. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments for HumanxAnthro
  • Honestly, while I will take Sandy's word that this article may need improvements, I don't it's quite in the red zone and I think it's held up extremely well for a 2007 FA. There are issues to make about the cite formatting (inconsistent date formats and whether sources like Statistics Canada have their names italicized or not), but it mostly looks put-together, plus I only noticed one uncited statement: "The area's native tree species include deciduous balsam poplar and coniferous spruce and pine. Many fur-bearing animals—deer, moose, elk, beaver, and bear—comprise the region's mammalian wildlife. Three creeks run south through town. Windrem Creek—which flows down from Ol' Baldy Mountain—and Widmark Creek both flow into Centurion Creek, which itself drains south into the Pine River." Plus, all the sources used appear to be reliable, with government census data and newspaper articles and the like. The prose also looks well-organized and easy to understand, so if the MOS:CURRENT issues and sourcing is fixed, I think it's got a strong chance of being an FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This article was compiled in a time when FAC's expectations for citations were more closely aligned with Wikipedia:When to cite so everything should be in the references section but only cited when necessary. To HumanxAnthro's question, the list of animals all comes from the biogeoclimatic references earlier in the paragraph (except for the names of the watercourses which can be easily found on maps). I have made some edits to update and replace some refs, use cites to better explain where content is coming from, and generally provide some content updates. City articles tend to suffer from demands for recentism (understandable for an FA) so I have also tried to future-proof it better. For future editors, to improve this article better use of its local newspaper, the Chetwynd Echo, should be made but its articles are not currently in a searchable database. Similarly, I understand its history book, History Book Saga of Little Prairie-Chetwynd, was updated in 2012. I am okay with it moving to FARC and being de-listed. It was among WP's best city-articles during its day but there are better ones now and I am only going to update it less frequently as the years go by. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
What to do? The article has been cleaned up, but Maclean25 indicates they don't plan to keep up going forward. We can't delist an article because of what might happen going forward :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, we can't delist an article because an editor says they won't update it. Hopefully other editors will come along to update various section. As for the article right now, I think the History section could do with a little trim, while also adding a line or two about the municipality post-2004. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep. Identify what issues are present now and those can get addressed now; if this needs to come back again later, so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HF

  • I think this is looking like something that can probably be kept, so I'll give it a read-through
  • Should we have an as of in the lead for the MLA representation? Might be useful, although I reckon those are also things that get fairly well updated.
  • "Little Prairie was homesteaded by Alexander and Lillan Windrem in 1930 and cleared the land by 1935 for hay, oats and gardens" - Should this be "who cleared the land"?
  • CN in the wildlife and climate section
  • Has anyone checked the climate table to see if it needs updated? I see that the source accessdate is from 2005
  • Are there any education statistics more recent than the early 2000s?
  • A dead link or two. Tried to fix with IAbot, but it didn't get those. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So there's still a bit of work to do, but should be fixable. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico[edit]

Notified: Marine 69-71, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Caribbean, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated on talk, the article has multiple issues:

  • At 17,511 words the article is too long and it needs to be cut almost in half to reach the recommended length, perhaps by using summary style and shifting material to sub-articles.
  • The article cites questionable sources such as http://mayaguezsabeamango.com/images/documentos/capital.pdf .
  • Some sources don't have page numbers, and a consistent citation format is not used.
  • The lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD.
  • There's considerable unsourced content.

The response to these concerns was to state that there's nothing wrong with the article.[58] Article was last reviewed in 2006; at the time, it was only 7992 words long, so the greater part of the article has never been reviewed at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Skimming the page, because its too long, I agree that its too long, many sources don't have page numbers, there's a lot of unsourced content and also there's content that just doesn't need to be there like the list of units at Ramey Air Force Base and tables of medals awarded to the 65th Infantry Regiment in WWII and the Korean War. So clear fails on 1c. and 4 of the FAC Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Extended commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • This is what our well respected editors and Wikipedia Foundation had to say about the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    • These comments, as noted above, related to a completely different article than the current version and a very different interpretation of the FA criteria back in 2006. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree that the above comments left at a 2006 FAC aren't at all useful in 2021. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-DI've long considered this article problematic, and agree that a FAR is in order. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The article is clearly too long, and includes obviously bloated material.
  • Some structural examples of bloat are:
    • The 'Puerto Rican commander in the Philippines' section, which seems to cover only a single Puerto Rican
    • The 'Second Nicaraguan Campaign (1926–33)' section, which has multiple paras on a handful of Puerto Ricans performing routine-looking duties
    • Listing every(?) unit assigned an airfield in World War II (without supporting references as well)
    • The entire 'The USS Cochino incident' section
    • The 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' section (two paras covering one Puerto Rican)
    • The 'Puerto Rican women with the rank of general' section (and why focus only on two generals rather than provide a history of Puerto Rican women in the era since women were integrated into the military?)
    • The 'Congressional Gold Medal' section - this should be a para at most somewhere
  • However, most of the bloat is overly-detailed descriptions of a huge number of topics. Medal citations, one-para bios of large numbers of people (including people who seem barely notable), lists of people who are barely notable, etc, etc. All this stuff needs to be condensed.
  • A lot of material, including entire paras, lacks references.
  • There's an emphasis throughout the article on Puerto Ricans who distinguished themselves, and the general tone leans towards boosterism. For instance, while I presume that Puerto Ricans were subject to systematic racism (and this may still be the case), the topic isn't mentioned - a focus on 'distinguished service' obscures this important point. The fact that people are being highlighted for being promoted or filling prestigious/highly skilled roles for the first time indicates that this is unusual, yet the article never discusses this thematically.
  • I was surprised there was no mention over the dispute concerning the United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico
  • The article's focus is also much too narrow, being limited mainly to the military (and especially wartime) service of Puerto Ricans. Topics such as anti-war movements (which I presume may have had a distinctive edge given the island's colonial history and current status) and military production aren't covered at all. There also isn't much on the military history of the island outside of wartime.
  • The article is too long and, to be frank, too exhausting to read due to the bloat, for me to provide a detailed review of its text. The following comments are based on a light skim:
    • It's not clear to me why the pre-colonisation military history of the island is presented in the context of colonisation. The statement that "The Tainos were known as a peaceful people, however they were also warriors and often fought against the Caribs" is poorly written, and risks repeating a 'noble savage' myth
    • What's the relevance of the para starting with 'According to the "500th Florida Discovery Council Round Table"'?
    • " In November 1917, the first military draft (conscription) lottery in Puerto Rico was held in the island's capital, San Juan. The first draft number was picked by Diana Yaeger, the daughter of the U.S. appointed governor of Puerto Rico Arthur Yager. The number she picked was 1435 and it belonged to San Juan native Eustaquio Correa. Thus, Correa became the first Puerto Rican to be "drafted" into the Armed Forces of the United States." - delete everything after the first sentence.
    • "However, with the defeat of Germany in 1945, the United States concentrated all of their efforts to the war in the Pacific. " - the USN was focused on the Pacific for most of the war
    • The 'Cuban Missile Crisis' section notes only the role played by a single Puerto Rican. Surely the bases on the island were used in this action?
    • "Two Puerto Ricans who served in Vietnam held positions in the Administration of President George W. Bush...." - relevance?
    • "He was ambushed in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, by Somali warlords" - sloppy writing: presumably the 'warlords' didn't personally ambush him. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
      • G'day, I had a go at fixing some of the issues, but probably can't rectify the major concerns listed above. I will try to help a bit more over the next week or so if I get a chance, but would need someone else to do the heavy lifting, sorry. These are my edits so far: [59] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Prose size = > 17,000 words (8,000 words when last reviewed). I don't support FACs that exceed 10,000.
  • The areas for cutting excess detail are easily found, sample Puerto Ricans in sensitive positions, undue and if people have their own articles anyway ...
  • WP:CITATIONOVERKILL, why all these citations for an uncontroversial fact? On June 10, 2014, President Barack Obama, signed the legislation known as "The Borinqueneers CGM Bill" at an official ceremony. The Bill honors the 65th Infantry Regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.[3][197][198][199]
  • There is uncited text.
  • Another section that presents obvious opportunities to trim excess detail is Post World War II; any where one looks, it is easy to see that this article can be cut to half the current size. One route might be a notable Puerto Ricans in the military section, cutting everything down to just the basics, since they have their own articles if they are notable.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment

I agree with the nominator and other commenters here that this article has major issues and is not up to current FA standards. It is actually really hard to read and its coverage of the topic is very uneven. As an example, I don't understand why, in the Korean War section, there is so much focus on the 65th Regiment, when the preamble to the section mentions 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the war. Presumably they didn't all serve in the 65th regiment. The heading for the section containing the awards the regiment earned during the war is misplaced. The amount of awards earned in WWII seem trivial and hardly worth mentioning given the scope of the article. I am not hopeful that the remedial work will be completed as the primary editor best placed to do this seems to think nothing is wrong with the article. As an aside, I am also concerned that the primary editor is mentioned in the article in the Vietnam War section and a picture of himself illustrates the section. That seems to be a COI if the primary editor added them. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I have deleted the Vietnam War COI sentence and images. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by TJMSmith: I am a bit confused on the scope of the article. I think it obfuscates the military history of Puerto Rico (the island) and the history of Puerto Rican military people. For example, this article mentions Maritza Sáenz Ryan, Marc H. Sasseville and Hilda Clayton who were all born in the states and did not serve their career in PR. Are they relevant to this article? Additionally, Hector E. Pagan, Irene M. Zoppi, Noel Zamot, María Inés Ortiz have served the majority of their careers off the island on missions not tied to PR. Heather Penney is mentioned but is not Puerto Rican. TJMSmith (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, I have done what I can to add some more citations to areas that were missing them, but I am probably at the limit of what I can do. There are a few issues in the Korean War section that I think need clarification as a couple of points don't quite seem to make sense (I have marked these with clarification tags) -- can anyone assist with rectifying these? I have also tried to reduce image sandwiching and in the process have reorganised the article a little, including merging a couple of sections: [60]. Potentially this merge wasn't the best idea on my part -- I would appreciate others taking a look and if need be, I am happy for it to be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree the Korean War section is a mess. I've been doing too much citation clarification on this and related articles to really dive into it (plus Korea isn't my area of focus), but it feels very boosterish to me. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
G'day, given that no one seemed to step forward to rectify my clarification tags, I had a go myself. These are my changes: [61]. If anyone with more knowledge feels keen to adjust, please do. I'd be happy to keep trying to help save this one, but I really need some assistance from someone with access to a broader range of sources (potentially someone in PR or the wider US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I may be able to help, but one thing to be aware of is the need to check almost every cite (when possible) to make sure what's being quoted is actually IN the listed source. I've run into this problem with many of these articles (including individuals linked out of this article...which is where the issue seems especially frequent), and wanted to make sure people were aware. In some cases it's been misquoting, but in others what's attributed isn't even in the source. Intothatdarkness 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC) This may be of help with the Korea section: https://history.army.mil/html/books/korea/65Inf_Korea/65Inf_KW.pdf. Intothatdarkness 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Intothatdarkness: I took a whack at some of the stuff in Vietnam and WW2. Having done cleanup in some of the other linked articles I've found misquoting or misparaphrasing sources to be issues worth checking, and corrected some examples in the sections I worked on. Not much, but it's a start. Intothatdarkness 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ack, understood - I will try to help out here if possible, but I don't really have the time or knowledge to check all 190 refs and replace if needed, I'm sorry. If possible, I would like to see some of these sorts of refs replaced: [62]. What are the credentials of this site? (There are a few other sources like this used in the article, which potentially also need to be replaced, I'm sorry to say as they probably wouldn't meet the current FAC requirements). I wonder if the information could instead be sourced to the source provided above: [63]? That would seem to be a better source, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
From the quick comparison I made, I believe almost all the Korea sources could be replaced by the book I linked, AustralianRupert. I can take a stab at some of them, and already corrected a couple. I can prioritize replacing the web page with the book. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I had a go at one of the paragraphs: [64]. I wasn't really sure what ref style to use, though, sorry as the article uses a mixture. Sorry if I mucked this up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
That looks good...better than it was. As for the items you couldn't find...one thing I have noticed with this and related articles is items being cited that don't actually exist in the cited source. Given the depth of the book, I'd consider it more authoritative than the website, keeping in mind that the website may never have mentioned those locations in the first place (this being a recent example). Intothatdarkness 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FAR some improvements have been done, but the article still needs drastic whacking to meet the length requirement, among other outstanding issues. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • On hold It looks like editors are engaged in fixing up the article. The issues might make this a slow process, but improvements are happening. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The issues will make this a slow process. Too many of the sources are either dead links or borderline in terms of RS. In the sections I've worked on (Vietnam and Korea mostly, but also WW 1), I've had to check each cite just to make sure it still exists and has been properly quoted or used. Many of them appear to be non-RS websites or linkedin-type resumes or listings. Slow going. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens[edit]

Notified: Mav, Astro-Tom-ical, User talk:Hike395, Hydrogen Iodide, dscos WP Geology, WP Mountains, WP NRHP, WP United States, WP Volcanoes, Climbing, 2021-01-03

This FA, last reviewed in 2006, has both a good bit of uncited text, and does not seem to be complete. The article does not discuss plant/animal life on the mountain, which seems relevant, and does not state if any further geological activity from the volcano is expected. Also, at least on my system, there is massive MOS:SANDWICH issues with images thrown in there haphazardly. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme - some easy to fix things:

  • Some images have no alt= text
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • inconsistent use of nbsp; between St. and Helens.
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • inappropriate capitalisation in heading "Importance to Indigenous Tribes"
    • Fixed
  • External links may need to be converted to references that support extra text.
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • The science external link has a DOI 10.1126/science.aad7392 and author Eric Hand
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • The link for "Mount St. Helens photographs and current conditions" does not appear to go that that topic, instead redirects to Cascades Volcano Observatory.
    • Mount St. Helens is part of the range of the Cascades Volcano Observatory, but I've removed that link as it has little to do with MSH in its current form. Hog Farm Talk 06:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2021 (UT Thanks for quick response

  • reference 9 "Mount St. Helens at 35". has author Kathryn Hansen, but what is on that page now claims to be Aug 7, 2017 (after retrieval, so does it still confirm?)
    • Fixed -- image removed, so reference no longer used. — hike395 (talk)
  • Reference 21 has author Donal R. Mullineaux; DOI 10.3133/pp1563 and year 1996
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • reference 31 "Rock Slab Growing at Mt. St. Helens Volcano". has "others" cs1 maint error
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Missing topics due to see also

  • visitor center for the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument is not mentioned here. This bit could include the link for Silver Lake (Washington)
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • Helenite should be mentioned inline and not just in a see also.
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)
  • Geology of the Pacific Northwest should be able to have a link in the main text.
    • Fixed — hike395 (talk)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As much as I like these old featured articles, this article feels more like a GA than an FA to me. I will do some fixing:

  • Images trimmed and sent to Commons gallery. MOS:SANDWICH problem fixed.
  • Alt text added for remaining images
  • nbsp; added for all uses of St. and Helens
@Ceranthor: we could use some of your FA magic here, if you're free to help out! — hike395 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hike395 please remove the done templates and properly thread your responses without templates; templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause template limit problems, and responses should always be threaded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, fixed. — hike395 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Started section on ecology, including disturbance ecology and biological legacies. Started section on future hazards. Both of these sections can be fleshed out further (either by me or other authors). — hike395 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, there has been some engagement since the nomination, but the issues are extensive and are largely unaddressed. Moving to FARC does not preclude that improvements may happen, but it's not looking promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: --- could you kindly list more of the extensive issues? I addressed all of the comments from Graeme, and added (some) material re ecology and future hazards, which Hog Farm thought was lacking. I can certainly do more research and add more material on ecology, but if you think there are other large problems, I'd rather spend my limited WP time addressing those. — hike395 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Will do (not quite yet, busy), but as this FAR is getting lengthy, I will probably start a section on article talk. Lengthy back and forth on FAR just makes a mess for the Coords to read, when all they really need is a summary of where things stand. If you want something to work on while you wait for me,
  • huge portions of the article remain uncited, and
  • anytime you see a US government website as a source, that citation should include a date. They are frequently updated, and our articles need to reflect those updates. There are considerable dated sources used here (and the dates of the versions used aren't even given)
  • make sure ALL information is current.
These three alone will keep an editor quite busy for quite a while. If these are completed, pls ping me to the article talk, where I will continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Would it be possible to delay closing of the FARC? Ceranthor, who has a proven track record of writing FAs about Cascade volcanoes, is interested in taking this up, but will not be available for ~1 month. — hike395 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hike395: The FAR coordinators are willing to hold articles in FAR with ongoing work or discussion. I've seen some last way longer than a month before. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Globular cluster[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Fully agreed (@Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comments from Graeme Bartlett
    • Images need to have alt= text to improve accessibility.
Done. A little repetitive, I'm afraid, but then one glibular cluster looks a lot like another to the average reader. Maybe someone with more imagination could take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Non-standard punctuation in use: “”
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Awkward wording: "contains an unusual number of a type of star" (unusual number could be 0, 999, 1234, large - be specific)
Clarified to "unusually large". (The cited source simply said unusual; another source says unusually large.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I was expecting to see a diagram of where globular clusters are in a galaxy, but there is none there. This could be in #Orbits section
That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If we add a diagram like one of these, it should go next to the fifth paragraph in the observation history section, which describes the distribution of globular clusters in the Milky Way and its historical importance in demonstrating that the Sun is not in the middle of the Milky Way. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This one? Artist's conception and it says so, labels the Sun and M4, but also has some other text that is a little dated. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If we could get the underlying image, that would be great. It's definitely an artist's conception of the Milky Way (can't have a real outside image that includes the Sun!) but may be real (modulo distance uncertainties) positions of globular clusters; the caption isn't clear about that. (That's my issue with the other one too.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • One reference (94) uses authors list with non-standard affilliations.
Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
    • None of the authors appear to be linked in references. I know at least one of these is famous enough, and I expect several have articles. Some journals should also be linked in references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I added a few author links (necessarily biased towards authors I know or know of, since I know they're worth checking for a link!). I did not link to Charles Messier in the ref list, since he's linked in the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Femke

I've looked through the article in search of sentences I believe need updating, and found a few.

  • A total of 152 globular clusters have now been discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, out of an estimated total of 180 ± 20 (source 1992)
  • Done (in fact, that 1992 source did not actually state the 152 number that I could find anyway, though by 2010 [the last update of the Harris catalog] it had only increased to 157). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Blue stragglers are mentioned in two different locations. Is there a problem with structure?
This seems to be ok. Both locations, plus the image caption, appear to be sensible to mention this type of star. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • However, a possible exception is when strong tidal interactions with other large masses result in the dispersal of the stars.
  • Done. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse". In this type of cluster, the luminosity continues to increase steadily all the way to the core region
Took a while, but I found and added a 2018 reference explicitly stating that that 20% number from a 1986 "preliminary" paper has stood up. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • A 2008 study by John Fregeau. Is this now common knowledge? If so, modren source + rephrase in wikivoice?
  • I deleted that paragraph. The paper hasn't been widely cited in the 13 years since, and it doesn't seem to be a significant change in our understanding of clusters (despite a somewhat overhyped press release resulting in some media coverage -- not uncommon), so I don't think this is really worthy of a mention, and certainly not a full paragraph. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • potential computing requirements to accurately simulate such a cluster can be enormous -> next paragraph indicated it was done in 2010, so not that enormous after all?
I clarified that that comment refers to a low-density cluster. I also added a ref from a few weeks ago showing that we're still very much pushing compute power -- saying it was "done" is relative, since there are still lots of approximations, and we need to make fewer as time goes on. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • How these clusters are formed is not yet known (2005 source)
How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The Forbes et al reference is more about generic GCs; I added it in that context. (It is indeed a good overview; there's more from there that could be incorporated.) I added a more recent ref from the same team that originally discovered the unusual clusters with a bit more of an idea about how they form (accretion from satellites). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In spite of the lower likelihood of giant planet formation, just such an object has been found in the globular cluster Messier 4. (2008 source). With most exoplanets being discovered in the last 10 years(?), I suspect more have been found in globular clusters. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    I found a 2020 source confirming this is still the case. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Update zero edits to the FAR since Mar 13, and zero edits to the article since Mar 18. @Buidhe and Femkemilene: for status check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    Update all the above are addressed, but more cn tags appeared, of which one still needs to be found. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Think I've got them all; thanks for your thoroughness. (Most were just mid-paragraph refs that also supported the untagged sentence after the ref, but these checks did lead to a couple minor but substantive tweaks.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia comments
  • Please install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review WP:OVERLINKing; perhaps many of them can be justified, but they need to be reviewed.
  • MOS:CAPTIONS, full sentences should end in puncutation, sentence fragments should not.
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:BADITALICS, why is this italicized ? The difference between the relative and absolute magnitude, the distance modulus,
    Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia. Considerable instances of both however and also, which don't seem to be needed.
    Reduced a lot. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are these in External links? The first seems to contain info that should be in a comprehensive article, and the second is a general blog.
    • Key stars have different birthdays The article describes how stars in globular clusters are born in several bursts, rather than all at once.
    • Globular Clusters Blog News, papers and preprints on Galactic Globular Clusters

This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.

  • Why are these listed as "General sources", yet not formatted as the rest of the sources? They appear here as if they want to be External links rather than sources.
Yes, I'll move those to External Links. Separately, I think renaming the "Sources" section to "Further reading" makes sense. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • NASA Astrophysics Data System has a collection of past articles, from all major astrophysics journals and many conference proceedings. And "a collection of past articles" is non-specific; which articles are we looking at for sources? (We can't just tell our readers, well, somewhere in this collection of past articles you can find what you need to verify content in this article.)
Deleted. ADS is invaluable but isn't especially relevant to this article (not any more than it is to any astronomy article). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • SCYON is a newsletter dedicated to star clusters. Same, which are used as sources? Who is the publisher? Which authors? What makes them reliable?
    • MODEST is a loose collaboration of scientists working on star clusters. Same
  • "Review articles", not used as citations, should be alphabetical.
Done. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Books", Binnie and Spitzer each used only once, so why do they require a separate section, and Heggie is not used.
Spitzer isn't used either (a conference proceeding from the previous year is cited). I don't know this specific Spitzer book and don't have immediate access to it, but everything he wrote is brilliant, so it's easy for me to imagine that this book is worth including as a classic reference. Binney & Tremaine is a very widely-used dynamics book that is very relevant to this topic. I don't know the Heggie book, but it too looks relevant. To me, that looks like a decently-curated list of more-in-depth books for further reading, so my vote is to keep it as is. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Footnote a seems to need a citation: Omega Centauri was known in antiquity, but Halley discovered its nature as a nebula.
That's stated in reference 10, which is right next to the footnote. (It refers to the object as having been named by Ptolemy, which is pretty direct evidence that it was known in antiquity, although in different words.) Should the reference move into the footnote? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I eventually figured out that ESO = European Southern Observatory, which is neither linked nor clarified in any citation that used the abbreviation.
    • Example, this is an incomplete citation: "Ashes from the Elder Brethren". ESO. 0107. Missing date, missing access date, and tell us somewhere what ESO is. (There are others similar.)
  • Similar problem here with SEDS ... what is that ?
I have expanded the European Southern Observatory and Students for the Exploration and Development of Space acronyms in the references, used the press release templates, updated URLs and access dates where needed, and added ID numbers to releases for additional permanence. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Frommert, Hartmut (August 2007). "Milky Way Globular Clusters". SEDS. Retrieved February 26, 2008. I can't get the site to load and can't even tell what it is, or whether it is reliable.
Works for me. I think this collection of pages is reliable; it's perhaps in a bit of a WP:SPS gray area. But it's also very carefully researched and exhaustive. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Patrick Moore (2005). Firefly Atlas of the Universe. Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-071-8. This is a book, requires a page number.
  • This is missing author ... "Messier 13 (M13) - The Great Hercules Cluster - Universe Today". Universe Today. May 9, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.

I will stop there for now; this is only a brief sampling, and the sourcing and citations here need to be cleaned up before further evaluation of the content. Please review all sources and citations for completeness. I am very skeptical that this article can retain status, and filling in the missing citations is not the same as making sure the older content is verifiable to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ashill can we have an update here? You identified a recent review article by Gratton, which would be good to have included in the text. You convinced me that the science doesn't change much, so I'll be satisfied if it's not used very extensively. Can the section on orbits be expanded? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclone[edit]

Notified: Crimsone, Thegreatdr, WikiProject Non-tropical storms, Notice given 2021-01-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has numerous issues I outlined on the talk page, including a lede that needs expansion, missing citations marked with citation needed templates, and concerns that the latest "Historical storms" listed is Hurricane Sandy in 2012, making me believe that this needs an update. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about updating it, as I update tropical cyclone which is also at FAR.Jason Rees (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Should this one be placed on hold? I think it's undesirable for somebody to "have to" rescue two articles at FAR simultaneously, and putting it on hold makes that burden less. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I support putting this article on hold. If I knew Jason Rees would work on it, I wouldn't have put it up for FAR. [[User:|Z1720]] (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
To be honest @Z1720: I think I missed your talk page message at the time. Anyway while I support putting extratropical cyclone on hold, I have a rough idea to tweak tropical, subtropical and extratropical cyclone at the same time as they are similar.Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy to leave this in the FAR section for longer to allow time for improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Update on progress?Blue Jay (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Many editors interested in improving this article are working on Tropical cyclone's FAR. Once that FAR is finished I hope editors will begin improving this FAR. I endorse keeping this on hold until Tropical cyclone's FAR is complete. As with all FARs I nominate, please ping me when the improvements are done so I can conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle[edit]

Notified: EMsmile, WikiProject Sanitation, WP Medicine, WP Anatomy, WP Biology, WP Women’s Health, 2021-01-24
FAR commentary found at
  • Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 3 and
  • Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a 2004 promotion from the “Refreshing Brilliant Prose” phase that was last reviewed in 2008 and has never been at current FA standards. There is considerable uncited text, UNDUE text, and most of the sources are not up to snuff per WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDDATE; additional detail on talk. The article does not stay tightly focused on the topic, and also omits coverage of closely related areas (eg In other animals). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • One thing that I noticed about this article a little while ago when I first looked at it, is that there was some overlap with the article on menstruation. So I think both articles should be looked at hand in hand as they need to fit together snugly and not have too much overlap. The article on menstruation used to have lower view rates than the article on menstrual cycle but has caught up recently, see here. Could the reason be that the quality of the article "menstruation" has improved relative to "menstrual cycle" or that it is linked more from other articles? Anyway, I just wanted to flag that the two articles should be looked at together. EMsmile (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

There is considerable discussion on talk of other problems, including structure of the article which treats menstruation basically like a disease state. Many of the sources used are extremely dated (see WP:MEDDATE) or are not WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS, much less high quality MEDRS. Prose is rough; redundancies like “however”, “subsequently” abound. There are numerous short stubby paragraphs. The article looks like some student editors got hold of it an chunked in their favorite theories based on primary studies. Additional issues at the article, where sources are misrepresented, may be a result of WP:ADVOCACY related to menstrual leave, which is biasing the article towards a disease state rather than a normal biological process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove featured article status (edit on 8 March 2021: when I wrote this, I didn't understand how the process worked and that there was plenty of time to improve things before deciding). EMsmile (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Based on the discussions we are having on the talk page of menstrual cycle, it is very far from featured article status at this stage. We could bring it back up to featured article status eventually but it would take time. Does the process allow for such time? Probably not. Thus, bring it back down to "B" for now (?). Is that how the process works? EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • EMsmile please have a look at the instructions at the WP:FAR page; Delist and Keep are not declared during the FAR phase. It is premature yet to say if Graham Beards or others (like Tom (LT)) might be able to salvage the article, and FAR is a deliberative process by design; the process allows as much time as needed, and sometimes it takes months to restore an article, but should Graham choose to work on the topic, he is more than capable of FA-level content. Also, to answer your other question, FAR does not re-assess the quality of articles (to B, C, GA, etc) if a Featured article is delisted— that is a separate process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah that's great. I was under the impression that it had to be decided quite "fast". If we have no particular deadline and we have people who are focusing on the FA-level content then all the better! EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Graham Beards is making considerable and steady progress here; it remains to be seen if he will be permitted to work at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Update, very good progress, but Graham needs at least another week to get hold of more sources. In the interim, some other editors (yep, buck up everyone!) might read through for jargon checking. Y’all know who I’m looking at! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy to review and be pinged when Graham's ready. Kudos to Graham for improving the article. At this current point the 'other animals' and 'society and culture' sections remain quite short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) the section "society and culture" is short on purpose because we want readers to know that they can click through to other existing articles which cover that in great depth. And by the way, I don't think we should say there "further" but "main" and link them to menstruation#Society and culture. We certainly don't need detailed information here when the detailed information exists in a related Wikipedia article. Just key terms so that people get a rough idea. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
That is not how articles, or FAs, are written, nor is that how the article has been edited. The Society and culture section is short because there is nothing else to say, so far.
Please review WP:SS for how to use hatnotes. This article cannot be a main summary of content at menstruation because this article is about the reproductive cycle; there need not be a hatnote at all (just a link), since most of the content in the sub-articles is unrelated to the topic of this article, upon which we should stay tightly focused. The criteria for featured articles are outlined at WP:WIAFA; we don’t decide what to include or not in an article based on what we hope or think readers will click on, and the article is not being edited “to give people a rough idea”; if there is anything else to say about a biological process that is covered in high quality sources, it hasn’t been produced yet.
The section is short because high quality sources offer little. A good deal of UNDUE and poorly sourced content was removed, but remains in the sub-articles. If readers are clicking through to poorly sourced sub-articles, that is outside of the remit of *this* Featured article, which so far summarizes only information that is well sourced, on topic, not UNDUE, and not published in predatory journals (such content was removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tom (LT): A number of editors are confused between a subset of the entire reproductive cycle (menses or menstruation) and what this article is about which is the overall reproductive cycle in females. Your assistance in sorting out the issues from an anatomy standpoint would be helpful; some editors want this article to be about menstruation rather than the entire cycle, of which menses is one small part, and if we have to merge in the poorly written, poorly organized and poorly sourced content from menstruation, we have a C-class article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that the menstruation article should be seen as a "subset" of menstrual cycle at all! You are looking at it purely from a biological standpoint. I look at it from a woman's life & society standpoint. In my view the article menstruation should be broad and overarching, it covers a range of topics, and looks at menstruation from different angles, including how women feel, how they deal with it, how society looks on it etc. For me the menstrual cycle article is a "smaller" more narrow article that is purely focused on what exactly which hormone does at which point of the cycle, so purely medical/biological/anatomical - whichever you want to call it. Therefore, it does NOT need a section on "society and culture". That belongs to menstruation (I would still argue to link the two articles clearly together; to me they belong together like a jigsaw puzzle; but I guess this whole notion that one will be FA quality whereas the other will be C quality gets in the way). - I still think merging them together might solve some of the problems. EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Menstrual cycle uses summary style correctly to cover multiple phases of the reproductive cycle; these include the follicular phase, ovulation, ovarian cycle, the luteal phase and many others. Menstruation is one part, among those many others, all of which are summarized. Whatever the quality assessment of any of those other articles is, *this* article has to meet WP:WIAFA, which so far it is.
What the menstruation article should be (or any of the many sub-topics) is not in the remit of this review; it is one of many sub-articles. In terms of which hatnote to use, when an article is not using WP:SS to summarize the entire contents of another article, further is more appropriate than main.
The approach to this article is not “purely” anatomical, biological or medical; it is, as it should be, based on sources. The entire reproductive cycle is not menstruation, and menstruation, like every subset of the entire topic, has its own article. Some of the desires expressed on talk to bring in off-topic material from menstruation (but not from follicular phase, luteal phase, ovulation, or anything else) appear to be driven by issues beyond this article. Menstrual cycle is the broad topic, not the narrower one; it encompasses the entire reproductive cycle, of which menstruation (as all the other sub-articles) are subsets.
The purpose for and work on this page is about menstrual cycle, not the sub-articles, and whether this article meets WP:WIAFA, which it will and does as long as Graham is permitted to finish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, I can see I have stirred up a hornet's nest here. I wasn't aware of mensturation but I did find the (now absent) two sentence society and culture section jarring (my opinion is either include as a summary style paragraph or not at all, but that the very brief sentences were quite jarring). Please ping me when Graham's done and I will have a look. As he's still editing I think it may be somewhat annoying for me to review as he goes things that he may already plan to edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tom (LT): There is another book on its way to me by snail mail, but I doubt if I will need it. So, when you have time could you comment? Perhaps the article Talk Page would be the best venue as that's where most of the discussions are underway. Thank.Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Update, jargon review time:. The article has been considerably reworked (heavy lifting by Graham); see the article talk page. [65]. It would be very helpful to get layperson feedback on the prose at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It's very bare-bones, but maybe that's ideal for keeping the cruft out. Seems reasonably understandable to this fairly educated but non-expert reader. (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It covers everything you would expert to see in a standard (expensive) textbook.Graham Beards (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Progress ongoing, with numerous editors engaged on the article talk page; Tom (LT) is helping fine tune the anatomy, prose checking continues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking good, but waiting for feedback from an endocrinology professor, see work on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Another week is needed for feedback from external expert review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
And maybe a couple of days to correct the article and find WP:MEDRS sources. Graham Beards (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Progress is slow but steady, still waiting for external expert review to wrap up (which has been very helpful), and need at least another few weeks, probably two or three. This has been a fortuitous two-fer: a Featured article review and an external expert peer review combined, thanks to Clayoquot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    How is the progress looking?Blue Jay (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
    See above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Work is close to wrapping up now if others would like to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone[edit]

Notified: Titoxd, Thegreatdr, Jason Rees, Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, WikiProject Tropical cyclone, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Meteorology, diff 03-09-2020

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains a few uncited paragraphs, and the long-term trends section is outdated and poorly structured. Additional minor comments on talk. Some issues have been tackled since the talk page notice, but further progress is needed.

This should be a saver, considering how many TC enthusiasts we have. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My personal feeling with this one is that while it probably is a saver, its probably better to get some thoughts from the FAC community on the article as a whole.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The lengthiest unsourced passage appears to be the "Derivation" sub-sub-section, which has a textbook-like feel and might originally have been based on a single source. That's probably not too hard to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Realistically speaking, the entire section about Maximum Potential Intensity was copied onto the article as a merge from Maximum potential intensity, and I'm not sure the tropical cyclone article needs that much detail about MPI. I'm tempted to split it back out. Titoxd(?!?) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Britannica's article (which seems quite decent) doesn't even seem to mention it.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
FYI, a discussion is taking place on my talk page about the restructuring of the long-term trend section Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The uncited MPI derivation has been split back now. Could any of the experts look at the remaining info? Is that appropriate? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I am starting to look through the more technical bits and I'm not 100% happy with it, I'm trying to go through it as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jason Rees and @Titoxd: could we have an update? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I feel that with respect to @Titoxd and ThegreatDR: this articles needs a bit of weeding to make it more accessible. I am trying to do this as time allows and have a rough plan in the back of my head which I will write up on the talk page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Update the plan is there, and I'm updating the impacts of climate variability part as a whole now. Not yet familiar with this, so currently printing some review chapters / papers. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    Femkemilene you may find some of the sources on paleotempestology useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    Wow, it's difficult to get a good short narrative out of that and the review papers. I'll see whether I can find some books about the tropical cyclones in general to figure out how much attention is really due.. Paleotempoestology seems to be a collection of puzzle pieces that need to be assembled still. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    To say nothing of biased. Like, one would think that tropical cyclones only exist in Belize, the eastern USA, China and Australia if one went by the paleotempestology research papers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    Have a look at the Climatology section I started to write the other day. It might be better/easier to expand that with a few bits of information and indirectly talk about paleotempestology in it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    Talking indirectly about paleotempestology is a good idea. This 2010 book talks about it only in its chapter on climate change; and dedicates only 1/9th of that chapter to it. If I can find a more modern book about it with an equal small part dedicated to paleotempestology, I'm very happy to see it integrated into another section instead of being a stand-alone subsection. I could weave it into the subsection on climatic variability in a similar fashion as that book.
    About climatology; I wonder if we could rename it into 'seasons', to make clear the distinction between that section and a) observations and b) climatic variations. Some of that first paragraph is more logically placed under observations. I further think that our section observations should be moved upwards, before climatology. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    This 2016 book also talks about paleotempestology only in the context of current climate change. This seems to be the most logical place to put it. A shame the IPCC report has been postponed until August.. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Jason Rees: can we have an update? It seems that quite a bit of work is still needed. Do we need to try and involve others? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Femkemilene: I have been a bit busy in real life over the last few weeks and havent been able to edit much. Yeah a lot of work is still needed and help from others would be appreciated.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: I have patched up the citation needed tags outside of the §Climatology section. For the most part the preexisting uncited information was factually correct but I've added some additional clarifications/details where needed. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    Great to have you on board. Of my initial comments, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 have not yet been addressed. Would you be able to help there as well? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    I addressed most of these comments, though point 9 (concerning the comprehensiveness of the Forecasting section) and point 13 (concerning the coverage of the Popular culture section) will require deeper research and time... not sure if I can work on those promptly. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Going on two months, and this article is a long way from there; not sure why we are not just moving forward to FARC here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Rees@TheAustinMan@Titoxd@XOR'easter: there are still a few big topics to tackle, and we've not started on the details yet. I'm leaning towards FARC as well, but still hoping that all substantial work is done during this phase, so that it's likely that the article will be saved during FARC. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah has posted a new plan to do some major work. Let's hope the pace ticks up. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Spiderland[edit]

Notified: Brandt Luke Zorn, WikiProject Music diff
  • Issues in the lead were mentioned back in July on the talk page and seem to have gone unfixed.
  • I posted the following concerns on the talk page and none were addressed. Also pinged FA editor User:Brandt Luke Zorn who did not respond despite still being active.
  • Among the concerns:
  1. [citation needed] tag in "Background"
  2. [When] and [citation needed] tags in "Production".
  3. "Music" section is very choppy and has a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Also the last paragraph is uncited.
  4. "Don't Look Back Concerts" (citation 27) redirects to a hotel website.
  5. Genius.com (citation 91) does not appear to be reliable.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. I'm cleaning up a little bit of trivial info on the background section and replacing some possibly unreliable sources with AllMusic, which is definitely a reliable source. It's slow going, especially since I don't have access to the 33 1/3 book outside of the limited preview in Google Books. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
These pointers have been handy for a general clean up, though overall the article remains in very good condition.
  1. Have removed Genious.com, and replaced Don't Look Back Concerts with a ref from Pitchfork.
  2. Issue in background removed.
  3. Looking for a source for the 1st two sentences in "Production"...the [when] is gone...its obvious that it was in 1990
  4. Dont agree re the "Music" section being choppy...the short paras are because each discusses an individual song. Having them like this makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for on a quick scroll through scan.
  5. will update when the Production bit is reffed Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. oh and the issues with the lead were addressed during last summer. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ceoil is this ready yet for others to look in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, except the statements within "McMahan and Walford began writing together for the band's next record, creating six new songs which the band practiced throughout the summer of 1990. Slint entered River North Records in August 1990 to record Spiderland. At that time there were no vocals or lyrics prepared for the album, so the band wrote them while in the studio" are as yet uncited - cough User:Brandt Luke Zorn. There is no question that they are not true, but text shift has made them out of sorts....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted)

There is still a citation needed tag, there is an awful lot of quoting, and it might be worth looking at a better application of WP:RECEPTION to avoid a lot of Reviewer A said B, Reviewer C said D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, will give another run through over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, which does not preclude further improvements. There is still a cn tag, a lot of quoting, and prose difficulties, sample: Spiderland has also been said by Michael Alan Goldberg to have been a considerable influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    Work on going. Working from top to bottom, so havnt gotten to the specific issues mentioned above, but am formulating an approach to dealing with music critic's opinion not mired in wiki clicche. Ceoil (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    OK struck, no move, thx Ceoil! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    I see Ceoil is still at it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Glaring issues that pop up to me right away.
    • There's a formatting screw-up in the first sentence of "Background."
    • There's a student newspaper citation for a long quote. I don't think writers of student newspapers are reliable.
    • "The album was virtually unnoticed by the American music press or zines.[28][28]" Why are there duplicate citations?
    • Many "dafuq" moments in the prose: "It's black-and-white cover photograph" "which as taken by Noel Saltzman," "but said mitted the band was" "The UK press music press were among the first to notice praise the album." A random "Ho" at the end of the first sentence of the reunion paragraph.
    • Many non-objective statements, each with only one citation, that are presented as fact but would be more accurate to be attributed: "Spiderland has sold in numbers exceptional for an obscure, defunct band who rarely performed live" and "Compared to record sales by contemporaneous alternative rock bands on major labels, sales of Spiderland would be considered modest or underwhelming."
    • "Today, the album is widely considered a landmark indie rock album" "Widely"? There's only two effin citations. How is that considered widely?!
    • "Spiderland has been cited as an major influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky.[64]" Nonsensical. It's only one article of a random alternative weekly newspaper assuming those bands may have been influenced by the record. Too obscure and abstract to include this.
    • Most of the legacy section is a quotefarm of only a few retrospective reviews.
    • Why does ref 69 have no timestamp?
    • Futhormore, why are some single-page sources citation the Harvard way and others as full cites within footnotes? Inconsistent.
    • "| Features | Pitchfork" are not part of the titles of those Pitchfork features. I think that should be obvious.
    • Many work field names are improperly presented as URLs instead of their actual work names? For example, thelist.co.uk" instead of The List.
  • Another promotion from more than a decade ago that hasn't kept its FA status. The prose is broken and filled with grammar problems, the article is disorganized in some places, and the cite formatting is problematic. I'm also sensing this article is incomplete and has garnered many more retrospective perspectives not cited here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    HumanxAnthro please see the WP:FAR instructions; Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is for listing items that need to be addressed and hopefully seeing that happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • To note, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the album, so expecting a lot heavy duty sources to publish lengthy overviews of its legacy and [v. important] placement in alt music history. Rolling Stone' for example, yesterday published a comprehensive overview of the contemporary music scene, the album's genesis and recording, and its enduring legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Also, agree with everything HumanxAnthro says above. Will address and come back. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    Update; have addressed some most, but not all, of HumanxAnthro concerns. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
    Update; 80% there on standardizing refs. Its slow and tedious; no wonder I like such depressing music. Will probably had this over to voting from next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Order of St Patrick[edit]

Notified: Lord Emsworth, Dr pda, Yomangani, Judgesurreal777, WikiProject England, WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, WikiProject Numismatics, WikiProject Ireland, 2021-03-31

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, there are too many images that need to be trimmed and the references contain unformatted links (ref 16) and original research (ref 5). Note: there was an FAR conducted in 2006 under a previous name, which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of St. Patrick/archive1. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the images. If someone can access https://www.jstor.org/stable/30100982?seq=1 through Jstor, this one could be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: You can read 100 articles on JSTOR for free every month if you create an account. I highly recommend it. Chances are this is not the last time you'll need to read one for Wikipedia.
  • I formatted ref 16.
  • I replaced Flags of the World with the source from JSTOR.
  • The same source might also work for ref 5, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure. The source says the Duke of Leinster was a founding knight and, given the time span, it must have been the 2nd Duke. The source also says that the saltire in the Union Jack is probably not a genuine symbol of Ireland but "the armorial device of the Fitzgeralds – arbitrary elevated via the Knights of St. Patrick – to the position of a national banner." The surname of the Dukes of Leinster was FitzGerald. The source notes (p. 6) that Gerald Fitzgerald probably used these arms as a flag. Given the time span this would have been Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare (see also the said arms in that article), so that seems to check out. Does this work for you? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment I have access to the JSTOR article linked above. However, there were concerns posted on the article's talk page that we need Galloway's book to bring this back to FA standards. I can't access the book through my local library system because of COVID restrictions. Does anyone have access to this book? Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

St Kilda, Scotland[edit]

Notified: Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography [66]

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are unsourced statements, poor quality sources, repetition of sources when cite bundling should be used, missing urls, bare urls, missing titles, dead links, stubby paragraphs that should be merged, disconnected lists of trivia in the final sub-section, and the lead is in breach of the Manual of Style. Talk page notice a month ago[67] was ignored. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay: Apologies for not seeing the St K. talk page. I am relatively inactive these days but do drop by my talk page a couple of times a month so thanks for letting me know there. This was my first FA and unlike the last review the topic is much less likely to need ten years of new information. I very much doubt that many of the other early contributors will drop by here so I will do what I can to fix things. The main issue for me is timing - I may be a bit slow to respond and the weekends are generally the only times I can put any serious effort in. Ben MacDui 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Glad to hear you will dig in, Ben MacDui; please ping me as you progress if there is some way I can be helpful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I have made a start but oh dear - I had hoped that going through and fixing the obviously deficient refs might be a way to start but so much extra information has been added - some in in appropriate sections - that I fear this is going to be a long haul. "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can mangle". Splendid. Ben MacDui 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Time is always allowed at FAR: just keep us posted, and let me know if I can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Already, certain problems jump out of the screen to me, and I haven't even read the full thing
    • Many incomplete citations, particularly those that are just a title and link
    • "It has been known for some time" This is too vague and informal
    • "The first written record of St Kilda may date from 1202" In which researcher's viewpoint? This isn't a sentence that defines a fact, "may" implies the date isn't definitely known and has to depend on the research of authorities in a field to pinpoint this. They need attribution
    • Looking at the other parts of this article, there are attribution problems like this, especially in the "Toponym" section; it might've come from this, it might've come from that, it might've started from here, and similar statements. These are not facts, and each hypothesis gets one to two citations, meaning they're liking not widespread enough to be taken as a fact we should accept as the prose in its current condition wants us to.
    • "At 670 hectares (1,700 acres) in extent, Hirta is the largest island in the group" Wait, by group do you mean St. Kilda? Who thinks of group as synonymous of archipelago? Is this just my ignorance in geography terminology? Can someone let me know?... Please?
    • The final half of "Evacuation and aftermath" is just a set of short paragraphs about random topics. I'm sure they're essential to the article, but man is this not a cohesive structure.
    • Why does "Tourism" gets its own section independent of history, yet info on the health care system, military equipment, and a history of native citizens are placed clunkily in a non-cohesive history section.
    • There's a fricking citation needed tag in "Other Islands."
    • "Declining population" Oh man, the problems with... a- ju- just the problems, I mean, gosh, this hurts
      • "In 1764 (according to the Census),[86] there were 90 St Kindans, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851." The problem with this sentence is so obvious. There's no consistent flow to this. In fact, I'll fix it right now: "According to Census reports, there were 90 St. Kindans in 1764, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851."
      • This is just an indiscriminate list of numbers per year with no analysis to make it interesting or engaging
      • I think there are other parts of this article where this short-ass section could be merged, such during the history section there are reasons attributed to the declining population of the island
  • To put it simply, another outdated promotion from more than 10 years ago that doesn't deserve its FA status, kind of like two other articles I've nominated for review a film with the "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" meme and lots of blood and gore, and a game starring a thicc Mario where, if you're an alpha speedrunner, you could BLJ up the stairs. The original FA nominator still seems to be active, so I'm interested to hear from him. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    This is an inappropriate tone for FAR. Please dial it back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    If it came off that way, I apologize, but what part of the tone was inappropriate? Looks like a typical FAR to me. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    I will summarize later on your talk, but in short, there is nothing typical about your tone on these FARs, and it is unacceptable; I hope it stops. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC The last edit to the article was March 28. After reviewing the article, I have some concerns including a bloated History section, no information about the history of the island from 1957-2009, many small paragraphs throughout the article that need to be merged or deleted, and a large "Further reading" section that should be evaluated for their inclusion as sources in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Ben MacDui, could we get a status update? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Apologies - real world very busy, will aim to have another look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sviatoslav I[edit]

Notified: Briangotts, Ghirlandajo, Beit Or, WP Biography, WP Military history, WP Russia, WP Ukraine, WP Belarus, WP Bulgaria, WP Romania, WP Middle Ages, WP Norse history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece, 2021-02-25

Review section[edit]

This 2006 promotion really goes to show how much FAC standards have changed. In November 2006, the FAC had a whopping 16 supports. Now, it's not even that close to the criteria. There's large swaths of uncited text, some of what appear to be the references are really just uncited notes, and unclear citations such as "Primary Chronicle _____." Additionally, since the FA promotion, the layout of the article has declined. There are now multiple collapsed navboxes hidden in section, and at least on my system, MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The references are a complete mess, inconsistent reference style, heavily relying on primary sources, uncited notes. Seeing that the Russian WP article is GA with multiple uncited sections I don't see how this article can be restored to FA standards in the foreseeable future. I am going to go with delist on this one.--Catlemur (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - the referencing is seriously lacking, and there's been very little engagement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC only minor or reverted edits since notice was placed on talk page, no engagement to fix uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - Significant sourcing issues, and the only edits since notice are minor edits and reverting based on the Kiev/Kyev naming controversy. Hog Farm Talk 16:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Sizable sourcing issues, nothing happening here. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - no efforts are being made to address serious gaps in referencing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

FairTax[edit]

Notified: Morphh, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated by Hog Farm on the talk page,

This article does not currently meet the current featured article criteria. There is an outstanding maintenance tag, bits of uncited text, and heavy use of advocacy sources instead of scholarly sources. I have concerns about the sheer amount of sourcing here to advocacy groups, political action groups, and sources that clearly take sides on this debate, such as "Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics" and sources with titles like " "The U.S. Corporate Income Tax System: Once a World Leader, Now A Millstone Around the Neck of American Business". I have serious concerns about the quality of this article.

There has also been a POV tag on the article for a year, which is a bad look when paired with a star. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see Devonian Wombat has removed the "Millstone" source, which is an improvement, but only scratches the surface. As an additional comment, Bartlett holds the fringey viewpoint that FairTax is a Scientologist plot, so it seems like the usage of Bartlett should be trimmed/avoided for this subject. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - One dodgy source removed, but no progress since and the sourcing is not up to what is generally expected for FAs. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC no progress has been made to address the POV tag at the top of the page. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - I have serious concerns about the quality of the sourcing used in this article, and that big orange neutrality tag can't be addressed without addressing the sourcing in this case. Sadly, very little has been done here. Hog Farm Talk 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Battlefield Earth (film)[edit]

Notified: Prioryman, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction, 2021-03-17

Review section[edit]

While you were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being trained.... to review featured articles!

— Terl from Battlefield Earth

Another FA promotion from more than 10 years ago, a time of lower standards for the FA criteria. The article, mainly, is way too incomplete to meet the criteria; its production section has little-to-none about the actual production, just the Scientology relations in its development, when the making of its special effects, design, filming, scoring and so on has garnered features in science fiction magazines, special features in home media releases, and several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here (the DVD commentary is only cited one). Additionally, the film has not kept up with retrospective opinion and analysis, the reception section is a quotefarm with little attempt at opinion consolidation, and citations are incomplete in at least one field or another, with its two prominent book sources cited with too broad page ranges and no specific page numbers. Also, we have a random Youtuber's account as a source for Ref 66. The article needs significant improvement to deserve its golden star. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here -- any chance of links? I might be interested in taking a crack at this, but no guarantees, and some jumping-off points would be good. I've read more than a bit on this film in my day. Vaticidalprophet 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I've linked these in the talk page of Battlefield Earth's article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, screw it, here are the links of unused sources
      • There are five interviews in the Blu-Ray showcasing separately its directing, music composition, set and costume designs, script writing, and miniatures.
      • Cinefantastique
      • Starlog
      • Starlog again
      • Starlog
      • The costume designer's involvement is discussed in an Starlog interview with him
      • Science Fiction Age
      • Vice
      • The Independent
      • Newsweek
      • Film Courage

👨x🐱 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go through them sometime. I might also be able to think of more not listed here. Unsure whether these will all be usable at the FA level (I'm just dipping a toe into it, and FAC source reviews look terrifying), but will see what's good. Vaticidalprophet 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Chuckled at this line out of the Independent: Battlefield Earth is currently unavailable to stream anywhere in the UK. Aside from that amusingly reversed boilerplate, the Independent retrospective looks just a rehash of the Vice one. The Vice one is excellent, but I've seen Vice be criticised at the FA level -- thoughts? Vaticidalprophet 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I see zero reason for Vice to be questioned 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. I've seen FAC source reviewers dislike it. Hopefully @Nikkimaria and @Ealdgyth won't be offended by a ping -- is this something that you-as-source-reviewers would accept in getting a FAR back to standard? Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Because it is listed as no-consensus at WP:RSP, there would need to be a rationale as to how it would meet the higher bar of high-quality for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, extremely limited engagement/progress, moving to FARC does not preclude further work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, not a whole lot done, a lot more to do. Hog Farm Talk 13:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC no major edits since notice was placed on talk page, and there's lots to improve. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment[edit]

Notified: PedanticallySpeaking, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject United States Government, talk page 2021-03-11

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article (2006 promotion) for review because its sources are not adequate under 1c. The main issue is an overdependence on primary sources. Primary sources are not "high-quality", and WP:PRIMARY restricts their usage to clear and incontrovertible statements of fact. That's not happening here. Much of the "legal background" section consists only of citations to court cases and statutes, meaning that statements of analysis (e.g. The precedent most often cited by critics of "treaty law" was Missouri v. Holland) are effectively uncited. This happens throughout the article: citations to laws, treaties, legal disputes, and contemporaneous writings are all too common. In addition, there are about half a dozen citation needed tags. While I'd ordinarily be inclined to just fix it myself, I fear the pervasive use of primary sources could only be remedied by a substantial reworking of the article. Since the article hasn't been edited once since I gave notice, I don't think that there's a community of editors prepared to do that. (This is my first FAR, so kindly excuse any procedural errors on my part.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro
  • While I see zero reason for the overwhelming bigotry against primary sources that are in FA discussions ("Primary sources are not "high-quality"" is a loaded statement. I know the internet has allowed a lot of self-written blogs that's made us have to determine what's what, but just because a source is primary doesn't mean it's unreliable or not high-quality. In fact, in some cases I would fail an article for comprehensiveness if it didn't include certain details from primary sources), but there is analysis not in those primary sources, I agree secondary sources are required for those. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I've stricken the "not high-quality" line - it was an overgeneralization. I don't object to the use of primary sources if it is compliant with WP:PRIMARY. In this case, as you note, the use of primary sources goes far beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and so all sorts of sourcing and OR issues arise. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - the article hasn't been edited a single time since this FAR was initiated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - missing citations and possible OR issues with use of primary sources. Hog Farm Talk 05:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - No edits since notice was placed on talk page in early March. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - sourcing and OR concerns. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist issues have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist for the reasons explained in my original FAR nomination, none of which have been dealt with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Fauna of Puerto Rico[edit]

Notified: Joelr31, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Animals, 2021-02-25 notification

Review section[edit]

This FA, which has not been reviewed since late 2006, contains large quantities of uncited text as well as a large number of 10-year-old statistics that need checked for currency. Currently does not meet WP:WIAFA. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - still no engagement. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - seriously undercited; no substantial edits in months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - No major edits since notice was placed in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - significant issues. Only edits in 2021 are to correct links. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements, exceptional claims and words to watch, such as 'failure', 'believed to be', 'important', 'possible explanation', 'enhanced', 'national pride', 'common phrase', 'fundamental', and 'have contributed'. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Grunge[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grunge music/archive1
Notified: OnBeyondZebrax, WikiProject Music, WP Alternative music, diff

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the quotes disrupt nice flow of prose, inconsistent referencing (including bare urls), and lacking page numbers, as laid out by RetiredDuke. I really hope that this important article is saved :). Not notifying editor without edits after 2013. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from RD
Oh God, I was hoping this wouldn't come here, but seems like nobody picked it up. I think that the article has become bloated due to the number of quotes, particularly on the "Clothing and fashion", "Alcohol and drugs" and "Legacy" sections. Just as an example, House stated that there was "... no more (heroin) here [in Seattle] than anyplace else"; he stated that the "heroin is not a big part of the [Seattle music] culture", and that "marijuana and alcohol ... are far more prevalent" - 3 quotes in a single sentence, and most of it can be paraphrased since it's nothing groundbreaking anyway. I think this article needs a significant trim by someone knowledgeable, but I'd like to hear other opinions. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro

So many blatant issues, including those mentioned above.

  • Original FA nomination was from 2007, so it's another article promoted to FA when standards were far lower and there was much less access to print sources on the subject.
  • The 2007 FA nominator has not been active since 2012, only having one edit in 2013.
  • The lead is missing summary of some key factors of this genre, particularly the clothing and fashion and use of alcohol and drugs associated with it as while as the overwhelming involvement of women, unusual in comparison to other rock genres.
  • The History section needs to be split into its own article, and there needs to be more subsections within History to divide already insanely-long subsections
  • "Grunge appeared as a trend again in 2008, and for Fall/Winter 2013,"
    • (1) Citation for grunge being a fashion trend in 2008? Found it nowhere in any of the citations in this subsection?
    • (2) Why are we so extensively talking about fashion collections Courtney Love encountered?
  • "With Courtney Love as his muse for the collection, she reportedly loved the collection." Repetitive prose.
  • Why is "bass guitar" section just a few disparate instances of how bass was incorporated? There doesn't seem to be a consistent grunge-style bass here, which doesn't justify the section.
  • Why aren't the album names of the Neil Young img caption italicized?
  • Several citations are incorrectly formatted and incomplete.
  • Bare URLs are unacceptable even for good articles.
  • Inconsistent cite formatting, as some book cites are fully presented in the footnotes are others are cited the Harvard way where you only give the last name and page number and have to go to a separate "works cited" list to see the full source.
  • Our first cite (which is for one of the genre origins of Grunge) cites an autobio that isn't mainly about grunge. Shouldn't we have professional music journalists' pieces primarily about Grunge cite origins?
  • Ref 21. Incomplete citation, and are we sure WatchMojo owns the TV interview cited? If not, we have a mighty WP:COPYLINK problem on our hands.
  • Ref 110 is a WP:COPYLINK-violating Dailymotion source.
  • Ref 140 is a Blogspot source.
  • Ref 178. (1) AllMusic is not a work. (2) I don't think that's how you format titles of AllMusic source
  • So many more cite formatting problems I could bring up, but I'd say to look at it yourself. You'll find more of them in a flash.

This is in severe need of cleanup. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no engagement, no improvement. [68] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - Not much happening, much needs to happen. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC Lots of work needed to be FA quality. Unfortuantely there's been limited engagement. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include citations, organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Significant issues, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced paragraphs, including words to watch such as 'typical', 'preferred', 'polished', 'unique', 'key figure', 'most successful', and 'notable'. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Rhodes blood libel[edit]

Notified: Beit Or, WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Ottoman Empire, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject History, WikiProject Religion, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, the article mostly cites just one source, while there are several other scholarly sources that cover the incident. Thus, it cannot be considered well-researched or comprehensive according to the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanxAnthro
  • I will say, in looking on the bright side, that the prose does establish all necessary concepts in a way the reader could understand and in proper order, although there are oddly-formatted sentences, and those that could be formatted better, here and there. "After an epidemic of plague in 1498–1500," "expelled those of the remaining Jews who would not be baptized." "deeply ingrained in the consciousness of some local Christian communities by the early 20th century while the blood libel likely came there in the early 19th century ." It definitely shows the writers of the article did keep in mind how a new reader would understand it, and with more sources represented and some more prose copyedits, this has got a chance of being FA. Plus, I think it's essential to get it to that quality given how under-represented the history of marginalization and oppression of Jews are in history classes. It didn't start with Nazi Germany, and it would be great for articles like this to become high-quality so more readers know that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, no engagement, heavy reliance on one source, others neglected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC No major edits since notice was placed on talk page in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Overreliance on Frankel and not using other available sources means that this fails WP:FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe[edit]

Notified: Scartol, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nigeria, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Igbo, 2021-02-16

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are citation concerns from May 2020, an overreliance of the Ezenwa-Ohaeto source and bloated sections like "Influence and legacy" and "Masculinity and femininity". Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC No engagement, 23 cn tags. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - No significant engagement, significant work needed. Hog Farm Talk 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues in the review section focus on sourcing and length. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - lots of work needed, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - per above -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - The issues above are being dramatized, this article is pretty close to FA standard. I want to get around to adding some refs to missing places and fix up other issues. I would ask that the coords hold on this. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Once the article is fixed up, please ping me and I will conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing this, Aza24.. I just don't have time for Wikipedia these days but I would hate to see this article get delisted. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Geology of the Death Valley area[edit]

Notified: Mav, WikiProject California, WikiProject Geology, 2020-11-23

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are significant unsourced parts in the article. The parts that are sourced rely mostly on pre-2000 books, including for statements such as Debate still surrounds the cause of (Collier, 1990). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

A major omission is any mention of the Walker Lane, which it is part of, and any discussion of a change from dominant extension to left lateral strike-slip combined with extension over the last few million years as part of this proposed incipient plate boundary. It's in Death Valley#Geology, but not in this longer article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - Additional issues brought up during FAR stage, and no work done yet. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I will attempt to update at least part of the article when I get sufficient time to do the rewrite justice - I'm quite busy right now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Update, zero edits so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist, perhaps can be brought back to FAC when re-written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Still at Delist; there is still considerable (albeit untagged) uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, excessive image captions, and I don't believe a job of this size and this late in the game is attainable at FAR. If the article is brought to standard, it can be resubmitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Update - Work has begun, and improvements are being made. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - this article requires an almost complete rewrite. For instance, there is a table of salts sourced to a 1966 paper, whose relevancy should be included, and that should be updated completely. At the current pace, it would take half year to save this article I believe, so that a new FAC would be more appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delist - There's work going on this, but the progress is intermittent and a lot is needed. Probably best to rewrite this outside of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 00:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Mikenorton: What's your timeline with regards to updating? Do you feel that the issues raised can be addressed within the timeframe of this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: I've made a start on this, but found that although Collier (1990) is mostly out of date, I can't find any sources that give a good overview of more recent developments in the understanding of the geology. There's no shortage of material, but it's hard to rewrite parts of it without straying into WP:SYN of WP:OR territory. It's best I think to let this lapse for now unless anyone else want to have a go. Maybe I'll come back to this and think of an effective way forward, but I'm struggling right now. I will try and at least remove the contradictory parts created by my recent additions. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Seabird[edit]

Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, WikiProject Birds, 30 Jan

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article, promoted in 2006, for review because it has some issues with verifiability (more than 20 cn tags) as well as lacking info on global warming impacts, as pointed out by Z1720 and Femke Nijsse on the talk page 2 weeks ago. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • So..... (does some quick math) its been nearly 15 years since this was promoted? Thanks, I don't feel remotely old now. Well, I suppose its about time for a tidy. I can start going through, but as I am lacking the textbook I used heavily back then I may need some help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    Great! This would be an important article to save. Maybe you can get specific pages of the book from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. If you need any scientific papers, you can always ask me as well. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm hoping my local university still has it. I would need to browse it a bit to find all the generic statements that I was a touch sloppy in citing back in 2006, so I can't ask for specific pages without the index/table of contents. But anyway I've started adding missing citations. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This article does not mention anything about climate change. Simply writing "Seabird" on Google Scholar will list a reservoir of sources about their decline due to a number of reasons, and many of whom are recent. This one is useful for example. Wretchskull (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Sabine's Sunbird: Could we get an update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added a small paragraph on climate change, and slightly expanded the lede. Still hoping for Sabine's Seabird to come back. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I can also help with adding citations. ApproximateLand (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Femkemilene, what is the specific ref style being used? I've looked at WP:Citing sources. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The style of the references is quite straightforward: it includes everything in inline notes. Just make sure to include page numbers if you use longer documents (books or reports). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked at the style and I see what to do. I asked about it because I've seen that one of the concerns about citations for featured articles is to make sure the citation style is consistent. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Crap I have some stuff to add too. (knew I'd forgotten something...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Update: Pomatostomus, a new user, has addressed almost half of the citation needed tags by adding high-quality sources. Pinging them here, in case they weren't aware they're helping save the star. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I added three refs.[69]. I'm going to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for the page number for this one.[70] I couldn't find anything on "especially during the breeding season when hungry chicks need regular feeding." I looked for more recent refs for the older two citations I used, but I didn't find any, or, if I did, they were about one area, one type of gull, or very old. For "opportunistic feeders", I saw some that would say "like most gulls." I think the page should should say most gulls are opportunistic feeders, but the ref I used says "many." Finding a ref that talked about gulls having bills for opportunistic feeding was tough. I stuck to "are opportunistic feeders." ApproximateLand (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I also saw this ref,[71] (Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach) but it plagiarizes this page word for word. Here's its publisher page.[72]ApproximateLand (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I have added some classificatory material. Musing on any more needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Question about page number resolved.[73]. ApproximateLand (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
At present,[74] only three pieces are left tagged as needing refs. Last time I was on, I looked for refs for "Seabird colonies occur exclusively for the purpose of breeding; non-breeding birds will only collect together outside the breeding season in areas where prey species are densely aggregated." and "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round.", but came up empty. Since website refs are being used,[75][76][77][78] maybe I should give websites a try. Are we sourcing the seabird families section too? ApproximateLand (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
@ApproximateLand: At page 43 in this book, the quote "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round." exists and someone has copied it to the article. I could rewrite the sentence and add the reference, what do you think? Wretchskull (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Update: wait, I'm confused. Did the book copy from Wikipedia or vice versa? Because the book states exactly what the article has. Wretchskull (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the book, I am suspicious it copied from wikipedia really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Wretchskull, I think, in all likelihood, the book plagiarized the page. Swaths are copied word for word. We can look in the page history and see when what's on the page was added vs. when the book published its information. Books are always plagiarizing Wikipedia. See my section "Springer Nature copying Wikipedia".[79] ApproximateLand (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article is still tagged for unsourced statements, as needing update and as needing clarification. Are these points being worked on? DrKay (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I will try and look in the next few days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

British Empire[edit]

Coordinator comments

Commentary here seems to have reached an impasse and there have been few recent substantive edits to the article. Summarizing where things are at with regards to the FA criteria:

  1. Well-written.
    1. Sandy raised some examples of prose tightening; have these all been addressed?
    2. Femke Nijsse raised concerns around reading level and comprehensibility; where are we at with that?
  2. Comprehensiveness, research, neutrality. Obviously these are the point of greatest contention in this review.
    1. Some editors have concerns that the article neglects areas other than history and military - eg economics. What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic? What approach is being used here to summarize subtopics?
    2. Femke raised a concern with regards to source datedness. What more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted?
    3. NickD proposed a number of additional sources that could be included (reposted by SandyGeorgia on 21 Nov). Have these been evaluated?
    4. Some editors have raised concerns regarding how the article depicts or does not depict impact of the Empire on Indigenous peoples (including the question of genocide but also including other impacts). What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic?
  3. Style. Have all of Sandy's MOS points been addressed?
  4. Lead. CMD noted the use of sources only in the lead - has this been looked at?
  5. Structure. Femke raised concerns around how the article is organized - has this been looked at?
  6. Citation formatting. This needs standardization.
  7. Images. Other than sandwiching, has anyone looked at this? Are there issues in this area?
  8. Length. The article is currently slightly over the recommended prose maximum. Where are there opportunities to condense, keeping in mind the comprehensiveness criterion?

(I know the numbering doesn't line up with WIAFA, but if you could cite specific numbers in responses that would be very helpful). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1.1 Has been addressed
1.2 Seems to be stalled, I for one am not sure how to proceed on this one.
2.1 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus was nothing further was required and the topic seemed a bit specialised.
2.2 Source datedness - missed that one in discussion - what is required?
2.3 Nick D was invited to propose some text - the issue I see here is that the topics are in the main covered albeit briefly. I don't think a clear proposal has been forthcoming from Nick.
2.4 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus is the proposer was giving undue weight to fringe views.
3. Has been addressed.
4. I would propose removing sources from the lede but this is a perennial issue. The article attracts drive by tagging and the motivation is not always for improvement.
5. Structure I think is fine.
6. Citation formatting still needs work.
7. Images have been sorted.
8. Length - seems to be stalled whilst we have some suggesting additional content, until that is resolved, it's difficult to see how to move forward on this.
Overall, to summarise, some minor fixes in formatting are still required but we still haven't addressed the conflict between additional content and reducing size. Is that a reasonable summary? WCMemail 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
On 2.1 and 2.4, I don't see consensus on these points, and would like answers to the specific questions above. Also looking for an answer on 2.2 with regards to recent scholarship, since this was part of Nick-D's points as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
WCM, just making sure you've seen this ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't seen it. I do think 2.1 and 2.4 have been discussed above - the topic of economics wasn't raised really in regards to economics but rather one posters obsession with fringe views. In general works on the British Empire do tend to focus on the military aspects and as for governance it would be quite difficult to weave that in. The British Empire didn't have the rigid control structure characteristic of the Spanish Empire for example, rather it was a looser set of controls with almost each individual colony having its own, in many cases unique, form of government. As regards 2.2 I did ask what people thought were required, it still isn't clear to me? WCMemail 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
On 2.2, what more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted? On 2.1 and 2.4, yes they have been discussed, but I don't see a strong consensus on these issues, which is why I'm hoping you (or other respondents) will have specific answers to my questions to help sort out what's a fringe view and what is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Ref 2.2 if you look below, we've made some additional material on the specific topic under discussion. WCMemail 00:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
1.2. Shorter sentences, easier words. We have some prose geniuses running around on WP. Can we ask them?
2.2. This was a side comment in the discussion about neutrality; I'll leave that to the experts.
5: it was specifically about the structure of legacy; has been addressed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
While there have been improvements along the lines I've suggested, I'm a very firm delist due to the inadequate response to my comments - especially the utter failure of the article to cover the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians despite this being a central issue (arguably 'the' central issue) in the literature on the British Empire in Australia since the 1990s. The request that I provide text is insulting given the dismissive response I received to my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nick, see WCM's point re 2.3 above - was that something you were planning to work on, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to reach out to Nick on his talk page but he blanked my message. I've known Nick for a number of years and he has been my mentor for some time over difficult issues. Hence, I am somewhat perplexed by his response.
To answer the question on content, the article is supposed to be an overview on the British Empire, as such is covers topics at a fairly shallow level. As such coverage of a fairly specialised topic such as the impact of colonisation on aboriginal australia is difficult to cover appropriately. I have tried to do some searching on google and google scholar but I found that many of the top items are advocacy websites and it is difficult to find neutral academic texts. I then looked at wikipedia [80] as a guide. As such I could propose:

"Colonisation had a disastrous impact on indigenous Australia, the introduction of diseases such as smallpox to which the indigenous people had no immunity combined with conflict over land, led to a massive reduction in the population."

Thoughts, criticism, suggestions? WCMemail 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I had a brief look at this last year but didn't find sourcing and wording match I liked. I think it should lean more towards the conflict than the disease, and be worded to fit in between the Joseph Banks sentence (which should be trimmed) and the end of convict transport sentence, to place it within the chronology of settlement rather than as an outside issue. CMD (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion: "Unusually, Australia was claimed through proclamation. Indigenous Australians were considered too uncivilised to require treaties,[1][2] and colonisation brought disease and violence that together with the deliberate dispossession of land and culture were devastating to these peoples.[3][4]" CMD (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, with one exception, was it unusual? WCMemail 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources contrasted Australia to other areas with existing populations, such as North America, where sovereignty was established through treaties with the natives, so I added unusually to reflect that point, and with regard to the importance the Terra nullius claim had on the the topic. In our text the next paragraph on New Zealand includes a treaty for contrast. CMD (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Then I'm OK with adding it. WCMemail 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not weighing in, per perception of conflict that could arise when there is controversy on an article I promoted. Although we are fast approaching a time where what FAC used to be versus what it is now is no longer relevant, and I may decide to no longer worry about that. For now, I am abstaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Delist – I'm not convinced this article is the appropriate format for an "empire". Look at other empire FAs for example, the Han dynasty, has sizable sections on Culture and society, Government and politics, Economy, Science and technology; and similar formats appear in the Parthian Empire or Byzantine Empire. These are all concerns that have been brought up by multiple editors. As unfortunate as it is, this article is a "history of British Empire" or a really well made timeline. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The "appropriate format for an empire"? Could you point us to the FA criteria setting out the mandated structure of an article on an empire? We seem to have missed it. And so have all the sources: they don't talk about a consistent empire-wide culture, society, government, or economy (etc) - because there wasn't one - but they do focus on the history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Wiki-Ed, I am referring to criteria 1b and 1c of the FAC criteria. When a host of other empire/major civilization FAs (Vijayanagara Empire, Chalukya dynasty, Maya civilization, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Norte Chico civilization, Parthian Empire, Ancient Egypt, Tang dynasty, Han dynasty, Song dynasty, Ming dynasty as just a start) have far more than just a history section, one begins to think that perhaps the fault lies with the odd one out. No section on how the largest empire in history governed itself? Oxford bibliographies, with just a small 100 years of the empire already has significantly more topics referred to than here. And where is the section on decolialization? The most consequential part of the empire effecting out modern world is barely explored. The word "imperialism" or "nationalism" are absent from the article — Oxford bibliographies: The massive literature on the British Empire breaks down roughly into three groupings, dealing first with general overviews of the empires growth or its role in the international system over time, thereafter with British imperialism in regional context, in which British India and British colonialism in Africa account for much of the literature — not a single reference they recommend is included; and I haven't even look at their sections for British India/Africa. Another; what about Demographics of the British Empire, Economy of the British Empire or Historiography of the British Empire? Aza24 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Aza24, without wishing to sound rude, we have discussed a fair bit of this already (above). That said, discussion is not the same as agreement and so I think the onus is on FAR administrators to reconcile some of the inconsistencies between FA criteria and WP Core Policies (particularly weighting) and MOS guidelines (particularly article length). I'll break down what I think you're arguing:
(1) Comparators: You're pointing to FAs for countries, dynasties and civilisations. For ancient examples (of the sort you've cited) 'empire' and 'civilisation' might be one and the same, but that does not hold true for modern empires (British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese etc) which did not (horribly generalising here) have uniform social/economic/cultural (etc) characteristics across their entire territory or entire lifespan. For example, I cannot think of any way to summarise the 'government' or 'military' of the British Empire in a few short parapraphs in the same way as the Parthian Empire. Summarising such things in an overview article would almost certainly be misleading (and even authors with hundreds of pages to play with eschew this). The comparator articles for this topic are modern Empires, most of which adopt a similar 'timeline' overview approach.
(2) Other sources: You're cited Oxford Bibliographies. I don't have access to that so I can't see what you're referring to. However, I think the point you're making is that a tertiary source has organised its information differently to Wikipedia. We are not using that model - perhaps for good reason if the section you've quoted is representative of the quality overall - we are using a style adopted by a large number of secondary sources - your source refers to them as "general overviews of the empires (sic) growth".
(3) Content balance: You've suggested there isn't enough material on certain topics (incidentally, you'll find decolonisation in the section entitled "Decolonisation and decline"). Other contributors have also said similar, but about different issues. This article cannot cover every single thing that happened in every single country that formed part of the British Empire: "regional context" (your source's point) is too complex to summarise in an overview: there are separate (lengthy) articles on topics like the British Raj and colonialism in Africa; historiographical concepts live in the historiography article. You've spotted a few others. I would note that many of those articles are quite poor - weak sourcing, undue weighting, partial coverage - perhaps reflecting the argument I made above that it is very difficult to summarise these topics in a full-size book, let alone an article, let alone a paragraph within an article.
(4)FAC vs article length: Finally, you refer to the FA Criteria. Being "comprehensive" seems to be at odds with the MOS article length guidelines. None of the contributors to this discussion seem to be able to resolve their demands for content on topic XYZ with the fact we cannot (a) cover everything and (b) reliable sources do not consistently weight some of those topics them as importantly as those WP editors, so the topics shouldn't be taking up space. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, you do have access to Oxford bibliographies in the WP library. I don't know how having discussed this earlier means anything other than validating my concerns—the fact that I came here noticing the same things that other editors have brought up only reinforces the issues(s) (unless of course, you were just telling me to "go away"). When I'm talking about a section on decolonisation, I'm talking about the aftermath, i.e. the unstable countries that the British Empire left; the absence of this, and the extreme lack of information of imperialism or nationalism makes me think this article is seriously POV pushing. I look up in the FAR and see that users have been complaining about the lack of information on Indigenous Australians, the POV pushing is evident on three fronts now. I mean come on, slavery/imperialism/genocide aren't even mentioned in the lead? I've given you two/three links to a professionally curated website which discusses literature pertaining to imperialism. All of this said, I'm still blown away that there is no economy section.
In general, I'm not convinced this article is one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer"—I look at the past FAR and see extremely divided editors, bringing up similar ones as here. If 10 years apart an article is still receiving the same criticism, there is something wrong with the article, not the editors commenting on it. I am not a hard editor to "please"—but I don't know if there is much hope here, defenders of the article seem too occupied on defending the article's current state, then considering what it would look like were other editors complaints explored. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Re Oxford Bibliographies: maybe you've forgotten (?) you had to go through a process to acquire access. It is not automatic so no, I don't have access.
Re earlier discussions, both here and in previous FARs: Small numbers of persistent editors do not decide content. That's why we have core policies and they (particularly WP:NPOV) state that content is determined by the relative weighting of coverage in reliable sources. We're using a structure based on sources providing a general overview of the British Empire - not those examining niche issues, modern historiographical terminology or specific countries (etc). If they do not choose to focus their coverage on imperialism, or nationalism, or Australia, or famine, or the history of all the countries in the world since the British left... then we don't either. That's not to say those topics don't deserve their own article. It's not to say issues don't get a name drop here. But if editors cannot prove it is a primary focus in the sources then we don't make a big deal of it in this article: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So on that note, since you're "blown away" by its omission, perhaps you could try to write a short (1-2 para), verifiable, comprehensive, and neutral summary on the economy of the British Empire? There seem to be a lot of critics here, but it's difficult to explore complaints - as you put it - if it's not clear (to either side) what new content might look like. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the library now has an instant access program for 25 specific sites, Nikkimaria please correct me if I'm wrong or it's more intricate than that. Wiki-Ed, I sympathize with the predicament at hand, and regrettably, I'm too entrenched in other articles right now to write something for this one. If more editors share opinions on the matter contrary to mine, please let me know and I will see if that makes me revise my impressions. Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Correct, it's available to everyone who meets basic experience requirements automatically, which I expect would include most if not all editors here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments I am not convinced by the arguments that the article lacks comprehensiveness or neutrality. The argument on comprehensiveness seems to be an argument for a page move rather than a delist and is countered by the argument that the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context. The economy and demographics are covered in the lead, so it's an argument over structure not content. The argument on neutrality is countered by arguments of length and representative literature. On prose, though, I think improvements are possible. Considering the lead:

1. First paragraph: redundancy, At the peak of its power, the phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" was often used to describe the British Empire as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories. Change it to the simpler: At the peak of its power, it was described as "the empire on which the sun never sets" as the Sun was always shining on at least one of its territories.
2. Second paragraph: overly-complex prose, A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. [note also raised above by Femke] Change it to the simpler: A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (and Britain after the Union of England and Scotland in 1707) the dominant colonial power in North America.
3. Third paragraph: redundancy, The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies. [repetition of independence, repetition of colonies, repetition of America] Change it to the simpler: The American War of Independence resulted in Britain losing some of its oldest and most populous colonies in North America by 1783. Remove redundant soon, remove redundant and unidiomatic across the globe, remove redundant in Europe and the world
4. Fourth paragraph: redundancy and repetition: During the 19th century [already covered by of the 19th century in the preceding paragraph] Remove the opening clause and join the third and fourth paragraphs together as one paragraph. Lead should not be more than 4 paragraphs anyway per WP:LEAD
5. Fifth paragraph: redundancy, the military, financial, and manpower resources of Britain simpler as its military, financial, and manpower resources; Although the British Empire simpler as Although the empire.
6. Final sentence, strays off-topic into relatively minor point. Hardly anyone knows about the realms and most histories don't use the term. Either cut the final sentence completely or merge the final and penultimate sentences into the easier: After independence, many former British colonies joined the Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of over 50 independent states, 16 of which retain a common monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. DrKay (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
These have been broadly done, with some adjustments, and I made some other lead changes to deal with the extraneous material I mentioned above. Upon checking, I believe the issue I raised (which became Nikkimaria's point 4) has now been dealt with. CMD (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Macintyre, Stuart (2009). A Concise History of Australia]. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 9780521516082.
  2. ^ Broome, Richard (2010). Aboriginal Australians: A history since 1788. Allen & Unwin. p. 18. ISBN 9781741765540.
  3. ^ Pascoe, Bruce (2018). Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. Magabala Books. ISBN 9781925768954.
  4. ^ McKenna, Mark (2002). Looking for Blackfellas' Point: An Australian History of Place. UNSW Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780868406442.
"the article does contain the major facts and places the subject in context". A number of reviewers have argued otherwise. Even if the article were moved to History of the British Empire, it would also have to be delisted. This is because the article never mentions Aborigines, Native Americans, or the word genocide, despite these three terms being the heavy focuses of literature on the British Empire in Australia and North America. The article's coverage of the Indian Famines is also simply inaccurate.--Quality posts here (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Coverage is based on reliable source, not on a small number of Wikipedia editors' personal views. Those topics are not a major focus of general histories of the British Empire and sometimes don't even get mentioned. You have had multiple opportunities to prove otherwise. Your failure to do so speaks volumes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Nick-D has shown Aborigines are a huge focus of works on the British Empire in Australia, above. Also, if those books don't touch on the fields of anthropology, economics, etc. then they are simple historical narratives rather than comprehensive summaries of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Key words there, British Empire in Australia and this is a generalised article covering all of the British Empire not just the British Empire in Australia. Emphasis added to make the point. WCMemail 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed and Wee Curry Monster: Could you please identify specific general histories of the British Empire and outline their relative weighting? At the moment I do not see consensus on the issues I identified under point 2 above. Also Wiki-Ed, I wanted to make sure you saw that you do in fact have access to the site cited by Aza24 above; if you disagree with that source, could you please provide specific sources that conflict with it and a rationale as to why they are preferable? Overall, I'm seeing several commenters advocating delisting identifying specific sources to support their views, and commenters advocating keeping referring to "general histories of the British Empire" but not specific works to counter. Also, some of the other issues raised above remain unaddressed, such as citation formatting which is still a bit of a hodgepodge. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
CMD, with your comment above, are you now of the opinion that the article should be kept, or do you believe delisting is warranted? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
With the caveat that I am still gaining experience at FAC/FAR, at the moment I lean towards keep. I feel tensions between the inclusion of information and article size will exist even in Featured Articles. The debate about article format, whether more a country-style page or more a History page, are interesting, but I feel that is potentially more of a title issue than a content issue, if that makes sense. Reformatting it to a more country-style format would be a massive undertaking and would create a completely different article to the one currently under discussion. Inputting on the Wiki-Ed library access point, I also do not have access to the OAuth service, as clicking that link brings me to a page asking me to provide access to my account. It is possible Wiki-Ed has not given permission either. On citations I have fixed some, and have the others on my to do list. CMD (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've looked at the Oxford Bibliographies and the first general work I would have cited is listed:
  • Louis, William Roger, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire. 8 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998–1999.
I think you'll find this was a significant source used when the article first achieved FA status. The other I would have listed would have been:
  • James, Lawrence The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. Abacus. 2001
One of the reviews of "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire" is helpful here:
"Great Britain's geopolitical role in the global scheme of things has undergone many radical changes over the last four centuries. Once a maritime superpower and ruler of half the world, Britain's current position as an isolated, economically fragile island squabbling with her European neighbors often seems difficult to accept, if not comprehend. Although still afforded nominal status through membership of groups such as G7 and the retention of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, the simple truth is that Britain has been resting on her laurels since 1945, if not before. The British Empire is both cause and effect of this spectacular transformation. At first an exercise in straightforward profit-making, foreign exploration and colonization by British settlers, traders, and entrepreneurs soon gave rise to serious moral misgivings about the exploitation of native peoples and resources. But the riches to be gained from empire-building were always a powerful argument in its favor, although changes in the domestic social and political climate made benevolent imperialism a more desired objective. The lure of profit was tempered by an urge to uplift and civilize. Those responsible for the glories of empire were also driven by questionable motives. Personal fame and fortune formed an inevitable and attractive by-product of the conquest of new territories, and many empire-builders felt an unimpeachable sense of destiny. The achievements, however, cannot be denied, and during its heyday the British Empire was the envy of the world. Revisionist historians make much of the stunted potential of the former colonies, but as always, the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes."
The above isn't listed but I note that other works are e.g. James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. London: Little, Brown, 1997
In terms of weighting, if you do a comparison, then the article as it stands compares favourably. I also checked the sources used in the article, they do reflect the Oxford bibliographies rather well. e.g. examples I gave above are represented. So I would venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
I note one of the criticism of the article is the claim that imperialism isn't mentioned. I just checked, it is mentioned 31 times. Again I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
I note also the claim that nationalism isn't mentioned, again referring to the article it is, 25 times. A pattern is emerging here, I'd venture to suggest that criticism is unfounded.
Next turning to the comparison with other "Empires", a criticism I would say is largely comparing apples with oranges. The suggestions of various editors are for sections on Government, law, Culture, Demographics. Such suggestions seem to me to be rather naive.
Lets us for starters, consider Government. Generalising somewhat, Empires, such as the Spanish Empire. had rigid social structures and were centrally controlled. The British Empire is the odd one out here, it didn't ever have an easily defined form of government and perhaps the best generalised description is a loose federation of a diverse and disparate state entities whose relationship with the mother country varied considerably over the span of the empire. For example Canada started out as a series of colonies, that gradually transitioned to a self-governing Commonwealth and ultimately independence. India started out as a series of nation states, each came under control of the British East India Company, was gradually amalgamated into a single entity and after the Indian mutiny came under direct a Viceroy and was managed via the Indian Civil Service and became independent after a nationalist movement that ultimately split the Raj along religious divides. Others were protectorates and then there is the League of Nation mandates, which it is debatable whether they were part of the British Empire. Each colony was almost unique and was governed in a different manner. The description we give to the British Empire is "The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states." Any reasonable summary on government of the Empire would end up larger than the current article. If anything it's something for a specialised article..
Next law. Every element of the British Empire had it's own laws and judiciary. About the only example I can think off, where the UK itself imposed law on it's Empire was the abolition of the slave trade.
Culture and demographics, the British Empire was so unbelievably diverse I can't even begin to comprehend how you would cover such a broad topic.
If you look at books on the British Empire, they don't try and tackle these, rather where it is tackled, it is a specific topic that is captured eg Economics of the Raj.
So what is being suggested is pretty impractical for any summary article on the British Empire and I would venture to suggest that perhaps such suggestions hadn't been fully thought through. People really are not thinking practically about the tension between article size and the inclusion of more information.
Finally, tackling the elephant in the room. Some elements of the criticism of this article are concerned with what the editor considers the WP:GREATWRONGS of the British Empire. They're not writing from a neutral perspective and are quoting from revisionist historical works. Their criticism that such material isn't included is unfounded, in all cases the material that they suggest is already covered. The difference is that the article doesn't use the loaded words they wish to see. As such I firmly believe their comments to be irrelevant for a FAR. WCMemail 18:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You claim the government, economy and society of the British Empire can't be summarized, then immediately summarize them.--Quality posts here (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria We’ve discussed this before and I’ve already provided a list of general histories (see late Nov above). The onus is on those advocating undue emphasis to explain why they think some exception should be made to Wikipedia’s core policies on balancing, not on the rest of us to defend that position.
Regarding the Oxford Bibliographies: as I said previously and User:CMD has confirmed, would-be visitors have to provide access to account details. I had wanted to avoid this, but equally I don’t like arguing in the dark. So, having now had a poke around, I would make three observations about using it:
(1) Searching the corpus for “British Empire” returned 2,182 separate bibliographies. I’m assuming that User:Aza24 clicked on a single bibliography - selectively quoted above - that most closely conformed to his or her conception of what the subject should be about. However, the reality is that while all 2,182 entries are legitimate perspectives, (a) we cannot cover them all in one article and (b) those perspectives are often far too narrow to be relevant for an overview article which is already too long by MOS standards.
(2) Following on from that, none of the top entries are covering the same scope as this article (different date range or geography; or narrow focus on one theme) so they are not a reliable indication of weighting (which is the only reason we should be using a tertiary source anyway).
(3) And, as User:WCM has already pointed out, despite taking a partial view of the topic the bibliographies I’ve skimmed all seem to revert to citing the same sources that we do here (as per my Nov comments: Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith etc) in order to provide the general background. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Citation formatting (summary point 6: Citation formatting still needs work): All book and journal sources have been edited to fit the standard formatting, and the others have been made more consistent. Hopefully if there is anything left for this it is minor. CMD (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've withdrawn my delist. The prose quality of the lede has improved after DrKay's comments in terms of understandability. My concerns about the structure and neutrality of the legacy section had been addressed before. I will not declare a keep because my knowledge of the topic is limited. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article explicitly addresses the colonization of Australia and Indian famines. The arguments of the demoters appear flawed. Increasing the coverage of specific aspects further would imbalance the article by stressing one part of the empire above all the others. That is inappropriate. The claim that the article does not cover specific topics and is therefore not comprehensive is not borne out. DrKay (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The article still doesn't mention Aborigines, despite the lengthy discussion on this topic, above, and the British Empire being accused of genocide against them by some notable historians and international legal scholars. Can you please explain why you think this is acceptable? Additionally, I showed that many views about the exploitative nature of the Empire are not included in the article despite being held by "prominent adherents", the only test outlined by WP:DUE for whether a view should be on Wikipedia. Can you please address them specifically?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The article does mention indigenous Australians, as anyone who bothers to look can easily verify[81]. Continuing to repeat false statements about the article makes you look ill-informed at best. DrKay (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Queston: How will this FAR be closed?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Anything else to be done[edit]

As far as I can tell all the points raised have been addressed, the one remaining is that the article is rather long. Should we be thinking about trimming the article? WCMemail 17:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is currently 64 kB (10445 words) "readable prose size" - generally the upper limit of article size is 50kb. The issue would be whether any segment of article could be relegated to a daughter article and trimmed/summarised without losing article integrity. If someone can find a section, maybe raise it here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we're probably in the right place because we're midway between groups of critics. On one hand we have editors saying it's too long (at 10445 words). On the other we have some contributors to this discussion suggesting we copy the structure of the Roman Empire article (26,000 words). We're never going to keep everyone happy and I don't think it would be worth the effort of trying. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Drive by Comment Size looks good to me. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Five months in, and a quick glance reveals that basics have yet to be addressed.

  • The sea of blue and serious WP:OVERLINKing that I raised eons ago has not been addressed, as evidence by a quick glance at the lead, where we have global power linked twice, to two different parts of an article (neither of which define "global power"), and unnecessary links to continents and geographical places like the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific Ocean. (No, these are not Easter egg links to sub-articles about the British Empire in those places, and they are not needed; neither is World War II needed as a link.) User:Evad37/duplinks-alt reveals more. The sea of blue needs to be addressed throughout.
  • A glance at the lead reveals that a copyedit has not been performed. A sentence in the lead starts with a number, and there is still overuse of the almost always redundant word also throughout the article. Please see User:Tony1's writing exercises and get someone to go through the entire article.

I am not impressed that this FAR was brought forward by an SPA, but nonetheless, all issues should be addressed while we are here. I raised these, and other issues, four months ago. By now, someone should have read through the article to correct the basics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you do a compare between the article as was and is now.
A copyright of the lead has been done, you said you'd had a quick look, would you like to look again and comment.
We've also reduced a lot of the links but I'll take a look at what you've found. WCMemail 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
OK would someone check that I've not missed any duplicate links and I've trimmed a lot of the extraneous links. We have been addressing stuff as we went along but I guess this got missed. WCMemail 17:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you run the dup links script? I am not saying *all* duplicates must be removed because, in a long article, repeating links deep into the article can be helpful. Judgment calls are needed, just want to make sure you did run the tool to evaluate all of them before I spend time re-evaluating. I see you fixed the sentence starting with a number, and de-alsofied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I did run the script, thanks for the tip. I've also removed a lot of link clutter as well. WCMemail 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing all of that, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we like, give credit to the painters and artists (and the year when the work was made) when their works are used? Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


@SandyGeorgia:, @Nikkimaria: In previous FAR I've been involved in, we've created lists of tasks to do to finalise the FAR. Unfortunately this FAR has not really followed that constructive format and an awful lot of effort has been spent addressing what in many cases is well meaning but impractical suggestions. Can we pull a list of remaining things to do and start a push to finish this please. WCMemail 12:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The process has stagnated because multiple editors have presented a neutrality issue and rather than trying to address it by altering the article, you and others have flat out-denied its existence. It seems that this FARC is destined for delisting, unless editors actually try to work on the problem, rather than avoiding it. However, editors recognizing the issue at hand have been deterred away after having received uncolloborative responses, so good luck with that. Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)