- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts 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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. 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, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—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:
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. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are 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. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. 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 Table of Contents – This page: |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominatingedit
Commenting, etcedit
|
Nominations
edit- Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The Bond novel You Only Live Twice was written when Fleming was at a low point in his life - court cases, health issues and ongoing unhappiness in his marriage - and he was running out of energy and enthusiasm for writing more stories. The novel itself is largely taken up with travelogue descriptions of Japan and its culture, and the main element within it – Bond v Blofeld – only takes up around 30 pages at the end. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Alavense
edit- It was the last novel published Fleming in his lifetime
- Eon Productions James Bond film series - Can a way be found to avoid the sea of blue?
- It's only two together, and avoiding it would mean either a lot of pointless words or semantic twisting; both would leave it reading awkwardly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- In note b): On Her Majesty's Secret Service continues the story from On Her Majesty's Secret Service
- Bond exacts revenge on Blofeld in a duel, Blofeld armed with a sword and Bond with a wooden staff - Can "the former" and "the latter" be used to avoid repeating the names?
- Why does Books and Bookmen link to Hansom Books if there's an article for it?
- When I first wrote this article, there wasn't a page for B&B - thanks for spotting the page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fleming wrote to his friend, Richard Hughes, the Far Eastern correspondent of The Sunday Times - I feel the first comma is not needed.
- Fleming's biographer Matthew Parker, considers the novel - No need for that comma either.
- Charmian was the forename of Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard - If there are more cousins, maybe "the Fleming's cousin who married his brother Richard"; if that was the only one, then "Fleming's cousin, who married his brother Richard", with the comma.
- I think this is probably okay as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Blofeld's name is taken from comes from Tom Blofeld
- So much of the book is taken up with the description that the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek describes the work as a "semi-exotic travelogue" - Given that we have "description" already there, can a verb different to "describes" be used? Deems, maybe?
- Fleming's two companions on his trip, Richard Hughes and Tiger Saito became - A comma is missing.
- All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
A few more things:
- The theme of Britain's declining position in the world is also dealt with in conversations between Bond and Tanaka, Tanaka voices Fleming's own concerns about the state of Britain in the 1950s and early 60s - I feel there's something missing after the comma. Maybe an "in which"?
- Duval Smith believed that "the background is excellent ... Mr. Fleming has caught the exact 'feel' of Japan", - It should end with a full stop rather than with a comma.
- Maggie Ross, in The Listener, was also a little dissatisfied - That reads a bit weirdly, given that the previous critic was not dissatisfied.
- I think it's a bit odd how Maurice Richardson's opinion is cut in half by another paragraph.
- There are a few people who have their reviews in more than one place - I've tried to deal with the reviews more or less by themes, rather than grouping by individual reviewer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks Alavense. All done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses. It was a nice read and I think the article meets the criteria. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:You_Only_Live_Twice-Ian_Fleming.jpg: source link is dead
- File:Samurai.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
editI commented at some length at the peer review, with, on the whole, minor quibbles. All my comments were thoroughly attended to, and after another read-through now I have no further comments, and am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. Tim riley talk 14:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
editIncoming! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh was a BBC radio comedy starring Kenneth Horne and Richard Murdoch; it was one of the shows that built up Horne's reputation prior to his great successes with Beyond Our Ken and Round the Horne. This has been through a re-write in 2022 and a recent brush-up and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk - 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Don't use fixed px size
- File:Much-Binding-Sketch-1948-small.jpg: the unique historic images tag is generally only used where the image itself, rather than what is being depicted, is the subject of commentary.
- File:Much_binding_4-4_dotted.png: the tagging here doesn't make sense - it cannot be the uploader's own work. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems entirely pukka to me: DBaK has transcribed a tune into the Western musical stave. I had a go earlier, but DBak as a professional musician has polished my attempt into proper musical notation. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the points all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- A transcription would at the least be a derivative work - it's copying a creative work that already existed, rather than creating something entirely novel. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suggestions for tag invited. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- A transcription would at the least be a derivative work - it's copying a creative work that already existed, rather than creating something entirely novel. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Wehwalt
editSupport I had heard of the show because it's mentioned in one of Nevil Shute's books. Happy to review.
- Is there a reason not to spell out ITMA in the lede?
- "Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) who was on her first public appearance since the birth of her first son—Prince Charles" I understand the need to say that she later received a promotion, but if one, why not the other?
- Images: I'm dubious that a candy bar is really relevant to this, especially since I suspect the bar is of considerably later vintage.
- It's really only tangentially relevant, but it's the only image in the body of the article, apart from the music. I wouldn't be too sorry if we had to remove it, but it's nicer to break up the text a little if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The 1947 billing reads "Richard Murdoch in 'Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh', with Kenneth Horne, Sam Costa and Marilyn Williams"; by 1954 the billing was "Richard Murdoch, Kenneth Horne and Sam Costa in 'Much-Binding'".[25]" I guess the question is why no italicisation?
- That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the image - although I'm open to being pushed on that one too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't feel that strongly on the image having been in similar situations. Just thought I'd point it out. Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the image - although I'm open to being pushed on that one too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The Importance of Being Earnest is allegedly the second most quoted play in the English language, after Hamlet, and has a lot more laughs. Many editors have contributed to the article since it was promoted to GA back in 2010, and I have attempted to incorporate all cited and relevant additions into the present text as well as expanding it quite a lot and making the text as cogent as I can, with suitable sections and headings. As ever, suggestions for improvement will be received gratefully. – Tim riley talk 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- Alexander is missing alt text
- Added. Can't think how I missed that one. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Don't use fixed px size
- Now just thumb. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another editor, who no doubt knows more about these things than I do, has changed it again. Perhaps you'd check it's OK now. Tim riley talk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now just thumb. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Millard-importance-earnest.jpg: source link is dead
- Replaced with a difference image and added a fourth to the gallery, which perhaps you'd be kind enough to check. Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Wilde-1896-Toulouse-Lautrec.jpgn needs a US tag.
I can't find a specifically US tag for "Artist died more than 100 years ago". Could you advise, please? Tim riley talk 09:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)I think I see what's happened here: some helpful soul has taken "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons" to mean "Do copy this file to Wikimedia Commons". I've replaced it with a local copy, duly (I trust) tagged. Tim riley talk 10:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as ever for the review, Nikkimaria. All attended to – I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 11:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- All fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the Heaven-knows-how-many times, thank you, Nikkimaria Tim riley talk 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- All fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Ssilvers comments
editSynopsis
- "The play opens with". This is "meta" information about the play. My understanding is that, on WP, plot synopses should simply "tell the story", without any reference to stagecraft, audience, etc. unless the script calls for the stage device to be pointed out to the audience ("Pseudolus says that the ensuing story will be a comedy"). So, I believe it should start "Algernon Moncrieff, a young man about town, receives his friend...."
- "As Jack gives her his address in the country" -- I think "her" means Gwendolyn, not Bracknell? We ought to specify.
- Governess is wikilinked. Is this necessary, particularly in a plot summary?
More to come
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a Canadian pulp magazine from the 1940s that is now extremely rare. It carried no memorable fiction, but has some interest for historians of sf because it was the setting for an episode of one of science fiction fandom's early feuds, between Sam Moskowitz and Donald Wollheim, later both important figures in the field. The article is very short but I think contains everything that can be said about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
HF - support
editI'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was the Coblentz novel serialized?
- Yes; I added the details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it known why it took almost a year off after moving to the bimonthly schedule?
- Not as far as I can tell. I would guess difficulties caused by the way -- perhaps paper shortages -- but nothing I can source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "For the first four issues the format remained unchanged, and almost all the stories were by Kelley or other Canadian writers" - Ketterer's Canadian Science Fiction and Fantasy (here notes that the first six issues were "all-original" before US reprints began.
- Interesting; I hadn't seen that -- thanks for the link. I think Ketterer is wrong, though; see here -- the sixth issue included one reprinted story, "The Thought Monsters". I've added a sentence about the first five issues, citing Ketterer and also giving a note with the correction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Good work as usual; I expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Uncanny_Tales_logo.jpg seems likely simple enough to not qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Probably, but I guess there's no harm leaving the FUR in place in case someone disagrees. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Mario Party: The Top 100 is a 2017 party video game developed by NDcube and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS; it is the fifth handheld game in the Mario Party series, as well as the third and final Mario Party game for the Nintendo 3DS family of systems. I previously successfully nominated this article for GA status just over a week ago for initial suggestions. I tried to model this article after FA Mario Party DS, and although it isn't as long as that for MPDS, I feel that it is well-written and covers all necessary information about the subject. As always, I am willing to hear any feedback and implement it as needed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Mario_Party_The_Top_100.png needs a better FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have added alt text for the infobox image and revised the other file's justification to the best of my ability. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone, after some time away (partly down to being unable to access newspapers.com through TWL) I am back with yet another article on a Gillingham F.C. season. I attended most of the matches mentioned herein, and my two abiding memories of this season are being enthusiastically hugged by a total stranger when Gillingham equalised for the second time against Arsenal and the moment when a Crewe player took a penalty kick so bad that the ball hit a house outside the stadium. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
editThe article contains the following images:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jlloyd_Samuel.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jason_Brown_goalkeeper_coach_Arsenal_Ladies_Vs_Notts_County_(20054335525)_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_last_ever_game_at_Highbury.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:East_stand,_Kassam_Stadium,_Oxford_United_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1705831.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marlon_King_vs_Antwerp_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AndyHess2009.jpg
All images are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution. They are all relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. All images have alt-text but I'm not 100 % happy with some of the alt-texts. For example, the alt-text of "Jlloyd_Samuel.jpg" says "Football Jlloyd Samuel". This should presumably be "Footballer". This is also a problem for some of the other photos of the players. I would include a description of the medium, i.e. "Photo of...". The alt-text of "AndyHess2009.jpg" says "Footballer...". In this context, would it be better to describe him as a manager? The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Phlsph7: - I tweaked most of the alts, let me know what you think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that resolves the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Eem dik doun in toene
edit- "of the campaign for a transfer fee" ==> maybe add a comma between "campaign" and "for"
- "in the UK" ==> in the United Kingdom
- "After a 2–1 defeat at home to Coventry City" ==> home can be linked earlier (e.g., at "The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground" (lede) and "in a 5–0 victory for the home team")
- "distance of nearly 40 yards" ==> also convert this to metres
- "Jason Brown (pictured in 2005)" ==> this picture is from 2015
- "A week later, they lost 3–1" ==> A week later, Gillingham lost 3–1
- The image captions of "Gillingham were eliminated from the FA Cup at Arsenal Stadium." and "Gillingham won at the Kassam Stadium, home of Oxford United, with a goal in the final minute of extra time." could both do with a "(pictured in ....)"
- "and the championship of the Premier League" ==> I would shorten it to just "and the Premier League"
- "and avoiding relegation only" ==> "and avoided relegation only"
- Another great read! Had to chuckle when reading that part about the Crewe penalty miss. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: - many thanks for your review, all addressed now I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: - many thanks for your review, all addressed now I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder from NØ
editI will get to this before the weekend.--NØ 02:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The Motherland Calls is, without a doubt, the quintessential post-Soviet Russian statue. Dedicated to the Soviet soldiers that died in the Battle of Stalingrad, it depicts Mother Russia holding a sword aloft, calling out to the Soviet people to take up arms and fight against the enemy, and stands at a mammoth height of 85 meters (279 ft). Despite its cultural importance, it has faced its fair share of disrepair and poor maintenance in the many years following its dedication, and has been the subject of a number of incidents, some of which are, in my opinion, a bit funny (albeit unfortunate) to read about.
Took this to GA on July 30 - courtesy pings to Jaguarnik and Vacant0, who both assisted in the review. This is also my first non-music FAC!
- Nominator(s): 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This is my fifth featured article nomination, after doing four successful nominations on Aston Martin cars. This article is about one of the most important and influential electric vehicles of the 21st century. This is a 4,700-word article with c. 250 references, meaning it is the longest and most-referenced article I've brought here. I believe this article, however, is excellently written, well-referenced, and comprehensive, making for a great read. I plan to win the half-million award with this one, so any comments I receive i'll appreciate; and thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
edit- The Daily Telegraph described the Model S as a "car that changed the world", but Road & Track called it "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]: unfortunately, this doesn't quite hold -- the Road & Track review is specifically about the "Plaid" version, and it's from ten years later -- it's pretty clear in context that they're talking about a) a decline in quality over successive versions of the Model S and b) the fact that its competitors have gotten better. Fine for the body, with proper context, but badly misleading as presented in the lead.
- fixed. hope this is better
- It is, but now I have WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns about giving such a prominent position in the lead to a review in a single, not particularly authoritative, publication. I'd be happier if we could show that there was a broader trend whereby critics had reviewed the Model S very positively on debut but increasingly become harder on it. We're still slightly misrepresenting R&T, who do after all acknowledge the car as one of the most important ever made a sentence or so previously. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- fixed. hope this is better
- in c. 2007: abbreviations are generally a bad idea in flowing text. Why not just "around 2007"?
- done
- after a dispute with Elon Musk, the company's chief executive officer: Tesla's or Aston Martin's CEO?
- done
- Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by both Toyota and General Motors: a run-on sentence which has ended up somewhere strange: had Toyota previously been used by both Toyota and GM?
- fixed
- Constructed mostly of the aluminum: no the, but things are generally constructed from materials in English.
- my bad, fixed
- These updates typically include modifications to the motor: should maintain the past (or past perfect) tense, as in the previous sentence: either included or have typically included.
- done
- priced from $50,000 to $70,000: recommend an inflation template here, as this will increasingly be out of sync with readers' intuition as time goes on
- done
- The the in "the Fisker Karma" shouldn't be linked.
- fixed
More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I hope the article’s been a good read so far. 750h+ 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It has, though I'll admit to knowing very little about cars or Tesla. A few more:
- Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company.: Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this $875,000 is meant to have come from?
- fixed
- Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit: can we say when this happened? Was it all ongoing while the later development events happened?
- done
- Dispute between Musk and Fisker arose after the latter started his own company and began producing the Karma (pictured).: we need either a dispute or disputes here.
- done
- Both cars shared a chassis, and the engineers assessed every part of the vehicles, evaluating their positives and negatives.: this seems a bit verbose, and possibly hyperbolic: did they really evaluate every part of the vehicles (down to the cup holders?) Suggest something like evaluated different aspects of the two vehicles.
- done
- Tesla engineers initiated a project to construct another electric CLS: at this point, are we talking about "another electric car based on the CLS"? Was it really {'exactly the same thing
- they used a different CLS
- early Model S specifications: strictly speaking, Model-S should be hyphenated here as a compound modifier.
- done
- the decision to construct it entirely from aluminum was clear: not quite idiomatic English, and it's not clear in context whether the decision was obvious (a dubious statement in Wikivoice) or whether Musk said that it was.
- fixed
- To accelerate the development of the Model S, one group of engineers worked during the day, while another arrived at 9 p.m. and worked through the night, : I don't totally understand how this is necessarily faster than having two groups working at the same time on civilised hours, but that may be a problem for Musk rather than for you
- However, a month after the last car—a Corolla—rolled off the manufacturing line in April 2010: not sure the make of this car is really relevant in this article. "Rolled off the line" is a MOS:CLICHE. See, later, the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line
- fixed
- US$42 million, while Toyota invested US$50 million : as above, I would inflate these currency amounts. We don't generally add the US before $ unless there's some reasonable chance of confusion (for example, if the article also includes Canadian or Australian dollars).
- done
- completed in the basement of an office: there are quite a few possible cases of MOS:OVERLINK throughout, but I think this one is pretty undeniable -- it's the everyday meaning of an everyday word.
- fixed
- The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed: perhaps I'm missing something, but that seems obvious from the preceding sentence -- they could hardly have watched it be finished anywhere else?
- this is the launch event. Usually launch events take place at motor shows like Geneva Motor Show for example, but this one took place at the fac
- Lots of multi-cites in the Design section, and later, make reading tough going. I would suggest that some of these can probably be removed, but if we must have three citations for a sentence, can you bundle them for readability? The method used in note 3 is a bit clumsy: you could use the Refn template for a smoother way.
- fixed
- the drag coefficient as Cd=0.24: simply as 0.24, surely?
- that's the general layout (it's a template Template:Cd)
- a graphite/silicon anode, and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode: I know nothing about these, but just checking that the slash and the hyphens are meant to be different here?
- yep
- In the caption of the Model S and Model X, suggest italicising (left) and (right), as you did for (pictured) further up with the Karma vehicle. Ditto in the dashboard picture further down.
- done. i don't think the dashboard picture requires it
- extending the range by an additional 40 miles (64 km) of range.: no need for of range.
- my bad, done
- The former produces 235 kilowatts (315 hp) and 325 newton-meters (240 lb⋅ft),: would add of power and of force (torque?) as appropriate.
- done
- rear-wheel drive: either rear-wheel-drive or rear wheel–drive. I suspect there are other examples.
- done
- Intel Atom-based: endash here, not hyphen.
- done
- The 2021 Model S also introduced the "yoke" steering wheel: this makes it sound like it was the first vehicle to have one of these, which of course it wasn't, though it might have been one of the first mass-market cars to do so.
- done
- "Radar" isn't capitalised in mid-sentence.
- Autopilot uses cameras, Radar and ultrasound to detect road signs: at least since 2021, Tesla doesn't actually use the radar: our article on Tesla Autopilot has A tear down of a HW4 Model S and Model X car in 2023 revealed that they have high definition radar hardware, but the software did not use radar. Likewise, it hasn't used ultrasound for at least a year. Teslas currently drive entirely by camera, which is widely considered a problem -- it would be worth mentioning this, and the many issues that Autopilot has had, at least briefly. It's a little misleading to state all of these supposed capabilities without mentioning that they, quite famously, don't exactly work.
- For charging outside the home, Tesla has partnered with businesses to install Tesla Wall Connectors to provide a charging network called Tesla Destination: the tone of this reads a bit like a press release to me.
- the battery swap program hyphen on battery-swap.
- We've given Tesla's case that nobody was interested in battery swapping, but there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem here -- most people don't take that excuse remotely seriously; it's more that actually doing that at scale is a stupid idea, and just about everyone knew that from the beginning.
- Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle a significant portion of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: likewise, I think we need to mention what other people think of this claim. "A significant proportion" is WP:WEASELWORDS -- what counts a significant?
- In February 2014, the Automotive Science Group published a study: who are these people, and why do they get a whole paragraph for a single study? Again, I worry about DUEWEIGHT, with a side effect that primary studies are always tricky things and we should be careful about reporting them directly, before they hit the secondary literature (not a perfect analogy, but lots of the points in WP:MEDRS apply). Likewise with the UCS studies in the following paragraph, with the additional caveat that these people are a pressure group, and are not pretending to be neutral.
- The Nissan Leaf had the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any 2014 model year automobile available in North America.: why is that relevant in an article on the Model S?
- CO2: should be formatted with the 2 in subscript.
- its CO2 emissions in the United States, similar to the Model S, are equivalent to a gasoline-powered car : something has gone wrong here.
- Why does MPG get capitalised but mph -- and practically all other units -- don't?
Stopping here for now; more to follow, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tesla initially projected it would produce 1,000 units per month, aiming for a total of 5,000 units by the end of 2012. For 2013, Tesla anticipated quadrupling that. The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter. Tesla built its 1,000th Model S by October 31, 2012, and delivered 2,650 units by the end of the year. In the first half of the subsequent year, 10,050 units were delivered to customers.: this bit is a little hard to parse: I would suggest another run for clarity. Anticipated is a tricky word: here, as often, better as expected to quadruple... Do I read rightly that they missed by a lot -- they aimed for about 4,000 per month, and ended up with something like 1,700?
- The Model S was the first vehicle produced at the Fremont facility: by Tesla, as GM and Toyota had produced vehicles there earlier.
- Deliveries to the Chinese market began on April 22, 2014, followed by Hong Kong in July 2014.: we could upset a lot of people here: suggest specifying mainland Chinese.
- It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually.: it might be, but is this really due weight in an article about the car, not the factory?
- What's the meaning of the 5.7% at the bottom of the second review table?
- Per MOS:CAN'TREMEMBERBUTI'MSUREICANFINDITLATER, we should really rewrite the bulleted recalls section in prose -- in particular, I would look to draw out common threads between the recalls, the issues they highlighted with the cars and the processes behind them, and their consequences with Tesla, regulators, consumers etc.
- as both an influential and significant electric car: what distinction between influential and significant are we drawing here?
- mentioned that "the introduction of certain features, such as a yoke-style steering wheel, has distracted from the flagship sedan's underlying brilliance, as has Musk's public image: MOS:SAID applies here: this is a statement of opinion. I think we need something here about what he was going on about re. Musk's public image.
- and mainstream automakers [...] [struggled] to catch up": cut the and, surely?
- Samuel Gibbs from The Guardian: I don't have a strong opinion either way, but elsewhere we've introduced major publications as "the newspaper [name]", and here we don't. We should pick a lane.
- We have very little in the way of critical coverage of the Model S. Has any of the widespread criticism of Tesla regarding safety, sloppy manufacture and misselling of the self-driving functions been related to this car?
- White 2014 is throwing a Harvard error: I can't immediately see any citation to it.
- Personally, I would avoid redlinks, such as Automotive Science Group, in the bibliography: there, the attention they grab, in my view, outweighs their benefits.
- Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Godzilla Minus One is a 2023 monster movie by Takashi Yamazaki that won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects this year. I've put so much effort into improving this article, which was recently promoted to GA, and I believe that it is now viable for FA status. Thanks to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment from Joeyquism
editThere was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
editI will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:
- As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
- If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
- Ok
- The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
- preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
- Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
- Even worse, perhaps! But the point is clear enough, and perhaps "murders intended to terrorise the population into compliance" is a little mealy-mouthed: what we've got here works fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
- War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
- I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
- The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
- Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
- This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
- Done
- Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
- Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
- generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
- Violations of the Geneva Convention with regard to other nationalities besides Soviet and Italian were the exception. Even yugoslav Jewish soldiers were not mistreated. It's true that there were some homosexuality cases involving pows but it was rare and probably not violating the Geneva Convention.
- That's ... good, I suppose? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Violations of the Geneva Convention with regard to other nationalities besides Soviet and Italian were the exception. Even yugoslav Jewish soldiers were not mistreated. It's true that there were some homosexuality cases involving pows but it was rare and probably not violating the Geneva Convention.
- there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
- done
- Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
- As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
- Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
- the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
- I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.
More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
- None of the other books really address this topic.
- The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
- Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
- I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
- The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
- Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
- , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
- Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
- the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
- the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
- A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
- Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
- Fixed
- "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
- the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
- The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
- prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
- About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
- Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
- a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
- With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
- five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
- Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
- if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
- Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
- Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
- some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
- 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
- Fixed
- Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
- the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
- Maybe not for Soviet POWs because the cited source says "They also suffered the same privations and treatment as other Soviet prisoners". And according to another source hundreds or thousands of Soviet citizens died there.
- Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
- The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
- No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
- The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
- It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
- About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
- Only the Red Army, clarified
- German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
- who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
- While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
- That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
- classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
- Done
- Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
- It's explained in the military collaboration section. Should I repeat it here?
- According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NFREE case here is not strong.
- Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
- Non-notable authors, rephrased
- They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
- Done
- others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
- Done
- Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
- Rewrote
That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
People who grew up in the UK might remember attending an infant school or the "infants" of their primary school. What they might not be aware of is that the concept has a long and complicated history; stretching from New York to New Zealand.
This is my second featured nomination. The article has recently been promoted to good status (See:Talk:Infant school/GA1). Thank you to anyone who decides to review it.Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
edit- Since the movement began in Scotland, could some lead mention be done as to whether infant schools flourished in Scotland?
- Frustratingly, I haven't been able to find much information about Scotland. Charitable infant schools certainly existed there in the early part of the movement but Scotland seems to drop out of the story at the middle of the 19th century. Presumably infant schools weren't adopted into the state system there to the same extent.--Llewee (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a complete picture but I have added more information about the history in Scotland into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- According to David Salmon and Winifred Hindshaw," What is their profession?
- The source says they were as senior staff at a teacher training college. I have described them as "educationalists in the early 20th century".--Llewee (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "manager Robert Owen". Is manager the proper term or was the the owner or some such?
- The source says manager. I have added some additional detail and dealt with the false title issue.--Llewee (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "He saw child labour as damaging and forbid children under the age of ten from working in his factory." Should forbid be forbade.
- done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Various other figures — including Robert Pole, David Goyder, William Wilson, William Allen and Thomas Bilby — also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject." Given that these are apparently not notable, though I did not check, are they worth naming?
- Taken them out, Goyder comes up in the US section but mentioning him here doesn't really add much additional info.--Llewee (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Academic David Turner" this and also Owen above, I thought false titles were disfavoured in British English?
- tweaked wording--Llewee (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "T.B Stephens" Is this properly punctuated?
- Changed to "T.B."--Llewee (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "making it easier for them to pay infant schools relatively low fees.[47]" An apostrophe somewhere, likely after schools
- reworded sentence--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The number of children under seven in schools for older children also rose." I'm not a fan of having "also rose" refer back to a previous section. Perhaps begin, "Like workers' wages, the number of ..."
- I've changed "also rose" to "increased".--Llewee (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "it would be sometime" some time?
- done--Llewee (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Some teachers failed to teach reading to poorer pupils, with no reason to develop an interest in the subject outside of school. " This sentence doesn't read as complete.
- Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "For instance, an employee of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy later wrote in his memoirs:" He appears to have been president of the Board of Education (and earlier, parliamentary secretary), which are political positions held by members of Parliament. He was not an employee.
- Sorry I missed this one, changed to "political appointment".--Llewee (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Infant-stage children solving puzzles at a school in Dominion of New Zealand (c. 1900 – c. 1947)" I would omit "Dominion of".
- done--Llewee (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In order to encourage the freed workers to remain working there and spread Christianity among their children." Not a sentence.
- Combined with previous sentence.--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- the owners power: missing apostrophe
- reworded--Llewee (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a system of state funded schooling in Ireland " redirects to Stanley letter. WP:EASTEREGG would seem to have some relevance.
- I've changed the link to "establish a system" to try to make clearer what the linked article is about.--Llewee (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised throughout the Ireland section, there is no mention of religion.
- The Catholic Church is mentioned a lot in the book. I've added more information about its influence into the article but I'm trying to keep the focus on topics that are specifically relevant to infant schools/classes.--Llewee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "skepticism". I thought this was "scepticism" in BrEng.
- Yes, changed--Llewee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Overtime maybe over time
- done--Llewee (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's it for now. I guess what strikes me at first glance is that this seems mostly about the past, the history, without much discussion of what present-day infant schools are like. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt I think less information specific to infant schools exists for more recent times because they have gradually lost some of their separate identity. I have tried to flesh out the "part of primary education" section with more information.--Llewee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review by Generalissima
editSome general notes:
- I'm not sure thefreedictionary.com is the best source to use for the first ref; also, Collins and Merriam-Webster both state that its simply in use "in the UK". Since these have at least some history in Scotland, I think that'll be better to use.
- I have tidied up the terminology section and added a few dictionary sources.--Llewee (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ref 98 has an error that needs fixing.
- done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Grimshaw (1931) and Morgan (1936) needs the publisher put in title case.
- done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Capitalise Co in Longmans, Green, and Co.
- done--Llewee (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- You wikilink RTE News in bibliography, but not BBC News. Try for consistency one way or another here.
- done--Llewee (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of your sources aren't in title case and need to be converted to such; Garland, Keane et al, Lehane, Lewis, Pence, and Salmon.
- done--Llewee (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- University of Wales Press needs a location (Cardiff), as does Palgrave Macmillan (London), Routledge (Abingdon), Peter Lang (Laussane), and Taylor & Francis (Milton Park). Alternatively, remove location from all the cites that have it.
- Taken out the existing locations.--Llewee (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- You need to wikilink either all publishers or none of them.
- I think I have got all the ones that have articles now.--Llewee (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Take "others=Internet Archive" out of the Pence cite. They didn't make the book. Also take out the via, since you (rightfully) Yaren't saying Via Jstor for the JSTOR cites.
- done--Llewee (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Add a space between the initials T.B Turner.
- done--Llewee (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- May et al Doesn't have an ISBN.
- added--Llewee (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is a very broad article in a field thats well-studied, so obviously we can't use all sourcing. I do feel like you're underusing modern educational journal articles though, and there might be some good ones we can find. Some sources that came up from a search which might be useful:
- Shannon, R. L., & Shannon, D. M. (1992). The British Infant School: A Reconsideration. The Educational Forum, 56(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729109335177 - Good sourcing for its influence outside of the UK.
- Monks, Claire P., and Sarah O’Toole. "Bullying in preschool and infant school." The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention 2 (2021): 2-19.
- Burger, Kaspar. "Entanglement and transnational transfer in the history of infant schools in Great Britain and salles d’asile in France, 1816–1881." History of Education 43, no. 3 (2014): 304-333.
- Luc, Jean-Noël. "The spread of infant school models in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century." In The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, pp. 31-50. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
- Raveaud, Maroussia. "Assessment in French and English infant schools: assessing the work, the child or the culture?." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11, no. 2 (2004): 193-211.
- Blatchford, Peter, Viv Moriarty, Suzanne Edmonds, and Clare Martin. "Relationships between class size and teaching: A multimethod analysis of English infant schools." American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 1 (2002): 101-132.
That's about it for now. Let me know when you want me to take a second look, @Llewee:. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Generalissima, I have responded to each of your points now and expanded the article with information from journals. I hope you will be able to have another look when you have time.--Llewee (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:British_Central_School_Borough_Road.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Infant_gallery.png, File:Beckside_Infants_c.1900s_(archive_ref_DDPD-2-2-8)_(25384528296).jpg, File:First_Infant_School_in_Green_Street,_New_York_MET_MM82866.jpg
- The second image is from a book published in 1840 (See:https://archive.org/details/asystemforeduca00wildgoog/page/n130/mode/1up). I will have a look for the other ones in a moment.--Llewee (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found this which says the first image was published in 1834 in London.--Llewee (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about the third. I'm not sure if it was ever published before it was released on Flickr.--Llewee (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I assumed the fourth one was 1828 in New York based on the information in the Wikicommons page and source.--Llewee (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Which_is_your_Right_Hand%3F_A_study_in_an_Infant_School._(Graphic,_1898).jpg: copyright terms turn over on the new year, so life+100 tagging won't be correct until 1 January 2025.
- Changed to 95--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:The_dog_(BM_1846,1219.12).jpg: the permission field and the licensing tags are contradictory here - NC images are considered non-free for our purposes
- The British museum gives this information on how to use it which links to CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 does that mean it's not available to use?--Llewee (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:The_Infant_Model_School,_with_Owen's_Original_clocktower.png: what is the specific source?
- This museum website says it was from The Teacher's Manual for Infant Schools and Preparatory Classes but I can't find the image in this copy of the book.--Llewee (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, not an image issue, but I would suggest a thorough review of the article for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
750h
editWill review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- lead
- make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
- The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
- The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"
- background and recording
- came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
- Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
- between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
- on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"
- music and themes
- merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)
- release and reception
- droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"
That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Just before Christmas in 2016, dozens of people in the Russian city of Irkutsk woke up to discover that they could no longer see. Others never woke at all.
It quickly became clear that these people were suffering from methanol poisoning after drinking a contaminated batch of unregulated surrogate alcohol. In the end, 74 people died—a toll that the Associated Press called "unprecedented in its scale"—and the Russian government took a few actions to try to prevent it from happening again.
I wrote the original draft of this article in 2016 after I read this New York Times article. I successfully nominated it for ITN in the same month and GA in mid-2017. I'm looking forward to any comments you might share. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Sodium
edit- Shouldn't the first section be named something like "Background"
- Done
- Nikishin,
thea vodka historian -- Also define a "vodka historian", that's not a phrase most people associate with a profession"The" is meant to refer to the earlier mention of Nikishin. I adopted that phrasing from news articles because I liked how it split the difference between repeating full names and professions vs. hoping people remembered the first reference.Would refactoring "vodka historian" as "historian of vodka" make things more clear?- I ended up cutting one of the two quotes after I wrote the answer above, so I struck that part. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure about the fact that the concept of methanol poisoning is defined in the article after two or three references to methanol poisoning itself.
- I struggled with this one. I definitely see where you're coming from, but the background section is discussing the issues related to alcoholism and surrogate alcohols in Russia—not necessarily methanol poisoning. I did remove one sentence that improperly conflated the two, and I'm open to removing the rest of the info given about alcohol poisoning. That's different from methanol poisoning and may be confusing to readers in this context.
- The two alcohols are similar in many respects and cannot readily be distinguished, and their contents differed from the labels on the bottles, which indicated that they contained ethanol. An investigation later revealed that the methanol was usually used in the local production of windshield washer fluid, known locally as antifreeze. I'm confused here, were the bottles mislabelled or was it that windshield washer fluid was used because it was cheaper (as you mention in paragraphs before) ?
- Both. The bad batch was placed into the standard bath oil bottles, which were labeled as containing ethanol.
- Who conducted said investigation ?
- Fixed. It was the government.
- A picture of ethanol v/s methanol bottles would drive the point home for the first paragraph of the "Events" section
If I'm understanding this ask correctly, we unfortunately don't have freely licensed photos of these bottles. That's why I used {{external media}} near the top. The ethanol and methanol bottles were the same per above.Never mind. I assume you mean a photo of ethanol vs. methanol to drive home how similar they are. There isn't anything on Commons in one photo, but I've reached out to WP:CHEMISTRY.- A member there has offered to get a picture of the two substances side-by-side. Thanks for the idea, Sohom Datta! Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- drinking too much non-fraudulent ethanol-based bath oil Whether or not this incident was caused by actual fraud is explicitly never addressed in the article, I would advise you to figure that out and tweak the wording of this sentence or add more context accordingly.
- Fixed. This was a really good flag, and I can't believe I didn't see this myself!
- Of the remainder, a problem in attempting to treat them was that fomepizole, a methanol antidote, is not certified for use in Russia and is therefore not available in the country's hospitals. This sentence feels stilted
- Fixed, I hope.
Overall,the victims included teachers, nurses, and drivers; The New York Times described the majority as holding "steady if low-paying jobs".- Fixed.
- What is "counterfeit oil" in About 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining counterfeit oil were seized from the underground facility where it had been produced, does it refer to the methanol laced oil or the bath oil which turned into vodka in general ?
- The former. I hope this is now fixed; I discovered that I had read the reference wrong and that the 500 liters were seized from local shops in addition to authorities discovering the underground facility.
- Hello Sohom Datta and thanks so much for giving this a read. I've left comments inline above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review from Nikkimaria
edit- Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done and thanks, Nikkimaria. I'd thought I'd done so before but typo'd the |upright=. I also updated the map to one from the same place but better sourcing. It's explicitly CC BY 4.0. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- FYI Nikkimaria, I've added a new image courtesy of DMacks over at WP:CHEM. It was taken by DMacks, so I don't expect it to cause a copyright issue. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
edit- Instead of "the Associated Press news agency" statement, we should have our own Wikipedia statement on whether this was the biggest mass poisoning in (Russia). THough it could be used as a reference.
I have not seen a reference that compares mass poisonings in Russia, unfortunately, and for methanol specifically List of methanol poisoning incidents#Russia only shows several other incidents from 2021 and 2023. The full quote is: "Poisonings caused by cheap surrogate alcohol are a regular occurrence, but the Irkutsk case was unprecedented in its scale." I've expanded the lead and better clarified what the quote is referring to?- Never mind. Thanks to the Russian Wikipedia, I've now added that this was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could explain that "Боярышник" means hawthorn.
- Done.
- A quote from Alexander Nikishin should probably be reworded in Wikipedia voice.
- Done.
- 4 deaths → four deaths MOS:NUM
- Done.
- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you—I really appreciate the thorough review and time you spent reading the article. I've responded inline above. I also would love to confirm with you that this newly added/tweaked sentence is accurate: "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve." 'Nerve toxins' is the phrase used by DW, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't being used improperly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
edit- The number of affected people could go in the lead.
- Done.
According to early reports on 19 December, a total of 57 people were hospitalized
- Is this the earliest known point at which people fell ill? It's not entirely clear over what kind of time span the poisonings unfolded.- Thanks for pushing me on this. Previously, all the sources I'd seen didn't give an exact date... or so I thought, as this journal article did give a start date. I've added it.
In the immediate aftermath of the poisoning, a state of emergency was declared.
- Who declared the state of emergency? Was it municipal authorities, the Siberian regional government, or a higher power? That would eliminate the passive voice, too. I would also include the date.- It was the mayor of Irkutsk! Good catch.
- The article defines Rospotrebnadzor as the federal consumer rights protection agency in both the Background section and the Aftermath section. The latter definition can probably be removed!
I'm split on this. There's a big gap between mention #1 and #2, and I don't like to assume that readers go through articles in order from top to bottom.- Never mind that last. Per the comments below, I removed the first mention of Rospotrebnadzor. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Overall, a solid article! — Penitentes (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Penitentes: Thanks so much for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded to your comments inline. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from BorgQueen
editIt was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history,
– By worst, don't you mean deadliest? BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- Yup. And so that's now changed. Thanks, BorgQueen. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
editAn interesting story -- maybe short of a full review, but some things that stuck out to me as I read:
- Make sure that Russian and transliterated text are in the appropriate templates, for the benefit of screen readers.
- Done.
- Russia's government agency devoted to consumer protection, Rospotrebnadzor, recorded about 36,000 such poisonings in the first nine months of 2016, resulting in over 9,000 deaths.: we need to put this figure in context -- how did that compare with previous figures? How much confidence do we have that Putin's government would report this accurately?
- I included this as a way of showing the scale of the problem, and not to prove the preceding statement around increasing deaths over time. I'm open to removing it. To your second question, in several areas of the article I've tried to be very specific when the information's source is either the state or state-owned media.
- Even just to show the scale, it needs some kind of context -- it's obviously a big number, and a single death is a tragedy, but 9,000 deaths a year in Wales would be a different proposition to 9,000 deaths in China. I think showing change over time would be one good way to do this: otherwise, was this the largest in the world? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I decided to remove this in place of a note around alcohol poisonings being generally high in Russia prior to the increase. I went looking for additional sources to contexualize it, but then I found that the WHO said in 2018 that "The measurement of alcohol poisoning deaths may be affected by the miscoding of alcohol poisonings as cardiovascular diseases [...] however, the miscoding of alcohol poisonings appears to be limited to the former Soviet Union". So the direct-from-government stats I was quoting are likely to be quite wrong anyway. (The new addition cites the study the WHO cited.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even just to show the scale, it needs some kind of context -- it's obviously a big number, and a single death is a tragedy, but 9,000 deaths a year in Wales would be a different proposition to 9,000 deaths in China. I think showing change over time would be one good way to do this: otherwise, was this the largest in the world? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I included this as a way of showing the scale of the problem, and not to prove the preceding statement around increasing deaths over time. I'm open to removing it. To your second question, in several areas of the article I've tried to be very specific when the information's source is either the state or state-owned media.
- bath oil named boyaryshnik or Боярышник, after its hawthorn scent: I think we need to spell out that Боярышник is the Russian for 'hawthorn'.
- I believe this is fixed. I was trying to avoid repeating "hawthorn", but you were right to question the phrasing and I'm struggling to find a better solution.
- Everybody knew that it was not bath oil", one individual later told the US newspaper The New York Times. "That label was just meant to fend off the inspectors": who is this individual? What gives them the authority to make such a sweeping pronouncement?
- The quote is from a local that does not have any authority on their own, so I omitted the name. I decided to include it in relying on the editorial judgement of Neil MacFarquhar, who was The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief at the time and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017 for reports about Russia. I don't believe MacFarquhar would have included the quote if it wasn't effectively true.
- I'm not happy here, I'm afraid. Journalists include sometimes quotations because they're authoritative, sure, but they also include them to add flavour, to be seen to be presenting the views of local people, or even to distance themselves from the views put forward -- it may be significant, for example, that MacFarquhar chose not to write, in his own voice, "everyone in Russia knows that the bath oil is meant to be drunk". However, I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find another source which does say that people were selling drinking alcohol as other plausibly-deniable products in Russia at this time, and that this was widely known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- MacFarquhar did write that in his own voice. :-p Specifically, he said: "[...] it was common knowledge that bootleggers produced the rotgut specifically as poor man's vodka". I've removed the quote and left the citation intact, as the other part of the article's preceding sentence is covered by another part of the NYT piece: "They felt they were being scapegoated for the illicit vodka trade, which the police had long tolerated, if not controlled". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not happy here, I'm afraid. Journalists include sometimes quotations because they're authoritative, sure, but they also include them to add flavour, to be seen to be presenting the views of local people, or even to distance themselves from the views put forward -- it may be significant, for example, that MacFarquhar chose not to write, in his own voice, "everyone in Russia knows that the bath oil is meant to be drunk". However, I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find another source which does say that people were selling drinking alcohol as other plausibly-deniable products in Russia at this time, and that this was widely known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The quote is from a local that does not have any authority on their own, so I omitted the name. I decided to include it in relying on the editorial judgement of Neil MacFarquhar, who was The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief at the time and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017 for reports about Russia. I don't believe MacFarquhar would have included the quote if it wasn't effectively true.
- Footnotes need citations.
- I can easily find some, but my suspicion is that simple chemical formulas and common names are WP:SKYISBLUE territory.
- Maybe, but WP:SKYBLUE is an essay, and personally I'm much more of a fan of WP:DOCITEBLUE -- if it's really so obvious, it should be easy enough to find somewhere in print. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can easily find some, but my suspicion is that simple chemical formulas and common names are WP:SKYISBLUE territory.
- As days went by, subsequent reports increased the number of impacted people: I notice that each of these reports comes from a different source, so it's not easy to differentiate change over time versus different sources/counting methods/reliability/whatever of different news organisations.
- I've rewritten this paragraph to use only sources that explicitly cited the local health ministry in their articles. I feel pretty confident that's the source the previous sources were using too, as none of them said they were counting in other ways, but WP:V is better satisfied in the new formulation. Thanks for calling this out!
- We have a couple of figures given in roubles: it would help to give a sense to non-Russian readers of how much money these represent.
- Done. {{To USD}} is a great template, or I've filled in conversions directly from the sources. If you were actually hoping to see inflation-adjusted figures, I don't think {{inflation}} can handle cross-currency conversions. I might be able to use something like Measuring Worth with citations?
- Lots here relies on news sources from inside the news cycle, which have their concerns. Can we pull some of that information from more retrospective studies instead?
- Solid portions rely on things published outside the news cycle. The two most significant sources used in the article are the retrospective New York Times MacFarquhar piece (15 calls) and an academic piece to give this significant attention (9 calls, +1 more with info from its appendix; I could add more citations to a table that provides a bullet list of Russian government actions during/after the poisoning, but in most cases the news articles provided more detail.). I'd also call out the Deutsche Welle article, which was published a week after the poisonings began and deliberately takes a step back to give a wide view of the incident.
- Overall, I would argue that the in-cycle news sources are appropriately used. Many are in the incident section, as you might expect, and in the aftermath section for things like legal cases and politician pronouncements. Others have been mined for the background info they provided, thereby acting as a secondary source in that context. I'd also note that I've dropped sources that made errors while trying to catch the cycle (NPR and the now-defunct Siberian Times). That said, I've gone through to trim unnecessary references, most of which were news cycle-specific.
- An update here a day later: I did additional digging for retrospective resources and came across a Siberian Medical Journal article in the references of another article. That hadn't shown up in my prior searching, but I've now integrated it into the article. Of note, it gives two numbers for the death toll, so I've explained the source discrepancy in a new footnote. I've also added two academic articles from 2018. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the Lachenmeier article doing in Further Reading? What does it add that hasn't been incorporated into the article?
- I don't seem to have access to this article any more. My memory is that while it was a research synthesis follow-up on unrecorded alcohol use in Russia by the same authors as the main academic source on this poisoning, it did not have any info that I wanted to add to the article proper. I don't mind removing it if you feel strongly.
- No, I think that's a very good use of Further Reading -- an article which isn't mission-critical, but which would add value if a future editor can access it and incorporate it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't seem to have access to this article any more. My memory is that while it was a research synthesis follow-up on unrecorded alcohol use in Russia by the same authors as the main academic source on this poisoning, it did not have any info that I wanted to add to the article proper. I don't mind removing it if you feel strongly.
- Similarly, why the link to Khodorkovsky's blog?
- My thinking was it met WP:ELMAYBE #4. It's not a reliable source, but a then-prominent opposition politician's voice felt worthy of inclusion somewhere. That said, I have even less attachment to this link than the further reading one, so I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly.
- We might do well to incorporate it into the text -- to say "Khodorkovsky, a prominent opposition politician, said...", and link it as a source. Even better if someone else has got there first and reported the remarks at second hand, so we can then cite it to that reliable source and say "K. made his remarks on his blog, at [this place]" UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Y'know, the note around secondary sourcing got me thinking. As far as I can tell, Khodorkovsky's article had effectively no impact. I searched and found exactly one public post on Facebook and zero on the website formerly known as Twitter. There may have been mentions in Russian opposition reporting or social media that I can't easily search for without knowing the language, but without evidence of that I removed the link. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- We might do well to incorporate it into the text -- to say "Khodorkovsky, a prominent opposition politician, said...", and link it as a source. Even better if someone else has got there first and reported the remarks at second hand, so we can then cite it to that reliable source and say "K. made his remarks on his blog, at [this place]" UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- My thinking was it met WP:ELMAYBE #4. It's not a reliable source, but a then-prominent opposition politician's voice felt worthy of inclusion somewhere. That said, I have even less attachment to this link than the further reading one, so I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly.
UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, UndercoverClassicist! You said that this wasn't a full review, but you nevertheless hit on some great points that I'm grateful for. You can find inline replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. I dropped more replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nice one -- a small issue, but the map in the infobox currently looks very odd indeed with the frame-within-a-frame, at least on my screen. I did have a go at fixing, but no success. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: I'd noticed that too and couldn't address it. Thankfully, it appears to only be a desktop issue—I'm not seeing it on the mobile version or the Android app. Even on desktop, though, I think it still looks better and gives better context (through interactivity) than a location map. I'll ask Module talk:Mapframe and see if there's a solution we're missing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't claim to actually understand all the inscrutable maplink attributes, but I cargo-culted what has worked for me in the past and that seems to have fixed it. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, RoySmith! I can't believe I missed the
|plain=
parameter that is almost at the top of Template:Maplink#Usage... sigh. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, RoySmith! I can't believe I missed the
- I can't claim to actually understand all the inscrutable maplink attributes, but I cargo-culted what has worked for me in the past and that seems to have fixed it. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: I'd noticed that too and couldn't address it. Thankfully, it appears to only be a desktop issue—I'm not seeing it on the mobile version or the Android app. Even on desktop, though, I think it still looks better and gives better context (through interactivity) than a location map. I'll ask Module talk:Mapframe and see if there's a solution we're missing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from RoySmith
editJust a few things I see quickly. I may or may not come back for a full review.
Paychecks totaling around 15,000 rubles (about US$246 in 2016) were common
is that per week?- The source doesn't specify. Indulging in a little OR, Russian law specifies that you have to be paid at least every two weeks, and this old article revision at List of Russian federal subjects by average wage says that the average monthly wage in the region was $652 as of 2020. So I'm thinking it's biweekly, but I don't think I can add that.
Russia remained as one of the highest consumers per capita in the world
that should say "highest consumers of alcohol ...". Also that's immediately followed by "an average yearly consumption of 11.7 liters". The first sentence is talking about the country, the next sentence switches to per-person, so you should say that.- Fixed.
even amidst the declining economic situation
I'm not sure "even" adds anything.- Fixed.
Experts estimated ... Other experts estimated
we've got a lot of anonymous experts. Would it be possible to specify who, specifically, is doing the estimating?- The New York Times doesn't attribute their expert figure, while RBC attributes Federal Service for Alcohol Market Regulation numbers on surrogate alcohols consumed, then compares them to Federal State Statistics Service (Russia) on overall alcohol retail sales. For the second sentence, The Long Hangover doesn't attribute their expert, and The Moscow Times attributes "Vadim Drobiz, the head of the Center for Federal and Regional Alcohol Market Studies, an independent think tank." That's why I left it all generalized, but I'm open to reworking these sentences to get more specific if you'd like.
- I'd move File:Total alcohol consumption per capita - litres of pure alcohol - 2015.png down so it lines up with the start of the paragraph
At the same time, Russia remained ...
- Done.
caused by a fraudulently produced batch
fraudulently produced or fraudulently lableled?- Both, really. I've removed "produced".
nerve toxins
-> neurotoxins?- The source says "nerve toxins", and I've left a question for Graham above on whether that's an appropriate phrase to use.
and 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining fraudulent bath oil from around 100 retailers in the Irkutsk area
there's no verb here.- Ah! Whoops. Thanks and fixed.
Twenty-three people involved in the production of the oil ... including ... police officers, and a senior regional government official
this makes it sound like the police officers and the government official were involved in the production. Or maybe that was indeed the case?- Not the case. I've copyedited the sentence.
- Thanks for your comments, RoySmith! I've left inline replies above and hope you decide to come back to review the whole thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- (i wouldn't say "little-known", it has 1.6 billion views on YouTube, but that's irrelevant) 750h+ 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
edit- The following sentence is not grammatically correct: (A pop song with hip hop beats and keyboards, the lyrics are about betrayal by a close friend.) It is describing the lyrics as "a pop song ..." and not the song itself so it would need to be revised.
- Since Taylor Swift and Kendrick Lamar are identified with their nationalities, shouldn't the same be done for Max Martin and Shellback (i.e. saying "the Swedish producers" as opposed to just "the producers"). It would be best to be consistent.
- Apologies in advance if I am just overlooking this, but I was curious about this part, (demonstrated a new aspect of Swift's artistry), and I could not really locate it in the "Critical reception" section. Could you clarify where this is supported? I see positive reviews describing "Bad Blood" as a 1989 highlight, but I do not see any larger consensus to support the "new aspect" discussed in the lead.
- I am uncertain about the following in the lead, (featured among the best songs of 2015 on lists by NME and PopMatters). Are these two specific lists notable enough to highlight in the lead?
- For this part, (consisting of many singers, actresses, and fashion models), I would cut "many" as it comes across more as a filler word. I can understand that it is likely there to convey just how many people are crammed into the video, but I think that readers can understand that without the "some".
- Shouldn't the Ryan Adams cover be mentioned in the lead as it does have its own section?
- Apologies for not catching this in previous FACs, but I have a comment about this part, (Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician). The source describes Swift as "the country/pop star", but I do not see where it says that Swift herself identified as a country singer until releasing Red. I think a stronger source will be needed to support this information unless I am overlooking something in the current citation.
- Why is Ilya used for the lead and infobox but Ilya Salmanzadeh used in the article?
- I am uncertain about the current prose and structure for the "Critical reception" section. I've never been any good with this type of section, and I do see and appreciate that the paragraphs have distinct topics, but parts do come off more as a listing of critics and their quotes. I was wondering if there could be a way to make this more cohesive. I think the quotes stand out to me the most as they are used in almost every sentence.
- I am a bit confused by the WP:FUR for File:Bad blood taylor video.png. The rationale points out that it is "a single look in a very fashion-oriented video", but is fashion really one of the main reason for its inclusion? While looking at the caption and the section, I'd think the screenshot is more so about the "squad" and action movie vibes.
- For this part, (consisting of female singers and fashion models), shouldn't it include "actresses" to both match the lead and better represent the video (as people like Ellen Pompeo are neither a singer nor a model).
- I remember that the video for "Bitch I'm Madonna" received a lot of comparisons to the one for "Bad Blood". I think that information would be beneficial here as it would show the impact that this particular video had.
- There have been other parody versions of this song (i.e." Good Blood", a tampon-related one, one from the show Great News, and another about motherhood). It is probably worth looking into this further to make sure it is comprehensive.
- For this part, (and that he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective), I would avoid sing / songs in the same sentence.
- I am a bit uncertain about this sentence: (Swift expressed her attitude towards Lamar on social media and called the event "surreal and bewildering".) It seems a tad overly wordy and I am not sure about calling this an "event".
- The article says that Taylor's Version has an identical arrangement to the original and then goes on to discuss the differences so it seems a bit contradictory.
- This citation is missing the publication date: here.
- These citations are missing the author: here, here, here, and here
- This citation is no longer active: here
For clarity, I am working from this version of the article. I hope that this review is helpful. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will read through the article more thoroughly to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope that you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: thanks very much for your comments. I likewise hope that you are doing well :) Let me get back to you asap. Ippantekina (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder
editI will take a look at this one but it's probably best if I wait till all of Aoba's comments are addressed so that I don't duplicate things they said..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
John Silva Meehan was the fourth Librarian of Congress, serving for the three decades prior to the Civil War. The library was a pretty low-key institution at this time; only under Librarian Spofford did it truly become a "national library", and Meehan has received a fair bit of criticism for not getting the ball rolling on this beforehand. Prior to his librarian service, he had a brief and ultimately unsuccessful career as a partisan newspaper editor. I hope this is an enjoyable read to you all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
HF - support
editI'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- "he moved to Burlington, New Jersey to work as a printer " - while I disagree with it strongly, MOS:GEOCOMMA is part of the manual of style, so there should be a comma after New Jersey
- Oops, fixed. - G
- "Watterston was later described as having been a "librarian of one side of the aisle"" - by whom? The extent to which this quote can be taken at face value depends on if this is the conclusion of a modern historian, or if this is another Duff Green commentary
- Added attribution. - G
- "wished to hire an assistant editor at a significant lower rate than what he had agreed for Meehan" - while yes, this is true, I would argue that the use of "significant" here consitutes a form of original research, as we're only given the rates of $1,200 and $800.
- Removed the word significant.
- Our article on the City of Washington Gazette attributes the renaming to the United States' Telegraph to Meehan, but this renaming is never directly addressed in this article - can a simple statement that Meehan changed the name be sourced?
- Done. - G
- Is the correct spelling "Wharton" or "Warton" for his son's middle name? It looks like Nappo uses "Warton", but McDonough uses "Wharton"
- I've found a contemporary source that uses Wharton, so switching to that.
- McDonough states on page 12 that Meehan had a "reputation as a careful and precise businessman" and that he was thus asked to be the bookkeeper for several unrelated thimgs - is this worth mentioning alongside the Johnston quote?
- Ooh, great idea! Since this was describing his contemporary reputation, I incorporated it into a paragraph further up into the article. - G
That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Okay! I think that's about everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Silva_meehan.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:James_Alfred_Pearce,_standing.jpg, File:Library_of_Congress_1853_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Silva_meehan.jpg - 1904, added.
- Cannot find any evidence of the latter two being published. Corrected licensing. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
NØ
editNot a subject matter expert so I am just focusing on prose.
- "After the firm moved to Washington, D.C., in early 1822, Meehan begun editing and publishing the Baptist weekly newspaper The Columbian Star." - Should this not be "began" instead?
- Good catch, fixed. - G
- "He attended school in New York, and later entered work as a printer." - There's a WP:CINS issue here which could be fixed by removing the comma.
- Fixed. - G
- Would a link to Baptists somewhere be overlinking?
- Found a spot! - G
- "He would leave the paper himself six months later, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing." - nitpicky on my part but is this a better way to put it?: "Six months later, he would leave the paper himself, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing."
- I think so, fixed. - G
- "Meehan diligently produced various "want lists" based on earlier catalogs." - It might be a good idea to have a reference directly present at the end of this sentence since there's a quote.
- Added. - G
- There are no major problems with the article from the areas that I analyzed it. Along with the prose, I also checked the alt texts and they look good and succinct. Good work!--NØ 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: Thank you very much! Made fixes as requested. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will go through it again later.--NØ 05:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
editI'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. These are my initial comments:
So there are several mentions of "Librarian of Congress" that do not conform with MOS:JOBTITLES. Instances of this I could find are:"the fourth Librarian of Congress" -> "the fourth librarian of Congress"."the Librarian of Congress since 1815" -> "the librarian of Congress since 1815"."Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as Librarian." -> "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as librarian.""from the Joint Committee to the Librarian of Congress" -> "from the Joint Committee to the librarian of Congress""Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new Librarian of Congress troubled Meehan." -> "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new librarian of Congress troubled Meehan.""asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as librarian" -> "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as Librarian""Meehan additionally served as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Columbian College." -> "Meehan additionally served as the secretary of the board of trustees of the Baptist Columbian College."- Done. - G
Names with initials should have non-breaking spaces between the initials as per MOS:INITIALS. E.g. "C. H. Wharton Meehan" should be "C. H. Wharton Meehan", "E. B. Stelle" should be "E. B. Stelle", and "G. P. A. Healy" should be "G. P. A. Healy" instead (look at the wikitext).- Fixed. - G
"remained unimplemented" -> "were not implemented".- Fixed. - G
Does Librarian of Congress need to be linked twice in the lead?- Fixed. - G
There is a citation error with one of the journals.- Fixed. - G
There is an inconsistency between "U.S. Navy Agent" and "US" in the infobox.- Fixed. - G
Baptist can be linked in the lead.- Done. - G
"In January 1815, he returned to New York" -> "In January 1815, Meehan returned to New York".- Fixed. - G
"In Philadelphia, he partnered" -> "In Philadelphia, Meehan partnered"- Fixed. - G
"and the Luminary was shifted to a monthly publication." What was it before that?- Five times a year; added. - G
"The two also served as the chief editors" -> "The two served as the chief editors".- Fixed. - G
"Rev. James D. Knowles." Does rev stand for reverend? If so, can it be written out in full: "Reverend James D. Knowles".- Done. -G
Steelkamp (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp: Okay! I think that's all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Washington D.C." -> "Washington, D.C."
- "using notes endorsed by John Peter Van Ness". Is this referring to banknotes? And what does "endorsed" mean exactly?
- "the most sacred principles of the Constitution". Maybe link Constitution of the United States.
- "1824 presidential election". Maybe link 1824 United States presidential election.
- In what way did the election of Adams and the appointment of Clay violate the most sacred principles of the Constitution?
- Does "Anti-Jacksonian" typically have a capital "A"? There are three instances of it with the "A" capitalised and one instance where it is not.
- "describing him as the "abused citizen"" -> "describing him as an "abused citizen""
- "above the political games and corruption that he attributed to the Adams administration." Who is doing the attributing? Meehan or Jackson?
- "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson in April 23, 1829" -> "Green wrote to Andrew Jackson on April 23, 1829".
- The Library of Congress is not linked in the body. Can a link to that page be fit in somewhere?
- "through multiple Whig presidencies". Can Whig Party (United States) be linked?
- "often not meeting or failing to achieve quorum." -> "often not meeting or failing to achieve a quorum."
- "Joint Committee was generally" -> "The Joint Committee was generally".
- "with specific funds funding the republication" -> "with specific funds for the republication".
- "seeking plant specimens to plant in their home gardens." -> "seeking plant specimens for their home gardens."
- I think the photo of Alexandre Vattemare should be moved down one paragraph so that it's directly next to the paragraph that he is mentioned in.
- A non-breaking space should be added to "8:00 am" and "11:00 am" as per MOS:TIME.
- "spring of 1853." This should be replaced with a month range or year quarter as per MOS:SEASON.
- Link Smithsonian upon its first mention instead.
- "still in affect" -> "still in effect".
- "Rumors that Franklin Pierce". Should be mentioned that Pierce was the president.
- 1860 United States presidential election is linked in the lead but not the body?
Those are all the comments I have. Overall, this is a well written and engaging article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp: Thank you very much for the thorough review! I think I made all the new requested fixes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great! Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Hurricane Cindy, the first of several hurricanes to hit the United States during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Cindy caused a fair amount of damage, including to the Atlanta Motor Speedway from a tornado, as well as the largest power outage for Entergy, the energy company responsible for Louisiana/Mississippi region. Of course, this whole area would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina just a month and a half later. As a weird bit of foreshadowing, there were five parishes in Louisiana that were declared disaster areas on August 23... the same day that Hurricane Katrina formed. Cindy wasn't all that bad compared to the later storms, but it was still significant enough to warrant having an article.
Thanks to edits from Zzzs (talk · contribs) has helped make sure that the article is well-polished, so I'd like to invite that user to co-nominate this article for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just wanted to comment that I accept the invitation. ZZZ'S 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done --ZZZ'S 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Hurricane_Cindy_2005-07-05.jpg: source link is dead.
- Repaired --ZZZ'S 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto File:Cindy_damage_at_Atlanta_Motor_Speedway.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Repaired --ZZZ'S 22:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Dylan620
editGreat to see another tropical cyclone at FAC! I have an active FLC on similar subject matter, so it only feels appropriate to review this. Ping me if I haven't added anything to this space within the next week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- and was significant enough in five Louisiana parishes to be declared a federal disaster area → "and was significant enough for five Louisiana parishes to be declared federal disaster areas" (the current wording implies that the overall damage itself was a federal disaster area, which I'm fairly certain isn't what was intended)
- You're right, got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- the storm organized into an eye feature → "the storm developed an eye feature" (the current wording implies that the storm became a giant eye, and the emergence of an eye is itself an indicator of increased organization)
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The extratropical storm restrengthened slightly – Isn't "extratropical storm", at least in the context of post-transition former TCs, reserved for systems of an intensity equivalent to at least TS force? Since Cindy's winds in its extratropical stage never went any higher than 30 kts, I would suggest replacing "storm" with "low" or "cyclone".
- Yup, got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the second sentence of §Preparations, I would recommend adding "later" after "NHC", to clarify that the US warnings were not issued simultaneously with the Mexico warnings.
- I like that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- In north Atlanta – My initial instinct was that "north" should be capitalized, but North Atlanta is a disambiguation page that provides a couple possibilities for what "North Atlanta" could be. Maybe either this should be clarified, or "north" rephrased as "northern"?
- I like "northern" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Arlington in northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses → "In northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses in Arlington" (a blatant nitpick, but this reads more smoothly imo)
- Yea it works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Pennsylvania, rains from the storm led to flash floods in Lebanon and Lancaster counties – I would swap out "led to" for something like "generated" or "produced", since the phrase "leading to" is used later in this same sentence.
- I like "generated" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the piped link for Lancaster County leads to the town article instead of the county article.
- Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Lebanon, the floods forced 22 homes to evacuate. – The town or the county?
- Clarified the county. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- the large tornado caused heavy damage – I would remove mention of the twister's size from this sentence, since it's already mentioned in the sentence immediately prior.
- Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's about it, I think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing my comments so quickly Hurricanehink! I'm pleased with the changes and I'm happy to support now. This article is a great piece of work. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the review Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
BP!
editI kinda figured it out I'd review this since I possibly need more detailed review somehow for my FAC also.
Upon first glance. Note: I'm not expert this topic, including its source reliability.
- Be consistent to the referencing. For example there was citation like "[15][1]", it should be arranged properly.
- Done --ZZZ'S 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pls bundle the referencing also if it was cited already 4 or more sources. It looks like you ended up ref bombing it.
- I bundled references together, which I think organizes the references a lot better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
More to come 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
*", injuring a man who was flung out of the building." I'm not quite sure about this, but could you perhaps reword this if you can?
- "As the remnants of the storm continued northeastward, it produced heavy rainfall, with statewide precipitation peaks of 5.52 in (140 mm) near Cleveland, South Carolina, 5.27 in (134 mm) at Tryon, North Carolina, and 5.18 in (132 mm) in Lenoir City, Tennessee." I feel like that is kinda too long for a single sentence.
- Split into two sentences --ZZZ'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since I'm not native in english, I had to search what does "Panhandle" means.
- Linked to the appropriate geographical area --ZZZ'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "One was rated an F1 which" I think its missing comma?
- Comma added --ZZZ'S 03:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some websites/magazines aren't linked yet like USA Today and Fox News?
- It took a while, but it's done --ZZZ'S 08:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that you already bundled the citations, but perhaps add the text? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what you mean Boneless Pizza! (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- For exanple this <ref name=comics>Sources that mentions Typhoon X: 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean in context of Hurricane Cindy? Like in ref 22, saying "Sources for fatalities?" I'm not sure how that would work, since each URL needs its own reference (with different titles, dates, accessdates, whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- hmmm I guess so. Anyway, I'll Support this nomination since the article is written very well. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could you clarify what you mean Boneless Pizza! (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from wtfiv
editMeteorological History
editI very much enjoyed reading this article, and appreciated the opportunity to look over some of the sources too. My comments are mainly minor stylistic ones.
- Paragraph 1
- First sentence starts with plural "origins" but references the singular "tropical wave". Should it be origin, or are you pointing toward subcomponents within the "tropical wave"?
- Jamaica, which Consider using a gerund, "becoming more" without the "which", as the "which" falsely looks like a descriptor of Jamaica.
- Reworded. --ZZZ'S 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3
- NHC assessed, assessed looks like a verb at first, but "moved" is the verb. If NHC accessed is meant to be an adjective, it might need a hyphen. But is NHC assessed needed here? If it's a verb, it doesn't make sense in the context of "moved", which is an empirical action. If an adjective, the NHC is already implicated in the assessment. Or does this sentence mean something like, "As Cindy moved ashore the NHC assessed it as..., but the agency upgraded..."?
- (minor suggestion) Consider changing ...depression, and Cindy merged... "depression and merged..." as Cindy is already the topic from the previous sentence.
- Done. --ZZZ'S 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Preparations
edit- (minor suggestion) Consider moving the clause Offshore in the open Gulf of Mexico to follow "six oil rigs", as it is more a description of the rigs than the oil companies, which the clause is currently adjacent to.
- Moved to the end of the sentence instead. Will that be alright? --ZZZ'S 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Impact
edit- Paragraph 1
- The sentence starting The energy company is a little unclear. It says "largest ever", but then appears to negate this when discussing Katrina.
- Consider adding "to date" after power outage. Perhaps end clause with a period, and begin a new sentence. Then the new sentence could focus on the previous high-outage hurricane, Georges, and the one to come, Katrina.
- Paragraph 2
- as strong winds caused roofing damage, consider replacing "as" with "and" or "while": (Though context quickly clarifies, in my first pass, "as" initially read like it was functioning in its explanatory role as a synonym of "because")
- I'm unclear on a point made here. Paragraph 1 made it sounds like George was second-place to Cindy. But this paragraph states that the second-most outage causing Hurricane was Betsy. Could this be clarified?
- Last sentences on declaration of emergency and Katrina
- (minor suggestion) The last two sentences- coincidence of Bush's declaration of state of emergency and the emergence of Katrina is fascinating, but the way it is written, it almost seems to imply that there may be a connection between the declaration and the development. Is there a way to soften this? Maybe something like rewording the last sentence to reading "During this time, another tropical depression was developing that would later become..."
- Do these sentences fit here? I can see the logic. It emphasizes the extent of the damage to the five parishes. The narrative is taking place in July, then jumps to late August. Is there a place near the end where the aftermath can be discussed?
- If this is moved, the mention of Katrina in Paragraph 1 as the larger cause of outages could be put in the same paragraph as the mention of Katrina here. Moving this later may help readers get a better context of how Cindy relates to Katrina.
- Paragraph 3
- Last sentence is related to previous point. Discussion of Dennis seems out of the timeline. It is a bit more confusing because the previous paragraph discusses Katrina, but now it sounds like Dennis will be intervening before Katrina. Can this possibly be clarified? (Again, maybe collecting aftermath issues into paragraphs near the end.)
- Paragraph 4- No suggestions
Tornado outbreak
edit- Paragraph 1- No suggestions
- Paragraph 2
- is the "already" in already measuring needed?
- No. Removed. --ZZZ'S 22:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paragraph 3-
- The use of Fuji nomenclature is a bit unclear. In paragraph 2, it is defined adjectivally, as a measure of tornado intensity, but here it is used as a noun. This can make Paragraph 3 a bit confusing for a reader, requiring a double take to find what F0 means in the previous paragraph. Here's two possible suggestions:
- Consider making all subsequent mentions of the Fujita number consistently adjectival. (e.g., F0 tornado, "F2 tornado") This would possibly be simpler. For example, paragraph 4 uses the Fuji number consistently as an adjective, which makes it clear.
- Alternatively, Start off by making F2 on the front side of the first description, saying that the tornado was an F2 on the Fujita scale and define it. That way, readers are ready for tornados to be called by their Fujita number alone.
- Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6-No suggestions, but comment: The use of Fuji numbers are clear in these, as they are used either as adjectives or as explicit descriptions of tornados or events.
- Good point. I changed it so it's always a descriptor, and not used as a noun. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- General comment: My own feeling is that it would be good to see the aftermath items, such as following storms and Cindy's place in them near the end, after the main narrative has been told. This is not critical, but would clear up the timeline slightly and clarify the various relations between Cindy, Dennis, and Katrina. Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- There wasn't much aftermath for Cindy specifically. It was more of a prologue to Dennis and Katrina, and the longest lasting aspect of the storm was the tornado damage to the Speedway. I took that note and added the mentioning of Denis and Katrina earlier in the narrative, saying that Cindy was the first of six storms in 2005 to produce hurricane force winds in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I have an ill-disguised soft spot for Ove Jørgensen. He is (barely) remembered among Homeric scholars as the originator of Jørgensen's law, an early and astute observation about narration in the Odyssey which in many ways set the stage for the modern fascination with narratology in the Homeric poems. After throwing an almighty strop in response to being left out of an academic society, Jørgensen left classical academia with a single publication to his name, and spent the rest of his career as a cantankerous if apparently beloved Classics teacher, an acerbic commentator on ballet and an erudite editor of Dickens. From an article-writing perspective, working on Jørgensen was a rewarding opportunity to bring together a few different threads of scholarship -- he is known for the early part of his career among classicists, for the later part among ballet historians, and throughout by scholars of his lifelong friends Carl Nielsen and Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, but I think this is probably the first biography to pull together all those different threads of interest in him into a single picture. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Isadora_Duncan_-_first_fairy.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1896, in Baker's Art Gallery -- I've added the link to the Ur-source, at the NY Public Library, here to the Commons page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that Baker's Gallery is this place, founded in Columbus in the 1860s. The NYPL's catalogue states that the photograph was published c. 1896 -- admittedly, the distinction between "produced" and "published" may well be a matter of the metadata that their system allows rather than of copyright law. Part of me wants to take a strict verifiability, not truth position and say that a reliable source (the NYPL) has said it was published in 1896, so that's enough for us -- otherwise, we could use PD-because and explain that the NYPL have identified the image as being in the public domain in the United States? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The language field is inconsistently used for non-English sources. Would you like a photo of his grave site? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes please on the photograph — done on the sources,I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: Ove Jørgensen does not currently have a grave marker in Holmens Kirkegård -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting: thank you. I assume it was normal practice in Denmark, as in most European countries, to disinter bodies after a while and re-use the grave, particularly if they had no living family? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. My understanding after talking with my Danish coworkers is that gravesites in Denmark are rented for a term of years and bodies are disintered if the family is not willing to renew the lease. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That tracks: J. doesn't seem to have had any children or known family, so not a huge surprise, if a bit of a shame. Thank you for trekking out and looking, though! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Correct. My understanding after talking with my Danish coworkers is that gravesites in Denmark are rented for a term of years and bodies are disintered if the family is not willing to renew the lease. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting: thank you. I assume it was normal practice in Denmark, as in most European countries, to disinter bodies after a while and re-use the grave, particularly if they had no living family? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: Ove Jørgensen does not currently have a grave marker in Holmens Kirkegård -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
FM
edit- This is well outside my area of expertise, but it's short and it's about a countryman of mine, so I'll have a look once someone more, uh, classically trained has reviewed it. Don't hesitate to ask if you need someone to look over or translate something from potential Danish sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi FM -- thank you for this, very much obliged. For now, could I ask two questions/favours? Firstly, I've included here just about everything I could find that mentions J. at any length: if you can do a cursory look and find anything else written in Danish, could you point me towards it? Secondly, if you know your way around IPA or pronunciation guides, I think one would be very helpful, but I don't really have the Danish expertise to make one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[1] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[2], this American article seems to mention him[3], and this Danish museum article[4] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the IPA is correct, you should not use {{respell}} anyway, since policy forbids its use in approximating languages other than English per WP:RESPELLNOT.
- @FunkMonk: Can you confirm vowel length and lack of stød? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- UCC, I believe the 1950 Information article could be his obituary, so could definitely come in handy. TOE, that IPA reader website seems to give a distinct Anglophonic "twang" to everything, so a bit hard to judge, but it seems a syllable is needed for JØrgEnsen, now it sounds even more like the Danish name Jensen with an American pronunciation... I believe that "stød" should be where the otherwise silent g is, if I understand the term correctly. Like "Jør'ensen". Funny, they don't teach you about "stød" in regular Danish class, I guess it's just taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added the stød, which I think gets the right sound -- I used the Icelandic "reader" on the IPA website, as they don't have a Danish one! Agreed on the obituary: I'm not sure I can currently find enough bibliographical information to meaningfully list it in Further Reading, but I'm optimistic that someone will come along in RX (I don't suppose you know anyone likely to have the right login?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains the more "twangy" sound haha, Icelandic is the farthest you can get from Danish among the Scandinavian langues, would probably sound more correct with the German reader. I'm not sure that Icelandic website you linked at RX has Danish papers? I managed to find the correct issue on Information's archival website[5], but it seems it needs a subscriber's login... Maybe I can ask the Danish National Library, I got free copies of newspapers from them before. This site[6] run by the library also has scans, but you also need to be affiliated with specific universities to log in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would be wonderful if you can get anything - I'll add those links to the RX request in case anyone finds it. It looks as thought this one accepts logins via the Danish National Library, which in turn looks like you can create an account using your MitID -- is that anything that makes sense to you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just logged in, but unfortunately it says I can't view it anyway, I guess current university affiliation is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would be wonderful if you can get anything - I'll add those links to the RX request in case anyone finds it. It looks as thought this one accepts logins via the Danish National Library, which in turn looks like you can create an account using your MitID -- is that anything that makes sense to you? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains the more "twangy" sound haha, Icelandic is the farthest you can get from Danish among the Scandinavian langues, would probably sound more correct with the German reader. I'm not sure that Icelandic website you linked at RX has Danish papers? I managed to find the correct issue on Information's archival website[5], but it seems it needs a subscriber's login... Maybe I can ask the Danish National Library, I got free copies of newspapers from them before. This site[6] run by the library also has scans, but you also need to be affiliated with specific universities to log in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- When I first learned about the stød, I asked a Danish friend to explain it to me. She expressed a similar attitude, so it's neat to see you say the same. I found it quite difficult to differentiate hun from hund. On the topic of Danish pronunciation, can you confirm that the pronunciation of Jørgensen contains an /ŋ/ (as in English "sing") before the /s/ and not an /n/ (as in English "sin")? It seems unlikely that the /n/ would not be alveolar, though the rest of the transliteration corresponds to my (limited) understanding of Danish phonology. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would actually just be "n", hard to find a good demonstration, but you can hear it pretty clearly in this video 30 seconds in ("Bodil Jørgensen"):[7] FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added the stød, which I think gets the right sound -- I used the Icelandic "reader" on the IPA website, as they don't have a Danish one! Agreed on the obituary: I'm not sure I can currently find enough bibliographical information to meaningfully list it in Further Reading, but I'm optimistic that someone will come along in RX (I don't suppose you know anyone likely to have the right login?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- UCC, I believe the 1950 Information article could be his obituary, so could definitely come in handy. TOE, that IPA reader website seems to give a distinct Anglophonic "twang" to everything, so a bit hard to judge, but it seems a syllable is needed for JØrgEnsen, now it sounds even more like the Danish name Jensen with an American pronunciation... I believe that "stød" should be where the otherwise silent g is, if I understand the term correctly. Like "Jør'ensen". Funny, they don't teach you about "stød" in regular Danish class, I guess it's just taken for granted. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[2], this American article seems to mention him[3], and this Danish museum article[4] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[1] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like some proper reviews have concluded below, so I'll add my minor layman points. First, it looks like "Socratic way of life" is just a WP:duplink of Socrates, linked in the very same sentence. Perhaps it should link to something more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, but tricky to pick a target. Have gone with Socratic intellectualism (currently a redirect). UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Link Constantinople in the taxobox image caption?
- "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary" considering the scarcity of sources, I wonder if this is something that has been published and could be used somehow?
- It has, though the very limited access I have to it (Google Books preview) doesn't really pull up much of use -- I think I've mentioned this briefly in some of the other reviews. If you've got better access to it, would be grateful for anything you can find. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is it called? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here it is via Google Books: part of an edited volume of diaries and letters, from what I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is it called? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "written in German, in the journal Hermes" I wonder if you could just say "in the German journal Hermes": it's less wordy, and it also specifies the journal itself was from Germany, without having to repeat the word "German".
- True, but that would elide the fact that J. wrote in his second language -- after all, academic journals routinely take submissions in many languages. I'm not sure it's particularly important that the journal was German as opposed to that the article was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, to me it would be pretty clear from "German journal" and the German title listed right before? German fluency was common for the Danish elite, so it isn't that unusual either way (most Danes still learn it in elementary school). FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Hermes" is a Greek title, and in their last edition, most of the articles were in English -- it really isn't the case that (e.g.) a French journal will only (or even mostly) have articles written in French. I do see your point, but I think the current framing is the right balance between making the important facts explicit and not being too repetitious. Interesting on German fluency -- I suppose that explains the many academic connections between Copenhagen and Berlin in the period -- and, slightly earlier, the outsized number of Danish intellectuals in the Bavarian-run Kingdom of Greece in the decades after independence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, to me it would be pretty clear from "German journal" and the German title listed right before? German fluency was common for the Danish elite, so it isn't that unusual either way (most Danes still learn it in elementary school). FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "by the Isadora Duncan" The what? Seems something is missing?
- Cut the the -- my thinking was that it's obvious enough in context that she was a dancer that actually saying so feels redundant. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the intro, you present: "with the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife, the sculptor Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen" but in the article it's: "where Jørgensen met the composer Carl Nielsen and his wife Anne Marie". I wonder if her occupation should also be mentioned when she is introduced in the article body? And now she is just presented as a sort of "appendix" to her husband since you don't give her full name there. While I realise it's a repetitive name, since it's the same as her husband's, you do give her full name in the intro after all.
- Quite right -- I do think giving her full name is correct, since her surname wasn't the "obvious" Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- "promoting what he saw as authentic, masculine Danish aesthetics – represented by the ballet master August Bournonville" Kind of funny, since he was French/Swedish...
- Go figure -- plus, of course, ballet is an odd choice for a definingly Danish art form! I suspect that J. was more concerned with the aesthetics and perceived conservatism than the nationality, given that he was happy enough to side with Fokine (who was very classicising and, I think, had similar ideas to J. about aesthetics). UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's all from me, any success in getting those extra sources? Otherwise I'll write the National Library one of these days about the possible obituary.
- Some success, but none with the obituary -- if you've got an "in" with the National Library, that would be wonderful. Otherwise, do you know if Danish Wiki has an equivalent of RX? Honestly, given that it was consulted for the Hartmann article, I would hope that it won't radically change what we know, but it may well have some useful details and I think has value as further reading anyway. Still nothing on his experience/actions under occupation, and the more cynical part of me wonders if that silence itself answers some questions... UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- They answered that one has to physically go to the library to access the archive from their computers, so I'm not sure one can even save the info if they aren't a researcher... FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A shame -- I think we shall probably have to draw a blank here for now, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- They answered that one has to physically go to the library to access the archive from their computers, so I'm not sure one can even save the info if they aren't a researcher... FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - too bad those additional sources couldn't be obtained yet, but as you said, they probably don't contain much info that isn't already in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- appreciate your valuable comments and your help with the sources, even (especially!) though that proved to be a difficult and frustrating chase. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
ThaesOfereode
editFeels like a topic I can throw my hat in on. Plus, a named law? Count me in. I hope the below is helpful, though it is a hair nitpicky, admittedly (maybe... this is my first FAR). Pretty much everything below can be challenged; I know the difficulty of trying to write about someone notable with glaring gaps in their life's story.
- Thank you for the review -- I am hardly in a position to complain about nit-picking, and the more careful eyes that the article can have over it, the better. Replies below: all very wise and pertinent comments, though I think some of the infelicities you've identified are artefacts of the subject matter as much as of its presentation here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I've been helpful so far. Below, I've responded to what I think needed comment or further revision (assume anything not addressed is good to go, addressed elsewhere, or awaiting other action). You'll note that I ask "Can we get a quote from XYZ?" quite a lot; don't feel like each instance needs to be fulfilled. I think just one or two from the suggestions will add something positive to the overall quality of the article, help to contextualize and/or explain critical elements of the piece. I might place slight primacy on contextualizing the Nielsen–Jørgensen relationship better with an appropriate quote from Nielsen's diary, but I will leave it up to you to decide if there is anything worth taking from it. Again, nothing in here is show stopping and if the below are not actionable, I'm still happy to support in its current condition. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I managed to get a little quote in on his ballet views, which has some distinctive turns of phrase -- it's quoted at slightly greater length in the source, but I think doing it as a quote box would be repetitious and would maybe crowd the article a little. I think we've got the most important and distinctive bits. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- This article is in great shape; I'm glad you were able to find good additions to the article after bringing it here. Happy to support. Great work. Hope I was half as helpful in this article as you were in mine! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- for your judicious and thoughtful comments, of course, but particularly for your help with the pronunciation. I am always grateful to have someone come along who actually knows what they are talking about! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Feel free to ping me whenever for IPA/linguistics concerns: I have more papers on the topic than I can count and I'd hate for them to just gather dust! ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- for your judicious and thoughtful comments, of course, but particularly for your help with the pronunciation. I am always grateful to have someone come along who actually knows what they are talking about! UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- This article is in great shape; I'm glad you were able to find good additions to the article after bringing it here. Happy to support. Great work. Hope I was half as helpful in this article as you were in mine! ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I managed to get a little quote in on his ballet views, which has some distinctive turns of phrase -- it's quoted at slightly greater length in the source, but I think doing it as a quote box would be repetitious and would maybe crowd the article a little. I think we've got the most important and distinctive bits. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I've been helpful so far. Below, I've responded to what I think needed comment or further revision (assume anything not addressed is good to go, addressed elsewhere, or awaiting other action). You'll note that I ask "Can we get a quote from XYZ?" quite a lot; don't feel like each instance needs to be fulfilled. I think just one or two from the suggestions will add something positive to the overall quality of the article, help to contextualize and/or explain critical elements of the piece. I might place slight primacy on contextualizing the Nielsen–Jørgensen relationship better with an appropriate quote from Nielsen's diary, but I will leave it up to you to decide if there is anything worth taking from it. Again, nothing in here is show stopping and if the below are not actionable, I'm still happy to support in its current condition. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
A few notes on prose to start.
- and of Jørgensen's wife – Seems like a WP:POSA thing to add; if he had been born out of wedlock in 1870s Denmark, that would be worth mentioning. Still, if you think this should stand, I think his wife is better than simply "Jørgensen's wife".
- Yes, I think you're right -- think it's now better formulated as his wife, Louise née Wellmann.
- an accompanied them to Constantinople – Why? Were they doing something of note there? I'm not sure traveling with someone of note necessarily needs to make it into the details of his life.
- Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image isn't (demonstrably) PD, unfortunately: we can use a crop from it as the infobox image, but per WP:NFCC that use needs to be "minimal", so including Nielsen there would be legally dubious (as well as potentially confusing), and using the image again as mere illustration would not really be compatible with the FUR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't realize this was fair use. That's my bad entirely for not checking. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image isn't (demonstrably) PD, unfortunately: we can use a crop from it as the infobox image, but per WP:NFCC that use needs to be "minimal", so including Nielsen there would be legally dubious (as well as potentially confusing), and using the image again as mere illustration would not really be compatible with the FUR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary. – I think this needs more context. Is this a lot? How long were they in Constantinople? I would strongly consider the precise dates, if the information exists. If they were in Constantinople together for an appreciable amount of time, it makes sense that Nielsen would reference Jørgensen a lot. Sixty-three mentions on a week's trip is a lot, but sixty-three mentions in a year is hardly noteworthy.
- It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
- The bits of the diary to which I have access don't have anything suitable, unfortunately, but agreed that this would be a good addition if someone who does have more of them can find it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. I suspected this would be the case, but I had to at least advocate for it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
- It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this article, Jørgensen observed that Homeric characters typically use generic terms, particularly θεός (theos, 'a god'), δαίμων (a daimon) and Ζεύς (Zeus), to refer to the action of gods, whereas the narrator and the gods themselves always name the specific gods responsible.
- to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
- Plural actions, but not "the" gods, I don't think -- works fine with the implied contrast being "the actions of gods" vs "the actions of mortals". "Gods" doesn't always need a the in front of it, though it often has one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think either works fine. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Plural actions, but not "the" gods, I don't think -- works fine with the implied contrast being "the actions of gods" vs "the actions of mortals". "Gods" doesn't always need a the in front of it, though it often has one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a classicist, but it's not clear at all why or how Zeus (a specific god) is used to refer to the actions of the gods in general. Is there a way Homer differentiates between the actions of "zeus" vs the actions of "Zeus"?
- It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a look at the Jørgensen's law article, you'll see the best I could do on this -- unfortunately, it has to end up pretty chunky, as Jørgensen doesn't seem to have been interested in formulating it as a "law", rather than making observations on a specific part of the Odyssey. Honestly, I think that would be an undue use of space in this biographical article, though there might well be room to expand our coverage of the law in this one, and I think it has value where it is in the law's article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
- Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others, including Nielsen, were invited. – Comma bomb here. Consider Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others – including Nielsen – were invited.
- Absolutely -- done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 1916, working alongside the chemist S. P. L. Sørensen, Jørgensen completed and published Sophus's unfinished manuscript of Development History of the Chemical Concept of Acid until 1830. – Did Jørgensen only work on the manuscript in 1916 or was it just published in 1916 but had been worked on in previous years?
- Fair point -- cut "working". UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jørgensen became an authority on ballet – How? Did he have background? Did he just write a bunch of stuff that others liked?
- It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
- Bizarre! Do you have any dates for articles he wrote in that magazine? It would be worth noting that he was writing ballet articles while he was still a professor, for example. As with his law, it would be cool to get insight on his view of ballet in his own words if the articles are accessible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- He never was a professor (or "even" a PhD, which became a problem for him). His ballet articles, as far as I can tell, begin in 1905, the year he withdrew from academia (though he did write at least one review article of a classical work later, in 1911), but it would be WP:SYNTH to explicitly say that he only started his interest in ballet after/because of his falling-out with the classical establishment. It might be possible to pull a germane quote from one of those articles: I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
- He condemned the Art Nouveau– – Not sure what this endash is doing here.
- "Art Nouveau" is a two-word adjective, so per MOS:DASH the (suspended, here) hyphen gets "upgraded" to an endash. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- TIL. Critique withdrawn. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Art Nouveau" is a two-word adjective, so per MOS:DASH the (suspended, here) hyphen gets "upgraded" to an endash. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- calling it "quasi-philosophical experiments". → calling them "quasi-philosophical experiments"., right?
- No: the antecedent is style (compare "UC's article is little more than incoherent ramblings"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No: the antecedent is style (compare "UC's article is little more than incoherent ramblings"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "standard analysis of ... the rules that govern human speech about the gods" – Probably non-actionable, but is there anything in the MOS about the use of [...] with the brackets vs. without?
- Without, I think, per MOS:...? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The MOS linked seems to indicate the brackets are necessary; without the brackets, they should only be used to indicate the speech trailing off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page has Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text. As I read that, it means that square brackets are a) optional and b) used when there's a trail-off ellipsis in the same quoted material -- that is, one added by the author and one by the editor. As that doesn't apply here, I think we should keep as is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "may" seems to indicate it's optional. Works for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page has Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text. As I read that, it means that square brackets are a) optional and b) used when there's a trail-off ellipsis in the same quoted material -- that is, one added by the author and one by the editor. As that doesn't apply here, I think we should keep as is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The MOS linked seems to indicate the brackets are necessary; without the brackets, they should only be used to indicate the speech trailing off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Without, I think, per MOS:...? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
A few notes on content.
- I think, given that Jørgensen's main claim to fame is the eponymous law, I think maybe it deserves an expansion from its current (body) size of one short paragraph. In particular, I think it would be good to describe how Jørgensen originally formulated/supported his thesis and compare his work with modern scholarship (as in, Jørgensen's original formulation has stood the test of time or modern scholarship has departed from the original formulation in XYZ ways). Although, I suspect scholarship on how Jørgensen formulated the law may be scant.
- It is -- I might come back to this. The basic thrust is that J. had the basic insight, but didn't really attempt to codify it into a solid "law" or to attempt to phrase it in rigorous terms, so later scholars have done that work and applied the "Jørgensen's law" label to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added a bit here -- from what I can tell, the real mover and shaker is Calhoun; there's some nice later work on the few cases where Jørgensen's law is straightforwardly broken, which usually makes a convincing argument that this would be noticed by the audience and tells us something interesting about what the poet is trying to do, but I think that's really out of scope for this particular article, as most of it happened decades after J's death. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is -- I might come back to this. The basic thrust is that J. had the basic insight, but didn't really attempt to codify it into a solid "law" or to attempt to phrase it in rigorous terms, so later scholars have done that work and applied the "Jørgensen's law" label to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jørgensen's relationship with Carl Nielsen seems... out of place. I can tell that there is something that called you to repeatedly mention this friendship (and I imagine it is worth adding), but I find it difficult to connect it to the content. In "Later career" it's a little clear that Jørgensen had some impact on his marriage, but is there anything that says that they influenced each other's professional work? They traveled to Constantinople together; are there any episodes from that trip (or any other) that show a working relationship? Even a brief vignette would help to make the mention of the friendship feel more at home in the article.
- I'm not sure, but maybe FunkMonk's digging will show something. Nielsen is pretty laconic in the part of his diary I can find, just saying that they saw "everything of importance", including some Byzantine mosaics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, here's hoping. It's an unfortunate thing about these documents that they never say the one thing you're hoping they will. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but maybe FunkMonk's digging will show something. Nielsen is pretty laconic in the part of his diary I can find, just saying that they saw "everything of importance", including some Byzantine mosaics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- A similar thing can be said about the jump from classicist to ballet expert, but I admit there have been weirder jumps with less in the way of information about how A got to B. If any information exists on the topic – acknowledging that that may be a big "if" – it would be undeniably helpful to the reader.
- I think it was just a big jump -- see above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Overall, this is an article in good condition, with hardly any issues in the way of prose. My main concern now is that there are parts which feel disjointed and do not convey importance to the reader well, but I suspect they can be easily remedied or the scholarship is simply non-existent/inaccessible. I suspect Danish-language skill may be a reasonable bottleneck here, but hopefully FunkMonk can assist should you find anything. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
- "of Jørgensen's wife, Louise Wellmann" jars a little bit. Maybe "of Louise (nee Wellmann)" would suffice?
- Yup; fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the philologist Anders Bjørn Drachmann": worth linking philologist, as it's an uncommon term?
- Done: might create a future sea of blue, but we can deal with that when it comes up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary": This is a potentially useful fact, but with no frame of reference it's a bit lost. Is that a lot? Were the mentions positive? Over how long were these spread, etc. Maybe only half a sentence is all that's needed to give it a bit more relevance, but it just looks like a bit of trivia as it stands.
- See ThaesOfereode's review above -- the point is well made, but we don't have the sources to do any of that, at least as far as I can find. I do think it's got some relevance, and it's not as if we're overloaded with biographical detail: when we've got comparatively little information about someone, I think we do need to drop our standards slightly and include things we might drop out of a fuller account of their life. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was his love of ballet a lifelong thing? It sort of appears part way through the Later career section with no indication of an origin
- Again, see ThaesOfereode's review -- at the moment, I don't have the means to answer that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was the Wanscher lecture connected to ballet at all? It doesn't seem to fit here, being sandwiched between two parts of Duncan
- I don't think so, but again the sources are very scant, so I couldn't honestly tell you much about what Wanscher actually spoke about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's relatively short, but I guess if his notability is limited to the eponymous law and his writing on ballet, then that's to be expected, although I was surprised reading of his 1950 death and realising that he lived, presumably in Copenhagen, under Nazi occupation. Was 1930 (the publication of Dickens) the last notable thing about his life until his death? either way, this is, as always, beautifully written and something that made me genuinely interested in someone I've never heard of before, so thank you for that. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, as ever -- you have the nail on the head, and I'm sure there are some very interesting stories to tell about the last two decades of his life. Unfortunately, the sources are truly scanty indeed -- almost none of them are interested in him for his own sake, and only really discuss him in relation to his classical scholarship, his ballet writings or his relationship with the Carl Nielsens. It might be that we can come up with some more, but at the moment I've not been able to, and none of it features in the one real biography of him that I believe exists outside Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Generalissima Looks like you just need a source review.
- I assume the "Search 'Ove Jørgensen' stuff refers to Google Books usage (since they have yet to perfect ctrl-f technology for physical books)? If so, might be good to provide the Google Books links in the bibliography.
- It's because they're eBooks -- I'll put the Google Books links in where I can find them, though most have only a very limited preview available. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Refs are generally laid out and formatted consistently. Good use of columns, and good job navigating a Danish-language source corpus.
- Burke's Peerage is missing a location.
- I've treated it as a journal, as it releases a new one every year and doesn't have an identifiable single author, and so given it an ISSN rather than an ISBN -- we don't generally give locations for journals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, fair point then. - G Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Locations are not needed for publishers who have the name of the location in their title (See WP:CS1); so you don't need them for Oxford UP, Leuven UP, or Stockholm University.
- Only source that seemed potentially suspicious were Burke's Peerage and Weltzer, but they're used appropriately and sparingly.
- Looking through academic databases for Ove Jørgensen seems to reveal the exact set of sources you used, so it's safe to say you've done your due dilligence squeezing out whatever you can here.
@UndercoverClassicist: Beyond the minor scruples on formatting, seems like we're pretty much good to go here. Let me know when you've fixed up that stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Generalissima -- work in progress on the Google Books links; the rest sorted or replied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: I think I've now got URLs for all that I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist That looks good to me! Support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Generalissima. I've actually added the location to Burke's -- realised that I'd formatted it as a magazine, so don't have to be bound by conventions on journals, and there's a much stronger case for giving the publication location of a magazine, which may well be local in its nature. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist That looks good to me! Support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: I think I've now got URLs for all that I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
edit
Precious little from me. The article is in fine shape. A few minor suggestions:
- "an article in which he outlined the distinctions between how the gods are referred to by mortal characters and by the narrator and gods in the Odyssey" – for precision I'd move "in the Odyssey" to follow "distinctions".
- Done, slightly differently -- moving Odyssey so far forward put it close enough to the article title that repeating it seemed redundant. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "He subsequently travelled to Athens in 1903" – don't think we need "subsequently" as well as the year.
- Fair enough, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm having a little difficulty with the calendar: if he spent the 1902–1903 academic year in Berlin it seems odd that he moved to Athens in time to meet the Nielsens and go to Constantinople with them in May 1903. Or was the German academic year quite different from ours?
- Two possible explanations, I think, though neither is spelt out in the sources -- most likely, the academic year had ended (the week after the end of the Cambridge year is known as "May Week", though in recent times it happens in June), at least for these particular students (who weren't following a particularly formal course of study). Less likely, they could have considered the trip part of their studies, or simply bunked off. He didn't really move to Athens; that was very much a holiday/study trip. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Jørgensen … forgotten them" – a 57-word sentence that could do with breaking up, I think, probably after "way of life". And is "expected few to have forgotten" quite right here? "Expected to" sounds like an order – "He expected them to polish his shoes" – rather than expecting that few would have forgotten.
- Fair enough. Broken slightly earlier (which still leaves a pretty long sentence, but I couldn't make it sound right with the break as you suggested), and softened the phrasing as you suggest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "she had reconciled with Carl" – unexpected verb: I'd expect "was" rather than "had", but I may be wrong. Either way, would it not be more neutral to say "she and Carl were reconciled, and she was..." – rather than appearing to put the onus on Anne Marie?
- It would, but Anne Marie wasn't so neutral -- she very much presented it as her decision to stick with/settle for him. I think one can reconcile with someone, particularly when it's a conscious decision, but I imagine you have a more authoritative guide to English usage somewhere to hand? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Citations in the OED show both your use and mine in print. I subside gracefully. Tim riley talk 10:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would, but Anne Marie wasn't so neutral -- she very much presented it as her decision to stick with/settle for him. I think one can reconcile with someone, particularly when it's a conscious decision, but I imagine you have a more authoritative guide to English usage somewhere to hand? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "criticising the innovations introduced into European ballet by the dancer Isadora Duncan" – is it correct to say that Duncan introduced innovations into European ballet? She pranced about on European stages and opened a dance school but I'm not sure she dabbled in ballet, or would claim to have done. Perhaps safer to say "introduced innovations to European dance" rather than "introduced innovations to European ballet"?
- That's fair; changed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Personal life and assessment" – a perfectly reasonable header, but the following text deals with assessment and then personal life rather than vice versa.
- Perfectly reasonable: done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I am indebted to you for the information that in Danish Great Expectations is Store forventninger. In exchange I offer you some Shakespeare: in Dutch, De vrolijke vrouwtjes van Windsor and in Welsh, Bid Wrth Eich Bodd.
That's my lot. What an interesting man – such a range of expertise! – Tim riley talk 08:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as ever, Tim -- I think I've agreed with all of your points; replies inline above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. I much enjoyed reading and reviewing it. Tim riley talk 10:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the first FAC about a dromaeosaurid (or "raptor") dinosaur in more than a decade, and this particular genus has recently become (in)famous as antagonist in a recent Jurassic World movie. Because their portrayal in that film is atrociously inaccurate, improving this article will hopefully set the record straight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- No date for Currie and Varricchio?
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No publisher location for Allison and Bottjer?
- Looks like this has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "that lived during the Late Cretaceous of what is now Alberta, Canada". "of" → 'in'?
- Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth". "it" → 'them'?
- Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "indicate it survived later as well" doesn't really work for me. Why not just say 'indicate it survived for over 2 million years'?
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It lived alongside a variety of dinosaurs". 1. Why single out dinosaurs? 2. "it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" seems to indicate that the lead is stronger than warrented.
- I just removed the sentence, goes without saying it lived alongside other animals... FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the fossil collector Wayne Marshall". Was this his occupation, or a hobby?
- The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 'the part-time fossil collector'?
- Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- 'the part-time fossil collector'?
- The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "about 1 cm (0.39 in)". Looks a bit false precision to me.
- "serrations per 1 mm (0.039 in)." Similarly, and elsewhere.
- What would be the solution to these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added the sigfig parameter here and elsewhere, as suggested below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- What would be the solution to these? FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "from the Latin words atroci". Foreign language words (which are not proper nouns) should be in lang templates, not just italicised.
- Added. But what's the point of those templates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Lang, "The purpose of this template is to indicate that a span of text belongs to a particular language. It often makes no visible changes to the text but can prompt web browsers to use a more appropriate font or screen readers to use a particular kind of pronunciation and so on."
- Added. But what's the point of those templates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "rather than that the snout was shortened." I feel that 'rather than because the snout was shortened' makes for an easier read.
- Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead: "in the teeth being almost all the same size"; main article: "the teeth have different sizes but the same form".
- Ouch, I think that was left in from the original version, changed to "(the teeth being of similar size)". FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- " the clarity of the interrelationships recovered in their phylogenetic analyses." I "recovered" the best word to use here?
- "in a clade more derived than Saurornitholestinae". I don't think that a non-specialist audience will understand this.
- "but included more taxa which had been described in the interim." Maybe 'but included additional taxa which had been described in the interim'?
- "contains data for a wide number of coelurosaurian taxa". What is a "wide number"?
- "Atrociraptor has been consistently recovered as a member of Saurornitholestinae." I think you need to define "recovered" somewhere, or use a different expression.
- "and does not have a generally agreed-upon answer." I am (very) unsure what the question is that is unanswered.
- "then they may have been recent immigrants". More recent than what?
- "This hypothesis is supported by the possibility". Can a hypothesis be supported by a possibility. Optional: is there a better way of phrasing this?
- "ranged from using the claws for slashing or climbing up prey larger than themselves." If you use "ranged from" the options should be separated by 'to', not "or".
- Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a shift from using the feet instead of the hands for restraining prey". I'm confused. Should "from" be 'to'?~
- Oh yeah, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Horseshoe Canyon Formation, no links?
- It's linked in the intro and at first mention in the article body (discovery). Want one more further down? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Iss "the Horsethief Member" the same as the Horsethief Sandstone?
- A Cynical Idealist is probably best at determining this. If that's the case, then alternative title should at least redirect, or become the new title of that article. Or it should perhaps be merged into the formation's article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a different unit, they are not the same. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a much wider geographic and temporal distribution than initially suggested." Suggested by whom, when and what was the suggestion?
- "corresponds to "poorly-drained" sediments rich with organic material. The sediments of the Horsetheif Member are composed primarily of coal, shales, sandstones, and mudstones. These sediments are rich with organic materials, which reflect a highly saturated environment". "... rich with organic material ... rich with organic materials ..."
- Caption: "Several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where the first Atrociraptor specimen was found". Do you mean 'Several dinosaurs are known from the Horsethief Member of ..." or 'Conjectural reconstructions of several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of ...'?
- Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the unexplained "tooth-taxon" is a bit much for a non-specialist reader.
- "The absence of these fossils from the older members does not necessarily mean that these taxa did not exist at that time, and may simply be reflective of the fossil bias which makes the preservation of small-bodied animals less likely." Is fine. "Remains of smaller animals are also common in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. " Is fine. When the former is immediately followed by the latter, the word "also" reads oddly.
That's it from me. Another fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made the changes you suggested to the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. Word choice was refined, repetition of phrases was removed, and technical language (recovered, derived, tooth-taxon, etc) has been removed or explained. As mentioned above, the "Horsethief Member" of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (in Alberta) is unrelated to the "Horsethief Sandstone" (in Montana). "Horsethief" seems to just be a common name for landforms in western North America.
- Thank you for your input. @FunkMonk wrote the remainder of the article and I'll leave the changes you suggested to those other sections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've addressed "my" issues, so it seems everything else is done if ACI fixed the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, I added that to the beginning of the phylogeny section. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've addressed "my" issues, so it seems everything else is done if ACI fixed the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "although they did directly comment on the placement of Atrociraptor in their analysis." Just checking that there isn't a "not" missing from this.
- "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of the deep-snouted Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for them." I am not sure that the last two words are needed.
- Tried to rephrase, any better? "The diverse and abundant prey in the environments of Atrociraptor and Deinonychus may have allowed for more specialised diets of large-bodied prey for these deep-snouted dromaeosaurids." FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Assigned teeth from other parts of the formation indicate it survived for over 2 million years and in a wider geographic area." Wider than what? (You can't say wider than a single location.) Perhaps '... and in a wide geographic area'?
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- A Cynical Idealist is probably best at answering the last two points. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
HF - support
editI'll try to review this sometime ovver the next week. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping me when Gog's concerns have been addressed, and I'll start my review then. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's about now, Hog Farm. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "about 5 km (3.1 mi) from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology," - I'd argue that this is false precision as well. There's a way to round this off in the conversion template using the sigfig= parameter
- Added sigfig there and elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Atrociraptor mainly differs from its contemporary relatives Bambiraptor, Saurornitholestes, and Velociraptor in that its face is much deeper, and in that its maxillary teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and in the teeth being almost all the same size" - this may need some rephrasing. The reader is later told that the maxillary teeth being inclined backwards is also a feature of Bambiraptor. The teeth being the same size is contrasted against Velociraptor. When I first read this quoted sentence, it read as if all of these these three features were the series of distinct things that set Atrociraptor apart from all these species. I don't know if there is a good way to clarify this, though
- These particular features are singled out in the intro because they were singled out in the description paper's abstract. About the teeth, it does say "more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids", which leaves room for exceptions like Atrociraptor (as is done in the abstract). I tried to rephrase it like this (closer to the source), if it makes any difference: "Atrociraptor differs from its contemporary relatives in that its face is much deeper, and its teeth are more strongly inclined backwards than in most other dromaeosaurids, and are almost all the same size." FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and, unusually for dromaeosurids, there are no gaps left by shed teeth." - is this referring specifically to the absence of tooth loss in the holotype? I know this is a description of the holotype, but I'm concerned that the lay reader will try to apply this to the species as a whole, and wonder if the teeth regrew, or shifted after the loss of a tooth, etc, and lead to confusion
- Unfortunately the source doesn't specify, but since we know they would have shed their teeth, it's pretty certain they just mean this specimen, so I've added "in the holotype" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- " The maxillary teeth have larger serrations on their front cutting edge, 3-4.5 per mm, than behind, 5–8 per mm." - this doesn't seem right - p. 122 of the source has 3-4.5 on the posterior and 5-8 on the anterior; compare also to "The serrations at the front are smaller and more numerous, 5–8 per mm, than those behind, 3.5–5." when discussing the dentary teeth; I wouldn't expect the front/back characteristics of the serrations to be reversed on the maxillary and dentary teeth
- Yeah, swapped front and back at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The uncertainty around the classification of Atrociraptor would not be resolved for some time." - has this actually been resolved as of 2024 (or ever will be, without further material discoveries?)
- I've removed this sentence because it doesn't really seem to reflect what's said by the sources, but is verging on editorialising. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- " the fragmentary remains of a dromaeosaurid jaw from the Prince Creek Formation" - I think its necessary to indicate where the Prince Creek Formation is located
- Added "from Alaska". FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the Evolutionary implications section needs either a closer tying to Atrociraptor specifically, or a bit of a trimming; as it currently stands this is more general material on the eudromaeosaurs. The title implies that Atrociraptor itself has particular evolutionary implications, but what these implications are on say the third paragraph remain unclear
- A Cynical Idealist is probably best at solving this one. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think its best to just remove the whole section. The paleobiogeography of Atrociraptor is not really extricable from a general discussion of eudromaeosaurs. If that generality is a core issue with its inclusion as a section, then removal may be the best option. None of the listed sources really comment on Atrociraptor in isolation other than in a discussion of the taxonomic uncertainty and its possible implications on geographic and temporal dispersal. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think removing it all may be a bit too drastic, as while it may have been too detailed before, it did have relevance to how and when Atrociraptor appeared and its wider context. Most other dinosaur FAs go into these issues, so I think a trimming would have been enough. What do Hog Farm and Jens Lallensack think? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree that the section is not about Atrociraptor and does not need to be here. Maybe you could add something about it to the beginning of the phylogeny section, to provide some (very basic and brief) background about eudromaeosaurs before going into the classification details; for example, you could state there that velociraptorines are a primarily Asian group and saurornitholestines are North American, and that it is debated whether Eudromaeosaurs evolved in North America or Asia, and that faunal exchange might have happend in the early Maastrichtian via the Bering landbridge. I would furthermore suggest to move the deleted section to the Eudromaeosauria article, I think it fits there well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm currently close to finished with a very extensive rewrite of Eudromaeosauria, so don't worry, there will be ample discussion of it there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the subject probably didn't need an entire section to begin with, but I think the following brief paragraph could be kept for context: "The pattern of eudromaeosaur dispersal is controversial among scientists. Some researchers have suggested that saurornitholestines are the earliest-diverging members of this group.[1] If that is the case, it suggests a North American origin for Eudromaeosauria.[2] However, if saurornitholestines are more closely related to velociraptorines, then they may have immigrated to North America from Asia closer to the end of the Cretaceous.[3]" FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm currently close to finished with a very extensive rewrite of Eudromaeosauria, so don't worry, there will be ample discussion of it there. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree that the section is not about Atrociraptor and does not need to be here. Maybe you could add something about it to the beginning of the phylogeny section, to provide some (very basic and brief) background about eudromaeosaurs before going into the classification details; for example, you could state there that velociraptorines are a primarily Asian group and saurornitholestines are North American, and that it is debated whether Eudromaeosaurs evolved in North America or Asia, and that faunal exchange might have happend in the early Maastrichtian via the Bering landbridge. I would furthermore suggest to move the deleted section to the Eudromaeosauria article, I think it fits there well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I think removing it all may be a bit too drastic, as while it may have been too detailed before, it did have relevance to how and when Atrociraptor appeared and its wider context. Most other dinosaur FAs go into these issues, so I think a trimming would have been enough. What do Hog Farm and Jens Lallensack think? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason why poorly-drained is in quotation marks?
- Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that's it from me; I hope the above make sense. I'm personally a bit skeptical of the tendency of dinosaur research to assign new species/genus from extremely fragmentary remains; I suspect that in a hypothetical world in the far future where dogs have gone extinct and dog fossils are dug up that the German Shepherd and the chihuahua would be assigned as diferrent genera, but that is neither here nor there. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, in dinosaur palaeontology in particular there is a tendency to lean to the "splitting" side, where almost every species gets its own genus (though there are some notable exceptions). But since we don't have dinosaur DNA to properly conclude relations from, that may the most stable way to do it, since otherwise a species will often be moved to a new genus in every other paper where someone finds it more similar to something else. Taxonomy is a very arbitrary field in general... In this case, though, no one has moved it to another genus, which indicates it is actually considered distinct "enough" by most researchers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the reduction of the implications section is much improved; I'm happy to support now. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Quick drive-by comment
editThe generic name is derived from the Latin words atroci, which means "savage", and raptor, "robber"
. For atroci read atrox. By convention when referring to Latin nouns or adjectives as words, we use the nominative singular form, which is how they are listed in modern dictionaries. Choliamb (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- We're aware, problem is that the source (the original description) says "Etymology: "Atroci" is a Latin word meaning savage, whereas "raptor" is Latin for robber". No other sources about this animal give a detailed etymology, so the question is how far we can veer off the source without going into WP:OR and WP:synth territory. Since the source seems to translate the component words with the form they appear in the name, it doesn't seem to be inaccurate as such, just unconventional. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gog: The generic name is derived from atrox. The uninflected stem of the adjective atrox is atroc-, and for that reason atroc(i)- is the form used when attaching suffixes and forming compounds: cf. the Latin derivatives atrocitas and atrociter, or the English derivatives atrocious and atrocity. All of these are ultimately derived from atrox (check any etymological dictionary). For comparison, you can see the same pattern in the generic name of another therapod, Ornithomimus, the first part of which is derived from ὄρνις (ornis), the Greek word for bird. The uninflected stem of the noun ornis is ornith-, and for that reason ornith(o)- is the form that we use when creating compound words like Ornithomimus or Ornithopoda or ornithology. The WP articles for all of these words correctly state that they are derived from ornis, not ornitho-, because ornitho- has no independent existence; it is simply a form of ornis. The relationship between atrox and atroci- is exactly the same. Compounds begining with ornitho- are derived from ornis; compounds beginning with atroci- are derived from atrox.
- FunkMonk: Yes, I see your problem. If the source makes this mistake, and no other source gives the correct form, then I suppose your hands are tied by WP policy. A pity, but there it is. In any case, I've made my comment, so I'll be moving on now. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[8]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the word, using the site linked in the first comment as citation, though I'm not sure if it's formatted correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[8]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Jens
edit- Only few comments from me, since I've already done the GA review.
- Now that we have a skeletal diagram, maybe we can produce an additional figure out of that: Crop out the head, and add labels of all the terms mentioned in the text? It would be so much more factual and more helpful than the Dromaeosaurus skull. Happy to help out with that if needed.
- Comparing with the published figures, I'm not sure it matches 100% to be used directly. But I'll tag the artist, Mettiina, about a closer skull only version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because of this inclination, the tooth enamel at the base of the teeth is also inclined, whereas in Saurornitholestes, Dromaeosaurus, and other relatives where the teeth are oriented more vertically, the enamel is almost perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the teeth – I am still not quite sure what this means. The enamel is the outer layer of the tooth, so if the tooth is inclined at any given point, the tooth must have the same inclination at that point. I do not really see what this adds, and you already discuss tooth inclination in great depth, so I would suggest to just remove this sentence, it is a bit too much imo.
- Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- A 2011 study by the palaeontologist Denver W. Fowler and colleagues found these ideas unlikely – You clearly give preference to this particular hypothesis while discarding the others. Do we have any secondary source that states that this hypothesis is now the favoured one? Or is this hypothesis of particular relevance for this genus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a much newer source on the topic [9], which also suggest a function of the claw in restraining smaller prey. So it indeed looks like this is now the favoured hypothesis, but that newer study should be incorporated I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The current text probably goes too much into that one paper, will see if I can make a more general rewrite reflecting more views more equally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Expanded a bit with the newer study, as you say, it agrees with the Fowler study, but also seems to suggest some additional functions. Also added an image from the paper, don't know if using both is too much in that section. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- The current text probably goes too much into that one paper, will see if I can make a more general rewrite reflecting more views more equally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about an interesting aspect of the 1982 Falklands War. While nuclear weapons were obviously not used, the British warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the country's nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. However, the British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it has emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her. Historians and international relations experts have also discussed why Argentina decided to invade British territory despite the UK being nuclear power and the broader implications of this.
I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted in May. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected, leading to a wide ranging article. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. I have since further expanded and copy edited the article and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Falklands,_Campaign,_(Distances_to_bases)_1982.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Repulse_(S23)_in_the_Firth_of_Clyde_c1979.jpg
- Fixed both Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Prime_Minister_Margaret_Thatcher.jpg is quite grainy - is there no better alternative? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the best photo we have of her in 1982. There are some better photos for 1981 and 1983, but they're not significantly better. Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
editVery much enjoying the article, as I expected I would given the nominator. Three general pointers so far:
- I think the lead currently errs too much towards brevity rather than completeness -- remember that we should be content for readers to stop at the end of it and have picked up as much information as we really need to give them.
- Similarly, I think the prose is just slightly too simplistic in places -- it's very clear, but occasionally it almost reads like an introductory school-book that pulls some punches on detail and general polish.
- If we can quickly and easily give a piece of information that answers a reader's question, even if it's not strictly relevant (e.g. "who was that person? When did that happen?"), I think we should. Footnotes might help here, if you feel that the flow would be unduly interrupted.
I hope this is helpful. As ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and I'm very happy to disagree on matters of taste (which is most of this review) without any prejudice.
- The first sentence (sorry to start so early!) could do with a bit of thought. I don't really like "even though" as WP:WEASEL: most pilots never seriously consider using their ejection seat, even if they have one in the aircraft. Secondly, the word "initially" is slippery -- it could mean anything from "when they were built, years earlier" to "in the opening stages of the conflict".
- I've simplified this sentence and moved the material on the depth bombs to later in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: titles in apposition like this, for politicians, are very American: BrE prefers the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister.
- That's interesting: Australia follows the US usage then. Tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The head of the British military: that was the Queen -- I think we mean the professional head, and I would give his title and name him as Terence Lewin. I'm surprised that we don't get the views (either here or later, except on a related issue) of any other military people -- did Woodward ever express a view, for example, or any of the ships' commanders?
- Tweaked. None of the sources discuss the views of other military commanders involved in the war other than the commander of the nuclear missile submarine that was alleged to have been deployed to be able to attack Argentina. I recently read Woodward's memoirs from cover to cover and he doesn't note this issue at all, despite providing a very detailed account of his forces operations. I suspect that this is the result of the secrecy around the deployment of British nuclear weapons. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It has been alleged that a British ballistic missile submarine was sent to the South Atlantic to potentially attack Argentina. This has been denied by senior British government figures as well as the commander of the submarine in question: can we therefore name it as Resolution -- and be clearer that this was reported at the time, rather than just post facto?
- The British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina's invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982 due to the commitments the British government had made to not use these weapons.: Hm -- can we know the cause and effect here for sure -- is it impossible that the Argentines considered the British commitment to be unreliable, but also that (e. g.) the missiles wouldn't work, they would be able to intercept them, it was worth the risk, etc etc? Later, we suggest that they were more reassured that the superpowers would stop the British from launching nuclear weapons, which implies that they didn't think Britain's commitment meant all that much.
- I've tweaked the wording here. The sources all agree that the Argentines weren't at all worried about this issue. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good change -- it was the 1–1 link between the two statements, rather than each of them individually, that was the issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Falkland Islands is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean and a British Overseas Territory. There has been a long-running sovereignty dispute over the islands between Argentina and the British government. : as it's now over forty years later, I would couch this in 1982 terms. Put another way, if the dispute gets settled tomorrow, we shouldn't have to change this sentence.
- Given that the dispute is still ongoing and the war didn't resolve it, I think that this wording is OK. It also helps to explain the post-war squabbling over whether the UK had stationed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. If the dispute is ever resolved, I'd be happy to update this! Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is that, when you think about it, this material isn't actually relevant. It isn't important to what happened in 1982 that the Falklands are a BOT in 2024, or that there has been a long-running dispute in 2024 -- it matters what the status of that dispute was in 1982. I think we'd be on safer ground to talk about some of the key developments in Anglo-Argentine relations and the Falklands dispute in the decades preceding the war. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the wording a bit here. The history of the dispute isn't really relevant to this article: what I think is significant is to briefly indicate that there was a long running dispute (to help explain to readers why such an unlikely and now somewhat little known war took place) and that the dispute continues given it's relevant to the section of the article covering developments since the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The British government decided to liberate the Falklands: consider retake as more neutral (from the Argentine perspective, they were de-liberating them).
- This campaign was very risky for the British and required the deployment of substantial military forces at a great distance from the UK.: a bit woolly, I think -- we probably should have said how far the Falklands were from the UK earlier, so "a great distance" is both vague and, in an ideal world, unnecessary. Similarly, "substantial military forces" -- by 2024 British standards, yes, but by almost anyone else's it was a pretty small operation, at least initially. Aren't military campaigns inherently risky, especially for the people taking part? Do we mean militarily risky (they might have lost) or politically? I think there's something here, but it would be worth recouching it in terms of what made this campaign more risky than others.
- I've tweaked the wording here to make it clearer: in short, the British forces weren't significantly superior to the Argentine forces, especially due to the distance the operation was conducted from the UK. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Numerically, perhaps, but the land forces at least were definitely superior in terms of training and equipment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but the air and naval forces were not and the sources agree, including those cited here, this made the war highly risky. Woodward also stressed how risky the campaign was in his memoirs on purely logistical grounds given that he wouldn't have been able to maintain his fleet off the Falklands during the winter. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This made the UK the third country to deploy these weapons: after...? I know it's not particularly relevant, but if we're going to make readers ask the question, it seems fair to answer it given that we can do so very quickly.
- I've added that this was after the US and USSR. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines were equipped with 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme.: a total of 100 or 100 each? MOS:FIGURES would like "four" in figures for consistency.
- 135 warheads in total. I've tweaked the wording here to hopefully clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the American-owned warheads were assigned to British Army units in Germany.: I think a very brief comment on the British Army of the Rhine and what it was doing in Germany would be useful here.
- That seems outside the article's scope to be honest, but I've adjusted the wording to be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it would hurt to explain that they were intended to be used against the Warsaw Pact in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe (or at least to deter that from happening), but not a major issue -- the current framing works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was legal for the UK to deploy nuclear weapons to other locations in the South Atlantic Ocean.: from my very limited reading on this topic, it's a tricky question as to whether a given breach of a treaty is technically illegal. Suggest "it would not have breached the treaty...".
- Nuclear powered ships: hyphenate as a compound modifier.
- Done. Thank you for these detailed and thoughtful comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
A few more:
- the strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons which had developed due to their devastating effects - often labelled the "nuclear taboo: MOS:DASH -- use either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash here.
- recapture the islands by force: is there any other way to recapture some islands?
- Yes, the British could have blockaded them or similar to force the Argentinians to give them up. For instance, the British seriously considered landing troops on an isolated part of West Falkland and building a military airfield instead of attacking the main Argentine forces on East Falkland as part of a strategy to sustain a blockade and intensify diplomatic pressure on Argentina. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's still using force, as your wording (perhaps inadvertently) shows -- either it wouldn't have been recapturing them (as opposed to having them returned 'voluntarily'), or it would have been by force. However, if you want to differentiate what happened from e.g. a blockade, you could say by invasion or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Trimmed to save words given it doesn't affect the meaning here. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's still using force, as your wording (perhaps inadvertently) shows -- either it wouldn't have been recapturing them (as opposed to having them returned 'voluntarily'), or it would have been by force. However, if you want to differentiate what happened from e.g. a blockade, you could say by invasion or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the British could have blockaded them or similar to force the Argentinians to give them up. For instance, the British seriously considered landing troops on an isolated part of West Falkland and building a military airfield instead of attacking the main Argentine forces on East Falkland as part of a strategy to sustain a blockade and intensify diplomatic pressure on Argentina. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sir Michael Quinlan, who had noted in a 2013 BBC interview that Thatcher had told him after the war...: MOS:SAID: noted endorses the factual accuracy of this, which we can't do -- stated or similar needed.
- 'surveillance rounds' or 'training rounds'. The 'surveillance rounds' : MOS:' is unclear on scare quotes, but generally doesn't like them. Suggest munitions termed "surveillance rounds" or "training rounds", which sits better with that guideline and MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
- While some of the nuclear depth bombs could have been offloaded from warships at Portsmouth, this could not be done covertly: why would it need to be done covertly -- anything more than the obvious not wanting to tell the enemy what you're doing?
- It was due to the British policy of not disclosing the whereabouts of nuclear weapons - the next para notes that this was a significant consideration at the time. I've added some material earlier in the article on this to help provide context. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- concerns among some senior Royal Navy officers: a little bit weasel-y -- can we be more precise as to who and how many, or is this all "I heard that some admirals were unhappy"? Might not be much we can do here.
- Freedman states that these concerns were held by "some admirals" but isn't more specific I'm afraid. I've tweaked the wording to be slightly more specific. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the issue was raised in Parliament, the government would have confirmed that nuclear weapons would not be used but not comment on whether the warships were carrying them.: suggest decided to confirm or similar -- we can't know for sure that they would have followed through with the plan.
- This reflects the wording in the source that "there would be an unequivocal affirmation that nuclear weapons would not be used in the present context" if it was raised in Parliament. I've tweaked the wording a bit here. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- a proposal made by Foreign Secretary Francis Pym: outside journalism, more usual in BrE was "the Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym".
- I think we should indicate the publisher of Proceedings in the citation (the US Naval Institute). Is it ever cited as Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
- The United States Naval Institute Proceedings began in 1874 as The Papers and Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, though "Papers and Proceedings" shortened to "Proceedings" by 1879. Some early issues were titled "The Record of the United States Naval Institute" even as the volumes containing them had "Proceedings" in the title instead. The title permuted to "United States Naval Institute Proceedings" in 1907. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As Hawkeye7 notes, it's usually referred to as just Proceedings. I've added the publisher details. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I read Hawkeye's comment as suggesting the opposite course of action -- it might be referred to in the field as Proceedings, but its actual title is United States Naval Institute Proceedings, and we should use that. In my own line of study, we have plenty of arcane journal abbreviations: open up any classical journal and you'll see BMCR, Arch. Eph., TPhS and so on, but per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:MTAU we spell them out in full so that they are accessible to readers outside the discipline. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have a lot of use here of the British official history of the war. I wouldn't go so far as to call that unreliable, but it's definitely not fully independent. Is there anything we can do to corroborate it from other work?
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- [10] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know that's a blog, but I would definitely still take caution here -- it's good that we're not talking about works that are explicitly censored, but if the British government is choosing who writes the book and (indirectly) the sources to which they have access, we can't call the work fully independent. That doesn't mean we should throw it out altogether when it's known to be a good work of scholarship, but I would be looking for corroborating sources where possible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I already have checked every available reference, many of which cite Freedman. Hennessy and Jinks re-assessed some matters that Freedman considered and ended up largely agreeing with him (Hennessy is an expert on British nuclear weapons policies and deployments). The main discrepancy I found is in relation to Thatcher's possible actions as covered in the last two paras of the 'During the war' section, where I've sought to explain the different views and conclusions. These differences are largely due to Sir Michael Quinlan's revelations after the official history was published. The Argentinian Government also has a different interpretation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco from Freedman and other historians, and I've also sought to cover this. The 'British nuclear weapons policies' section is also an example of where I've provided accounts by different historians on an issue Freedman has covered. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- [10] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
A few more -- in general, where I haven't replied above, I'm more-or-less happy -- it's obvious that you've thought about the issues, usually before I have, and done your due diligence on them.
- There is no evidence to support claims that one of these submarines was sent to the South Atlantic.: I don't think we actually put it quite this strongly in the article, so I'm going to cry [citation needed] here. We've outlined a few good reasons to believe that it wasn't, and that Freedman couldn't find any in the archives, but neither of those are quite the same thing.
- Freedman states that he couldn't find any documentation of such a deployment and dismisses it as a result and Hennessy and Jinks reached the same conclusion, including after interviewing the relevant submarine captain and his commander. As such, I think that this wording is an accurate summary. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It might be accurate, but it needs to be verifiable, too. "Archival evidence" and "evidence" are not the same thing, nor does the fact that one researcher could not find something demonstrate that it does not exist. More seriously, we've WP:SYNTHed our way from "here are two sources who say that X probably isn't true" to "no reason exists to believe that X is true", and that's not workable. We either need a less cautious source or a more cautious phrasing, I think.
- That's a good point: I've tweaked the wording here. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but do either of our sources actually say "historians [in general, not just the present author] have found no evidence"? Either way, we need to cite that, as it isn't quite what we say and cite in the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed this as it was unnecessary and is covered elsewhere in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It might be accurate, but it needs to be verifiable, too. "Archival evidence" and "evidence" are not the same thing, nor does the fact that one researcher could not find something demonstrate that it does not exist. More seriously, we've WP:SYNTHed our way from "here are two sources who say that X probably isn't true" to "no reason exists to believe that X is true", and that's not workable. We either need a less cautious source or a more cautious phrasing, I think.
- Freedman states that he couldn't find any documentation of such a deployment and dismisses it as a result and Hennessy and Jinks reached the same conclusion, including after interviewing the relevant submarine captain and his commander. As such, I think that this wording is an accurate summary. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- they were all judged to be "safe and serviceable" following inspections after they arrived back in the UK: consider dropping the quotes per MOS:SCAREQUOTES.
- the conservative MP: needs a capital, as we mean the party, not (just) the state of mind.
- the Labour Party member of parliament Tam Dalyell who claimed to have learned this from an unnamed Conservative member of parliament: I would cut the Party for consistency and to fit normal usage.
- In 2005 a psychoanalyst who had regularly met with French President François Mitterrand during the time of the Falklands War claimed that he had told her that Thatcher had threatened: literally, a lot of he-said, she-said here -- I must admit to being dubious. More importantly, the Guardian doesn't vouch for this claim, and nobody else in the quality press seems to have even picked it up. I would be inclined to cut this, given the circumstances -- WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies, I think, as this is a fairly explosive (sorry) claim resting on pretty flimsy evidence. I know we don't endorse it, but by reporting it, we're giving it some credence as a possibility, a "some people say" etc.
- I agree that it appears to be nonsense, but Hennessy and Jinks considered the claim worth discussing and evaluating in their book, so I think that this should be included. Both these authors are experts on the history of the British nuclear weapons arsenal. There's also a long-running myth that France was recalcitrant in helping the UK counter Exocet missiles during the Falklands War, which presumably this claim relates to (in reality the French government provided the British with considerable assistance to stop Argentina getting more of these missiles during the war). Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- noting that it is not clear what 'codes' for Exocet missiles she was referring to: double quote needed, but see above.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to need a citation that that Vulcan took part in the Falklands War. Suggest giving its number.
- I've added a reference. The aircraft's serial number would be a bit confusing if not explained in this context, and I'd prefer to omit it given it's not relevant to the subject of the article (the photo is to show what a Vulcan looks like). Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- nuclear weapons-capable: endash, not hyphen, needed here (MOS:DASH)
- Officials dismissed the wartime speculation over this issue: officials on which side(s)?
- Argentine: added Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This led to Australian authorities declining permission for Invincible to be repaired in a dry dock during 1983.: some areas of Australia are nuclear-free zones; was this one of them?
- All the sources are oddly vague about the details here, but it would have almost certainly have been the Captain Cook Dry Dock in Sydney (as this is the only large naval dry dock in the country), which I think was a nuclear free zone. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it was -- worth adding, as otherwise it's a bit confusing as to why Australia would have had such an issue (readers might know that New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear weapons in its territorial waters, but Australia has never had such a prohibition). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- From a bit of digging, it was actually due to the national government's policy - I've added a bit of material here. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it was -- worth adding, as otherwise it's a bit confusing as to why Australia would have had such an issue (readers might know that New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear weapons in its territorial waters, but Australia has never had such a prohibition). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- All the sources are oddly vague about the details here, but it would have almost certainly have been the Captain Cook Dry Dock in Sydney (as this is the only large naval dry dock in the country), which I think was a nuclear free zone. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- T.V. Paul: we normally put a space after both initials.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Consider MOS:CONFORMing "nonnuclear" to "non-nuclear", in line with usage elsewhere in the article.
- Royal United Services Institute fellow Jeremy Stocker : false title.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 1989 the British international relations expert: two things here. Firstly, he's the first person we've listed as an expert, which seems odd -- weren't all the other admirals, scientists, historians and so on experts? Secondly and more importantly, he was also a Labour/SDP MP, and there was a pretty serious debate going on in those circles about nuclear disarmament -- it's not as if he was a detached commentator on the matter.
- Tweaked here. The section is about people's views, so whether they're detached or not doesn't seem particularly relevant as long as readers know where they're coming from. An interesting feature of the debate over nuclear weapons, especially during the Cold War, is the cross-overs between politics and technical expertise on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - no problem with including him, but readers need to be able to place the quotation in proper context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- He noted that...}: MOS:SAID -- this isn't a statement of fact. I'm most likely to go for a run if it's sunny, but it's still possible that I might stay in on a nice day if I'm feeling a bit lazy.
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Luard gets a lot of airtime in his area of the article, and is double-cited with the official history: where does that second citation come in here?
- I've removed the third sentence now that this has been covered earlier in the article. The second reference is to an earlier work by Freedman where he discussed Luard's views, not the official history. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ward Wilson is likewise not exactly detached: he runs an anti-nuclear pressure group.
- Added. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "A Critical Examination of "the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence"".: single quotes within double quotes.
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure you capitalise e.g. Sheffield in the titles of cited works.
- Do you have examples where I've missed this? Sheffield is consistently capitalised, except for a url. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Title parameter of note 56. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing this, sorry - it's capitalised in the title. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops -- my brainfart -- I meant italicised! Now note 57; don't know whether that was an edit or my misread. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing this, sorry - it's capitalised in the title. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Under British command and control procedures, the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons: this is cited to a 2024 page -- can we confirm that this was also the case in 1982 (it was, but our source doesn't strictly prove that).
- I've added a source that discusses the arrangements in place at the time. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The titles of cited works should be capitalised consistently, at least within source types (that is, all books the same way, all journals the same way...)
- I've used the capitalisation used in the sources, which is inconsistent. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:CONFORMTITLE advises the opposite approach. Is there a particular reason to divert from it here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that guideline provides bad advice here. It seems unjustified to fiddle with the titles of works to deviate from what the author or the journal/book's editor has selected. As it's only a guideline, I'd prefer to stick with the original capitalisation. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, but you're right that it's only a guideline, and I'm not at the point of opposing over something which makes very little difference to readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that guideline provides bad advice here. It seems unjustified to fiddle with the titles of works to deviate from what the author or the journal/book's editor has selected. As it's only a guideline, I'd prefer to stick with the original capitalisation. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that's my lot for now -- as ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and take (almost) all comments as suggestions rather than hard demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: Many thanks for this review - I might have now responded to all your comments. Sorry for this being a bit delayed: I've been a bit unwell. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I maintain my opinion that MOS:CONFORMTITLE should be applied, but I don't think that represents a major problem that should hold up promotion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this excellent review. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
editPlaceholder. Please ping ping me once UC starts to run out of steam. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: most of what I've got left is pretty small stuff, so don't wait on my account. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Recusing to review.
- "defended only by a small party of Royal Marines." Is it possible to give a number?
- Added - it was 70 Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982 following a series of fierce battles." IMO this would read better if it were recast into chronological order.
- It already is. The idea of this section is to give readers an understanding of the nature of the war rather than its exact chronology given the issues the article covers are more relevant to what the war was like than its course (most of the key decisions covered in the article took place before there was any fighting, for instance). Our article on the war covers the chronology well. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The size of this force peaked". Is "force" the right word? 'stockpile', 'arsenal'?
- Good pick up - I've tweaked this sentence and I think it reads much better as a result. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- " A total of 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme were carried by the Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines." I don't see how this is supported by the source cited.
- The numbers for 1982 are in the table on page 70 and the details of the warheads and how they were deployed are in the table on page 71. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, the British Armed Forces also had". You don't need both "In addition" and "also".
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the WE.177A nuclear depth bombs nuclear depth bombs".
- Whoops! Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "but had still not ratified it at the time of the Falklands War." Suggest deleting "still".
- I think that this is OK - it reads a bit weirdly without the 'still' given the amount of time the sentence covers. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the South Atlantic as well as their territorial waters." Maybe 'the South Atlantic or their territorial waters'?
- "The nuclear depth bombs on board Brilliant were transferred to RFA Fort Austin". Perhaps a brief explanation of what type and size of ship Fort Austin was.
- "The weapons on board Invincible were transferred to Fort Austin on 2–3 June." Where, approximately, did this take place?
- To the east of the Falklands; added Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Fort Austin returned to the UK on 29 June." Left the fleet to return starting on this date, or arrived back in the UK on this date? Is it known which port she arrived at?
- Also tweaked per the above to clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Similarly for Resource.
- "Seven of the containers holding active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged". Is the total number of bombs they contained known?
- The source doesn't say and no other work covers this. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The surveillance rounds were inert WE.177As". What was it that caused them to be "inert"? Did they contain nuclear material?
- No - I've added material explaining this in more detail. Thanks for this pick up. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The Conservative MP was likely the backbencher Alan Clark." If the article is written in UK English then "likely" → 'probably'.
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- "an unnamed Conservative member of parliament. The Conservative MP ... suggested that the conservative MP who told Dalyell". Conservative or conservative?
- Fixed as UC also spotted this mistake Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- "who had been the Flag Officer Submarines." Why the upper-case initial letters?
- It was the title of the job (the Royal Navy had a bunch of similarly-awkward titles at this time). Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In these letters he had observed". Delete "had".
- "He also said though that the revelations had not harmed the relationship between Argentina and the UK." Delete "though".
- Most of the last paragraph of "Nuclear weapons policies" either duplicates material in "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" or would fit better into that section.
- Are you referring to the para that starts with "The Argentine government was aware"? This covers the facts of the Argentinian Government's decision making, of which there isn't any disagreement over. The "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" section then covers various commentators and experts views. I'd prefer to retain this structure to keep the material about what happened separate from the material covering views of why this happened. I've trimmed the "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" though to avoid a bit of duplication - I think that this also helps clarify the structure of this section, with the first para discussing views on why the UK didn't use nuclear weapons in these particular circumstances and the second para discussing views on whether the non-use means that nuclear weapons will not be used in any circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "failing to coerce a nation with a weaker military." The source given does not mention Argentina, or any country, having a weaker military.
- Tweaked to specify they were referring to a non-nuclear country. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Argentina was believed to have three air-launched variants of these missiles remaining". Is that a ttoal of three missiles, or an unknown number of missiles split between three variants?
- Three missiles - I've tweaked the wording here. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- "if the aircraft carriers were struck by Argentine Exocet missiles". Could there be a brief in line explanation of what an "Exocet missile" is.
- Yep: I've added that they were anti-ship missiles. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Classy work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thanks a lot for this review. I think that I might have responded to all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editHi Nick-D, my comments:
- Add archive URLs for
Refs #2, #5, #11, #23, #28, #30, #49-50, #52, #54, #61; Freedman 1989, Iacono 2022, Polmar 2007? Or you could just run the IA bot and it will archive all these for you. The sites hosting these sources will never go down in all probability, but their URLs may change and prudence never hurts anyways.
- Link to Hans M. Kristensen in the biblio, and David Leigh & Ian Cobain in the refs as done for other authors?
- Will be doing spotchecks tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D, spot checks below:
- #11, #18, #38, #46, #58, #63, #70, #79: all ok.
- Do you not wish to archive the URLs as suggested above?
- I wasn't able to get the bot to work and haven't gotten up to doing this manually yet. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I ran the bot myself, I hope that is alright. The source review is a pass now, cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this - I've been a bit unwell for the last week and wasn't looking forward to doing this manually. Thank you also for this review. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nick-D, spot checks below:
Support from Hawkeye7
editI think what you have done with this article is awe-inspiring! I note that 5% of the content has been added this month. A few comments:
- "Prior to the Falklands War the British government had also provided a commitment not to use its nuclear weapons against countries that did not possess these weapons." My understanding is that the UK gave an undertaking that it "will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT" or "in material breach of the NPT" (emphasis mine). Argentina had not signed the NPT. Consider adding that it did not do so until 1995. The reader might infer too much into the fact that Argentina did not have nuclear weapons; at the time, but there was grave concern about Argentina's nuclear weapons program. [11]
- This is covered by the second para of the 'Pre-war' section. The sources note that while technically Argentina wasn't a non-nuclear power the UK treated it as such. I've added some extra material on Argentina; the sources don't note that the British had any concern over its nuclear program during the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reader might also infer that this was some solemn undertaking by the UK government, but it modified it in 1990 in response to the threat of chemical and biological weapons from Iraq, so the current stance is that "Security assurances extended to other countries by the UK are now subject to review 'if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary". [12]
- The article covers what the relevant British policy was at the time of the war. I've added material to the lead on the relevant international norms (it's striking that the Cold War era British military didn't even consider using these weapons). Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Change the single quotes around "nuclear taboo" to double quotes?
- "conventional British forces could not be deployed at such a distance from the UK". There was a tiny garrison and an ice patrol vessel on station. Suggest "sufficient conventional forces to recapture the islands by force".
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment from Noswall59
editJust a very quick comment as I don't have time to review this in full. The article (very interesting!) mentions Thatcher's purported views on using nuclear weapons in the war, citing Hennessy and Jinks (2016) and Quinlan's interview (2013). Have you checked Charles Moore's biography of Thatcher? I think volume 1 looked at the Falklands War. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC).
- That's a good suggestion - I'll see if I can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Harry
editOoh, really interesting subject! Placeholder for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Somewhere in a room in Seattle Center is a large map of the world, festooned with yellow pins. They tell the story of how a Seattle indie music station turned into a national, even international, audio institution. KEXP-FM (or KEXP, as you'll see it anywhere that isn't pedantic about call sign suffixes) started as KCMU-FM, the 10-watt campus radio station of the University of Washington, in 1972, but it was in the right place at the right time to become one of the standard-bearers for alternative music in a city that broke artists like Kurt Cobain and Soundgarden. After a turbulent early 1990s that included a listener boycott, the university's decision to split management from its public radio station and put it under the computing department, of all places, served as a critical technological catalyst for what it became later after partnering with the Experience Music Project in 2001: an independently owned and operated powerhouse with FM signals in Seattle and San Francisco, studios in Seattle that are a regular stop for touring acts and double as a community space, a massive streaming fanbase (of which I am now a part as a direct result of this project), and a prominent feature of the indie media landscape.
While I have brought five television stations to FA, this is a massive moment for radio station coverage on the English Wikipedia, as there has not been a new FA in radio stations (some 25,000-plus titles in total) since WINC (AM) in 2014. A significant thanks goes out to Maiacosis, who wrote about 15 percent of this page including programming descriptions and provided some of the images used in this article. I also appreciate Lee Vilenski for his 2022 GA review and the Phoenix Suns's gnarly blowout in Game 7 of the 2022 Western Conference semifinals for spurring me to distract myself with a major writing project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:KEXP_logo_(black_on_orange).svg is confusing me. The source field says orange was added to match the Instagram picture, but the Instagram picture has orange on the bars, not the background; none of the versions linked have an orange background. Is this actually a version used by them, or did we make it up? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Odd indeed. They don't use a hard background with it, but that is their brand orange. I decided to strip the orange and leave a skin invert class to satisfy the original concern about darkmode visibility, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
edit- "... the station began to grow into one with an international listener base ...": suggest "... began to acquire an ...".
- Done
- "began formulating a plan to create a second UW station, one that would be run by students": suggest shortening to "began planning to create a second UW station that would be run by students".
- Done
- "Noonan had come from San Francisco, where he was aware of other college stations": do you mean that there were multiple student-run radio stations in San Francisco?
- Yes. The original quote is, “There were student activities and protests and all these things going on, and none of that information was getting to the students; it just wasn’t being processed. The only thing the UW had was The Daily, and I had worked at some stations back in California that were interviewing people from the Black Panthers; people who were very active in movements back in those days,” he says. “I felt that the students needed an outlet, a voice.”
- "While there were so few listeners in 1975 that UW administrators ordered a programming overhaul, by 1981, the station was starting to become more adventurous musically". The use of "while" implies there's a logical connection between the two halves of the sentence, but there doesn't appear to be -- "so few listeners" is not in opposition to "adventurous musically" in any way. And the only example of adventurousness given is airing new wave music; this doesn't seem an adventurous thing to do in 1981, when, if my memory is not leading me astray, New Wave was a major (and mainstream) commercial force. I was in the UK at the time, though -- maybe it meant something different in the US? In the UK it meant bands like Elvis Costello and Talking Heads. From some comments further down the article about KJET dropping their alternative music format it seems you're using New Wave to mean alternative but that would not have been the nomenclature back then.
- This gets gnarly. The New Wave label was contemporary for the period, for sure (some of the stuff I went back and was able to make into public clippings emphasizes this). It seems new wave evolved into alternative? I could use guidance here.
- "KZAM ... changed due to low ratings": I think this means that KZAM dropped New Wave music but I think it should be clearer.
- Reworded for clarity
- Suggest dropping the sentence "A power boost also came" and starting a new paragraph at that point instead.
- Done
- "... the beginning of stereo broadcasts for the first time ...": "beginning" is redundant with "for the first time".
- Done
- "commercial competition in the form of KJET which had adopted the format in 1982": I don't know what "the format" refers to here.
- Clarified
- "foundation of Sub Pop": suggest "foundation of record label Sub Pop".
- Done
- "Through the UW": is this normal usage for UW? One would never use "the" in this sort of construction with UT, say, or UCLA. There are more instances of "the UW" later in the article.
- It's all over their website. There is no specific entry for it, but there are lots of sentences on the UW brand guide with it: It shows that the UW is authoritative, intentional and thoughtful, referring specifically to the UW.
- "it remains on KEXP's schedule" needs an "as of".
- Done
- "two shows hosted by black DJs were added to daytime slots that were exclusively held by Richards, Cheryl Waters, and Kevin Cole": suggest "had been held", if I have the intended meaning correct. What does "exclusively" mean?
- Tried to reword.
- Re the analysis by Tableau Software, giving the "broadened" statement first is a bit confusing -- I assume the station broadened its mix in response to the analysis? In which case reversing the order of the clauses would be easier on the reader.
- Done.
- You might consider an internal link from the first text mention of the Gathering Space to the section about it lower in the article.
- Done.
- "The live room holds special significance as it serves as the backdrop for the station's video podcasts". What would be lost if this were shortened to "The live room serves as the backdrop for ..."?
- Nothing at all. (This is the section Maiacosis contributed)
- What is a "correlating fluid simulation"?
- What are "activated festoon lights"?
- Reworded this area to be a little less...dense.
- "The Gathering Space has always included a coffee shop early since its inception". Triply redundant; how about "The Gathering Space has included a coffee shop since its inception"?
- Done
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Should have responded to everything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [13] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good find. I think that does it. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [13] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Neutralhomer
edit- As the editor on the WINC (AM) article, I'd be remiss if I didn't give my 2 cents to this FAC, which will finally add a second FAC to the WPRS project.
- "By 1992, ten years after becoming listener-supported, KCMU's budget had grown from $20,000 to $180,000. In addition to the two technical improvements in the 1980s, it had added more paid staffers and listeners." Would it be possible to add a "in 2024 dollars" part to the budget line? I've seen it done on other articles, kinda connects it to today.
- Added as a footnote.
- I noticed that there isn't anything mentioned about KEXP being the official "soundtrack" station for the Seattle Kraken. A couple sources for that.
- Already there, last paragraph, "Move to Seattle Center".
- Just a minor quibble, in the Championing the "Seattle sound" section, I don't see anything about Alice in Chains. Is there anything that you or Maiacosis could find on them and KEXP to tie it all together with the rest of the Seattle grunge bands? Yes, I am an AiC fan. :)
- I did a special search and did not come up with anything.
- Other than that, I see no real issues. It'll be good to finally have another article on the list with WINC. :) I pass the torch. Good work to all involved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Neutralhomer: Responded to all pending issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apologizes on the slow reply, work got in the way. No worries on the Alice in Chains one. That wasn't a real requirement for me, just a something I'd like to have seen. :) Beyond that, all changes made, this has my full Support - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review by Generalissima
editAs I used to live right next to KEXP, I feel an obligation to look over the sources here.
- Sources look consistently formatted.
- There's not a title for ref. 31 (Sexton, Paul; Tilli, Robbert (May 31, 1997)), causing a CS1 error.
- Before I go do a spot check, I wanted to note that there is a 2020 academic source on KEXP: Brick, Mortar, and Screen: Networked Digital Media, Popular Music, and the Reinvention of the Public Radio Station by Christopher Cwynar. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2020.1738438. I would advise incorporating this into the article, as a specialist academic article is just about the best thing to incorporate into a subject like this to ensure that coverage is truly comprehensive. This would probably require a shortened footnote style of some sort for ease of use.
Let me know when you've gotten the Cwynar source incorporated in, Sammi Brie, and I'll do a source review of the rest. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima Journals do not normally factor into my work, but KEXP is not a normal project. There were some promising tangents in this one, and I added not one but three references off of that. I only cited Cwynar three times, so I didn't feel the need to dip into an sfn (like I did with Bridge at WBPX-TV). Also fixed a source I failed to clip and the missed title on the very recently added Sexton/Tilli source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Eem dik doun in toene
editI will take a look in the coming days. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "specializing in alternative and indie rock programmed by its disc jockeys" ==> in the infobox, a lot more genres are listed than only these two, and in the body of the article there are these sentences: "Since 2020, the station has also made major changes to its programming and DJ lineup, and it airs specialty shows throughout the week to diversify from its traditional focus on alternative and indie music. As of April 2024, KEXP's specialty shows include the following:". I think it's an idea to use a newer reference in the first sentence of the lede than the one used right now (from 2018). Maybe it's also an idea to alter the sentence as, as I read it, the station isn't only specializing in alternative and indie rock right now.
- This is a very good point. I am only a recent KEXP listener (not pre-2020), but yeah, the daytime variety mix is not just alt rock. (This also varies, of course, by DJ: see, for instance, Larry Mizell Jr.'s shows.) I think fewer genres listed in the infobox will help.
- "By this time, the debate was ameliorated" ==> as a non-native English speaker, I had to look up what "ameliorated" means. Maybe you can use a more common term?
- Changes made here.
- "1 and 6 am" ==> 1 and 6 a.m. (as you've used a.m. throughout the article).
- Probably a relic from a general formatting script that did this too often.
- Some minor comments from me. Interesting and well-written article! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Responded, Eem dik doun in toene. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Responded, Eem dik doun in toene. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
voorts
editcomments tk. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Years would be helpful in the subsection headers in the history section, e.g., 1971–1987: Early years as KCMU. I also notice there's some overlap. For example, the aforementioned subsection goes up to 1987, but the next subsection begins in the mid-1980s. Any way to rearrange this to make it more chronological?
- Reorganized some material (and removed one item I realized had become increasingly irrelevant as the article went on).
- I think this should be removed. Unlike alums who went into the music industry, this seems less relevant: A KCMU alumnus of this period, who began with the station after KZAM folded, went onto a career in public office: Dow Constantine, later a Washington state legislator and King County Executive, whose future wife worked as a volunteer DJ.
- Excised. I've kept it preserved on the talk page in case Constantine becomes governor (he refused to run in 2024).
- The Experience Music Project—now known as the - add (EMP) after Experience Music Project.
- Done
- UW engineers invented CD players that could retrieve song metadata from the internet in order to build a real-time playlist - wouldn't they already have metadata if they're playing off of CDs? I'm a bit confused by this.
- The reference is rather unambiguous here: University of Washington engineers invented CD players that could connect to the Web to retrieve song and band information, which could then be transfered to a real-time playlist at www.kexp.org.
- ; the next year, the station started offering a rolling archive of its last two weeks of programming, branching out to offer an archive of past in-studio performances - remove the semicolon and make this its own sentence. I'm also not sure what "branching out" means in this context. Can you rephrase?
- Done.
- Web streaming was emerging as a major force for listenership around the world. When?
- This is in the same early 2000s period indicated at the top of the paragraph.
- The Tacoma simulcast agreement was wound down in March 2006 as being too costly ahead of EMP ceasing to underwrite KEXP's losses, though KEXP did increase its power to its present 4,700 watts that year. The fact that KEXP was experiencing losses just comes out of nowhere in the middle of this sentence with no context. This can be fixed be reorganizing the paragraph to start with their financial troubles (e.g., almost failing to make payroll => this occurring).
- Reorganized. Great idea.
@Sammi Brie: That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts: Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about... an almost forgotten election for an almost forgotten office. Yet interesting both for the winner, the former viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and for the fact that the two runners up actually tied in the next election, and an obscure means of breaking the tie had to be invoked. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- Lead images are quite small and difficult to see
- I've replaced the image of Ashtown with a portrait shot which may help here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Bird_notes_and_news_(1912)_(14562015579).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
- I've added some and tried to find an individual photographer without luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Baron_Ashtown.jpeg: per the UK tag, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Ditto File:Lord_Farnham.jpeg.
- Done and also for the new Ashtown image.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Llewee comments and support
editHello Wehwalt, I am going to make a few suggestions for this nomination.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Background
- A brief explanation of what a United Kingdom peer was and how it was a separate category from a Irish peer would be useful in the background section. I think a brief explanation of what the house of Lords is might be helpful as well.
- I've added something along those lines, at least drawing the distinction between UK peers and Irish peers.
- "This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not." - Was this because they felt uncomfortable swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state or just for practical reasons?
- It was inconvenient for practical reasons. Most IRPs were Unionist and had no objection to swearing an oath to the British crown. It was just inconvenient for practical reasons. There were cases of Irish JPs traveling to England and in one case to Saint Petersburg to administer the oath in the contested 1825 IRP election.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed..." — What does this paragraph about events after 1922 have to do with an election in 1908? If it is going to included at all I would suggest moving it to aftermath.
- I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok that's understandable--Llewee (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Candidates and campaign
- "threw himself off a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel" — this sounds like an oddly flippant tone to me, maybe just say "jumped off a..."
- Changed to "jumped".
- "who had been suffering from illness, was killed immediately" — I would suggest taking out the clause about an illness, bluntly I don't think that much matters when you have fallen out of a high window. Also "died" probably works better than "killed" in this instance.
- Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
- Fatally injured should be fine. The grammar of that sentence feels quite awkward, could it be reorganised so his illness is introduced first and then his death. (e.g Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, was mentally unwell. On 9 November 1907, he jumped from a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel and was fatally injured.--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The newspapers were circumspect in discussing his illness, the one I'm using for a source says he was suffering from insomnia. Let's just stick to the bare essential that he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
- "Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer" — Shouldn't "in the" be "for an"?
- It could go either way but "for an election for a successor" sounds kinda odd.
- "(who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" — Did that mean he couldn't be a contender?
- Since he had a seat for life, there was no point in his running. The press made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "(the last ever to be created)" — I'm not sure this is particularly relevant but if it is going to be included then clarify "before Irish independence in 1922".
- Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, that is fine--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "appropriate title as he took up his position as viceroy" — Clarify (possibly in a footnote) that peers were given the title of Lord which was prestigious.
- I've added a source to stress he did not want to go to India as Mr Curzon. It doesn't actually say that it is a prestigious title but perhaps it is close enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "he found that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons" — I think this could worded more bluntly "he was too unwell to campaign for reelection to the commons"
- I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's understandable. It just struck me as slightly odd that he was well enough to be a Peer but not well enough to be an MP.--Llewee (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, perhaps 'felt' instead of "found"? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "considered it undesirable that a recent viceroy fight for a parliamentary seat" — Why was this?
- He considered it undignified that a former high representative of the King-Emperor scrap for votes. I've added something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- " the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, and soon after, resigned. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon a United Kingdom peerage" — Why did these prime ministers oppose him receiving a peerage?
- Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you could just say (perhaps in a footnote) that he was from a different party and disagreed with the government on India policy.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life." — This is a bit non-neutral, maybe just say "support his campaign".
- It's not being said with Wikipedia's voice but as a paraphrase of what Curzon wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "with considerable satisfaction" — this sounds odd to me, maybe say "with approval"
- I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It feels like a slightly quaint term to me, but it's not a major issue.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Curzon was opposed for the seat" — I think it would be clearer to say "some opposed Curzon's candidacy".
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "They therefore saw no reason to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime to accommodate an Englishman." — I think a more neutral way of wording this would be "They felt this would in effect reduce the Irish representation in Westminster for the rest of Curzon's lifetime."
- I don't know about feeling it, it would. Curzon wasn't Irish and normally the IRPs were elected from among Irish residents. I've rephrased somewhat, look it over.
- "He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry" — I feel more information could be added here, why was there a boycott against him?
- Added.
- "but considered Curzon's candidacy hard on peers" — I think changing "hard" to "unfair" would sound more formal.
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "wrote to three candidates, including Curzon," — Weren't there only three candidates in the race?
- Lord de Vesci apparently had some designs on the seat. He got the 1909 vacancy, he might have been one of the three. We don't know what was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote" — perhaps add a footnote say he had left Ireland in X year to take up Y position or wherever he'd gone
- I assume he sold his Irish lands, but what he meant would be rather speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "for Irish representative peer" — Shouldn't it be "peers" rather than "peer"?
- Yes. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "in the political wilderness" — this could be worded more bluntly (e.g out of politics)
- " The Kerry News reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston..." — I'm not sure what this sentence has got to do with the election.
- Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston) was an Irish peer who had a seat in the House of Commons. The point of the discussion was that Palmerston seems to have feared that the Torys would elect him a representative peer and send him against his will to the House of Lords, and so did not claim the right to vote for representative peer following the argument that was used against Curzon that you had to be have claimed and had upheld the right to vote for IRP in order to be elected an IRP. Of course that argument did not prevail against Curzon. Possibly Palmerston was taking no chances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Election
- "like the one later that year in November" — This clause referencing another election which isn't the focus of the page isn't really necessary.
- Since that election involved two of the candidates from this one, its worth noting that it still attracted a considerable turnout even without Curzon's participation.
- "The Irish Times was confident that Curzon would be seated, but stated that..." — I'd say change "but" to "while" because the quote doesn't contradict the first part.
- There's sort of an implicit contradiction, because the clause is meant to say that even if Curzon was not seated, he will still have received a considerable honour. But I've changed to "and".
- "though it required that the peers voting in an election for Irish representative peers have claimed a right to vote" — change "have" to "had"
- I think "had" is correct. I could be persuaded otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath
- "has the distinction of being" — change this to "was"
- Was is ambiguous. The books are now closed on the IRPs and Curzon was the only one ever elected who did not live in Ireland, but if I said "was", the reader might wonder if that was true as of 1908 or is that still true. I've changed to "is".
- I'm not going to get back to this until Friday or possibly the weekend. I just answered the ones I felt I could easily answer. The rest will follow--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done now. Proceeding to deal with Gog's, then the IR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Llewee, are we good?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Llewee, I've added that footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, Ok it seems good to go--Llewee (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- "Background", first sentence: You don't give, nor is it possible to calculate, the size of the electorate. It can be implied from "A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers" in the next section, but IMO it would be helpful to explicitly state it at the end of this paragraph.
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords". Something like 'to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords from there ranks by the 134 Irish peers' might help a reader to grasp more rapidly what this is about.
- Included. It's Irish peers eligible to vote. Remember Curzon was not at the time eligible to vote.
- "and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those so eligible." I read this as Ashtown gaining the most votes among those eligible to vote. Is it possible to rephrase to clarify?.
- I tried to avoid a repetition, but I've spelt it out.
- " but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy." Perhaps add '... also in 1908'?
- "one house of the British Parliament". It seems confusing to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the British Parliament. Given that Britain can be considered a component of the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it seems an unnecessary complication.
- "signed by two Lords Temporal". Why the upper-case initial letters?
- No idea. Done.
- "Lord Chancellor would instruct the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper conduct an election". Similarly.
- Ditto.
- "returnable 20 January 1908" → 'returnable by 20 January 1908'?
- No. The writ is returnable, not the ballots. I'm pretty sure that's the proper legal language
- "who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905". I am not sure that "actually" adds anything. Perhaps just delete, or replace with 'already'?
- " He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created), to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy", Perhaps ' He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created) in 1898, to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy'?
- Link commoner.
- "including replacing local labourers with Scottish replacement". Is it possible to avoid using "replacing" and "replacement" within six words?
- "though this could not be proved." Perhaps 'though this was never proved'?
- "The M. P. for Liverpool Scotland". Assuming this is written in UKvar, member of parliament is abbreviated to MP.
- "The January 1908 election, like the one later that year in November, attracted a high turnout from the voters." Is the number of votes cast known?
- No.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I haven't specifically replied, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
SC Interesting article – I'd quite forgotten the constitutional position regarding Irish peer elections. Just a couple of very small points from me:
- The Malcomson quote refers to the "conservative party": I think—in line with MOS:CONFORM—this should be "Conservative Party"
- "Lentaigne traveled to London": I think it likely he travelled to London
I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from KJP1
edit
Wehwalt - hope you are keeping well. And what a wonderfully obscure topic (see below)! Some comments/suggestions from me.
- Lead
- Given the topic's obscurity - I doubt one reader in a thousand will have heard of the Irish Representative Peers (IRPs)! - I think the lead needs a brief explanation of the wider context. I accept that you have it in Background, and that there is a link, but I think a short para. in the Lead, probably the second, could explain; their creation - the Acts of Union; their purpose - Irish representation in the UK Parliament after the abolition of the Irish Parliament; and their, oddly small, constituency - fewer than 150 electing 28. I think the third and fourth para.s could be combined to allow for a new second to cover this.
- I will add something on the Acts of Union 1800 in the background section and likely a sentence of summary in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Curzon, despite a minimal connection with Ireland" - that "minimal" connection being....? I assume it's his Irish peerage, given that he'd never set foot in Ireland, and didn't own land there. You mention the peerage in the next sentence. I wonder if the nature of the minimal connection could be made explicit. Perhaps something like - "Curzon contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. His connection to Ireland was minimal; born in Derbyshire, the eldest son of an English peer, he held no land in Ireland and his association was limited to the Irish peerage he had been granted in 1898 on his appointment as Viceroy of India. This slender connection sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race also worked against him. Moreover, he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, a requirement for participation as a voter, which led some to argue that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate."
- I don't know that he owned no land in Ireland, I'm not sure any source I have (and I looked through the relevant bits in four bios of Curzon) actually says that. I've rephrased somewhat, leading with the fact he was an Englishman.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Background
- "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as representative peer" - "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer"?
- Fair enough
- "Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed" - do the sources say what they did with the second copy? Keep it?
- One copy was kept at the Crown Office in Dublin (and destroyed by fire in the Four Courts fire of 1922), the other went with the writ and return to the House of Lords.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's an example from the Victorian era of a blank ballot on the National Archives of Ireland site, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the voter's seal affixed, and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin" - link seal and Crown Office?
- OK.
- "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer" - "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peers"?
- Not sure. Peer sounds correct to me.
- "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey, who died in 1961," - perhaps just, "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer Lord Kilmorey in 1961,"?
- OK.
- Candidates and campaign
- "Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" - I don't follow this. As Darnley was already an IRP, and, as you explain above, only death or dishonour terminated this, how was he again eligible? Were the press just wrong? The first source explains why he wasn't in the Lords as an English peer, which is fine, but he was as an IRP from 1905, so why would he be eligible twice?
- He wasn't eligible. The press made a mistake, as best I can tell. I've tweaked it as far as I can go. There wasn't any follow up on this that I could see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "...Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this" - given that this was unusual, going against the general precedent, and that the king specifically asked for it to happen, I wonder whether a brief explanation as to why Balfour opposed an earldom would be helpful, perhaps in a footnote. Kenneth Young covers it quite extensively in his Balfour. In essence, Balfour was concerned over the timing, following on from Curzon's resignation and his publicly-expressed opposition to government policy; "it would never do so to time this public recognition of his services as to suggest that it was in the remotest degree connected to his action in the Curzon-Kitchener dispute. In that dispute he was in the wrong. It would be absurd to take a step which would be universally interpreted as meaning I believed him to be in the right." (Balfour to Lord Knollys 7 October 1905) (Young, p=242).
- I'm reluctant to over focus on this. This article really isn't about Curzon's resignation. The thing is, Balfour never honoured him, though I don't know if he did a resignation honours.
- I said implement or ignore, so I won’t press the point, but, for me, it is pretty central. The only reason Curzon stood as an IRP was to regain a public platform. He didn’t have one because first Balfour, and then C-B, had denied him the, almost obligatory, post-Viceregal peerage. For me, the reader would benefit from an explanation as to why. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll write something up using the source you mention and insert it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've used your source (which is available online).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll write something up using the source you mention and insert it tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said implement or ignore, so I won’t press the point, but, for me, it is pretty central. The only reason Curzon stood as an IRP was to regain a public platform. He didn’t have one because first Balfour, and then C-B, had denied him the, almost obligatory, post-Viceregal peerage. For me, the reader would benefit from an explanation as to why. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and that King Edward VII considered that it marred the dignity of the viceregal office" - I'm not sure what the second that is doing?
- Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "asked that the voters look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life" - perhaps, "asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only route by which he could re-enter public life"?
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The Manchester Guardian thought it appropriate that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry" - is "appropriate" quite right here? The Guardian is being sarcastic and I wonder whether something like "telling" would better convey that?
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "because Curzon was the heir to a British title, and when he inherited that title, he would not vacate his place as Irish representative peer. They therefore did not want to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime." - would something like this be a little simpler?, "because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster."?
- I've kept the lifetime, otherwise adopted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the explosion of a crude bomb" - I appreciate the source does talk of a "crude" bomb, but am not sure what it adds. It's presumably something like "makeshift"?
- There's a fair amount of discussion of this in the press, which comes to no real conclusion and seems very colored by viewpoint. I've deleted "crude" and let it go that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "few if any were Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by" - aside from the placing of the preposition, I don't think one would expect many Irish peers at this time to be nationalists. But of Home Rulers, there were a few, David Cannadine suggests at most half a dozen. {The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy p=533}. I wonder if something like this would be a bit clearer, "and very few supported Home Rule for Ireland, the official position of the Irish Parliamentary Party which held over 80 percent of the Irish constituencies."?
- I'm presenting O'Connor's perspective here. I'm not sure we need to get into it at the level you suggest, just presenting the perspective of people who thought the whole election was a farce.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Election
- "like the 2nd duke of Abercorn" - it may be that the source has it, and I think MoS suggests it, but the lower-case d looks odd, especially for a specific Duke.
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Aftermath
- "were placed in an ordinary goblet" - to me, it looks like a wine glass and you use "glass" above. Would "wine glass" do? The blue-link for goblet is rather ecclesiastical.
- There was a good deal of discussion of this. It was a piece of stemmed glassware, such as ordinarily was used by their lordships for satisfying thirst, not necessarily with water. I think that unless I'm missing something, wine glass is fine. (I personally prefer stemless glassware but most of the time drink from stemmed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope these are of some use. Obviously, they are mainly suggestions, which can be considered and enacted, or ignored, as you think fit. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, KJP1, all done. All's well here except I need the ministrations of the medical men more than in the days of my youth. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt - I appreciate your accommodating me on Curzon's resignation/Balfour, C-B's unwillingness to elevate. Looking over the other comments, I see I wasn't the only one to raise it, and I think your amendments address the issue very well. As for the other comments, again, I appreciate the responses and am very pleased to Support. Glad you are keeping well, with necessary interventions! I address my own ailments through self-medication with pinot noir, à la Riley, but I understand he's currently hors de combat with a plaster-cast, so he is probably administering it through a straw. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, and have sent a note to Tim expressing my best wishes. Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt - I appreciate your accommodating me on Curzon's resignation/Balfour, C-B's unwillingness to elevate. Looking over the other comments, I see I wasn't the only one to raise it, and I think your amendments address the issue very well. As for the other comments, again, I appreciate the responses and am very pleased to Support. Glad you are keeping well, with necessary interventions! I address my own ailments through self-medication with pinot noir, à la Riley, but I understand he's currently hors de combat with a plaster-cast, so he is probably administering it through a straw. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, KJP1, all done. All's well here except I need the ministrations of the medical men more than in the days of my youth. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review - PASS
edit- Just wondering why News Letter and Freeman's Journal have places of publication, but the other newspapers don't – is there a reason?
- Yes, since there is no description of the location in the name, and these are relatively obscure Irish journals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- For Anson, I'm not sure you need to have that it's in the UK – none of the other sources have a country.
- It's not part of the criteria (and I don't take it into account), but it may be worth archiving the websites? (You have for one, but not the others)
- I'm not adept at it, and would prefer that other people with bots do it.
- SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
edit
Fascinating stuff. As an Englishman of Irish descent I'm grateful to Wehwalt for a glimpse into Anglo-Irish parliamentary shenanigans. A few quibbles, some drawing on the 1917 edition of Erskine May.
- Piping
- Queen Victoria but King Edward VII – I know those are the titles of the WP articles, but it looks a bit odd here to have the female title in blue and the male one in black.
- Background
- "consisted mainly of several hundred hereditary peers of the United Kingdom": I'm not sure that's quite right: there were peers of England, of Scotland, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom, and I don't think those in the first three categories were absorbed into the fourth.(Erskine May, pp. 6–12). The representative peer arrangements for Ireland followed the precedent of those for Scottish representative peers (sixteen of them) following the 1707 Act of Union (EM, p. 9).
- Anson, at page 190, if I read him correctly, does describe England's peerage as merging into the peerage of GB, and then UK. I've spelled it out in a footnote. The Irish and Scottish representative peers weren't quite the same, the Scots only served for one parliament and the voting qualifications were different.
- Afterthought: I think perhaps you could skirt round the matter by saying "consisted mainly of several hundred British hereditary peers", which isn't incorrect but avoids the distinctions between the four categories. Tim riley talk 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- "along with 28 Irish representative peers and certain others, such as some Anglican archbishops and bishops" – the certain others being law lords (of whom there were four between 1876 and 1913 – EM, pp. 11–12 ), and the Lords Spiritual were the two archbishops and the twenty-four senior diocesan bishops (EM, p. 6)
- Responding to the above two, I've put all that in a footnote. I have exact statistics as of 1909 but I don't want to put up too much of a wall between the reader and the meat of the article.
- Candidates and campaign
- "Commander-in-Chief, India, General Lord Herbert Kitchener" – this gives his title wrongly: unless Kitchener was the younger son of a duke or marquess, which he wasn't, his given name doesn't get into his title. He was General Lord Kitchener, but you could get away with calling him General Lord (Herbert) Kitchener.
- Ah, I wasn't sure on that point.
- "… objected because Curzon, as heir to a British title …" – this is the first we've heard of this heirdom, and it might be helpful to flesh it out slightly on the lines of "…objected because Curzon was heir to the British barony of Scarsdale and would retain his status..."
- I've simply introduced Curzon as Baron Scarsdale's son and heir.
- Sentence beginning "Freeman's Journal of Dublin pointed out ..." – I have three minor problems with this:
- The article headlined "Lord Curzon's Pretentions" is actually headed "Lord Curzon's Pretensions"
- The article thus headed is on page 6 of Freeman's Journal for 2 January 1908 and not on p. 16.
- The article doesn't say that Curzon's father was 76 years old: it refers to him (wrongly) as "seventy-seven years old"
- Errors fixed, 76 changed, alas, to elderly.
That's all I can find to carp about. Tim riley talk 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria and it has been a pleasure to read and review it. Tim riley talk 13:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks both for the review and the kind words. Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Nominator note
editJust noting that after today, I may be out for a couple of days for medical reasons, if there are further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
750h
edit- lead
- among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to i'd remove "at that time", but i don't really mind
- I prefer the way it is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- something required in order to vote in ==> "something required to vote in"
- eligible to vote, and that remove the comma
- among those who were eligible to vote ==> "among those eligible to vote"
- did not apply to candidates, and declared Curzon remove the comma
- background
- House of Lords of Ireland, but provided for Irish representation remove the comma
- voter's seal affixed, and remove the comma
- with the establishment of the Irish Free State in 1922. i'd change this to either "with the Irish Free State's 1922 establishment" or "with the Irish Free State's establishment in 1922"
- candidates and campaign
- an Irish representative peer since 1890 died in Paris. bit confused here; what does "1890 died in Paris" mean
- a successor as representative peer ==> "a successor as a representative peer"
- I don't agree. It would be "a successor as MP" or "a successor as prime minister"
- A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers. ==> "134 ballots were sent to eligible peers."
- It being thought that the viceroy and representative ==> "It was thought that the viceroy and representative" (i think)
- also refused Curzon a earldom or "a" should be "an"
- position in spite of the fact that Curzon had ==> "position although Curzon had"
- supporters of the boycott, but was remove the comma
- unfair to peers who had been waiting years for the honour ==> "unfair to peers waiting years for the honour"
- I dont' agree. The present language better conveys that there were peers who had waited years for the item, although we don't know specifically who was being referred to.
- people of Ireland, since the remove the comma
- Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies "percent" should be "per cent"
- The number of them who exhibit Irish patriotism of any kind or degree are an insignificant minority. "are" should be "is". "The number" is singular, so the verb should also be singular.
- I'm not certain about this. It's referring to multiple people so in BritEng shouldn't it take the plural?
- I'm pretty sure. Maybe ask another editor, but i'm pretty sure it's this way. I don't mind too much
- It's a quotation in any case from a newspaper so it should probably be left as is.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure. Maybe ask another editor, but i'm pretty sure it's this way. I don't mind too much
- I'm not certain about this. It's referring to multiple people so in BritEng shouldn't it take the plural?
- election
- by a number of peers that they ==> "by several peers that they"
- Irish representative peers had claimed a right to vote, and had that claim upheld by the House of Lords, it did not require the same for the person elected. remove "it"
- aftermath
- Under a procedure set forth in the Act sounds excessively formal. i'd do "Under a procedure outlined in the Act "
- I dont' agree. I've read that portion of the Act. It sets out in detail what must be done in the case of a tie, and was done for the only time in the November election.
That's all i got. fine work! 750h+ 13:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It may be a few days before I respond. Health reasons.__Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support, just one comment above. No problem. 750h+ 13:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done or responded to. Thanks, 750h+
- Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Siege of Baghdad shook the world. The end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the zenith of the Mongol conquests, the foundation of a new empire in the Middle East. Legends sprang up around the siege, and it became a byword for wanton destruction—but was it?
This article passed a GA nomination from sawyer777 earlier this year, and I now bring its nomination to FAC. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
editI'll have a look at this. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Background
Could Persia be linked in the lead and body?- Done.
- What variety of English is being used? I see "utilised" rather than "utilized", but "centers" rather than "centres" and "vassalize" rather than "vassalise".
- Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
- I take it you are using Oxford spelling. "centers" and "epicenter" still need to be changed to "centres" and "epicentre".
- Done.
- I take it you are using Oxford spelling. "centers" and "epicenter" still need to be changed to "centres" and "epicentre".
- Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
"...in the words of Justin Marozzi." How about "...in the words of English historian Justin Marozzi." to tell the readers who he is."In that year Chormaqan..." Suggest to add a comma: "In that year, Chormaqan..."- Done both.
"Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was extremely leisurely by Mongol standards." Suggest to change to "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was slow by Mongol standards." Leisurely feels too imprecise. It wasn't literally leisurely was it?- Yes, it was. done in a relaxed way, without hurrying. There was feasting, hunting, diplomatic negotations, more banquets, etc. It took almost three years to travel from Mongolia to Persia, a journey which could have been made in a number of months.
19 November." Can a year be added to that date?- Added.
"...while Gerdkuh held out for fifteen years, only falling in 1271." Is this part relevant to the siege of Baghdad, seeing as it take place over a decade after the event.- Moved into the nearby note. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Baghdad campaign
"...and so he refused." Suggest changing to "...so he refused."- I think that works less well.
"...meaning Baghdad was in a difficult position..." Suggest changing to "...placing Baghdad in a difficult position..."- Adjusted.
"...who had been occupied with troubles to the northwest." What kind of troubles?- Defined.
"...this was just "provocative bluster"..." Who is saying this quote. I don't think this should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.- Rephrased.
"The assault on Baghdad's flood-weakened walls..." I think the flood-weakened walls should be mentioned in the above paragraph at "the walls were in disrepair".- Moved.
"According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, an Armenian historian..." Suggest changing to "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, a 13th-century Armenian historian..."- Good idea.
Legacy
- No comments.
Those are all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Steelkamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've struck though the comments that have been addressed. There is one left which I think you have missed. I would like to do a second read-through of the whole article before deciding to support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that Steelkamp, the article should be ready for your second readthrough now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Steelkamp, any further comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm feeling a bit out of my depth in reviewing this article. I have a feeling that the "background" section is a bit too long, but don't have any concrete suggestions on what to cut. I also feel that some of the language used is not accessible to a wide audience. I'm giving a support, but I encourage you to take those comments on board. Steelkamp (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Steelkamp, any further comments? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that Steelkamp, the article should be ready for your second readthrough now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've struck though the comments that have been addressed. There is one left which I think you have missed. I would like to do a second read-through of the whole article before deciding to support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
editProse and sourcing review
|
---|
My comments:
That's all from me on the text. A great article overall, with more details than I expected would have been extant. Matarisvan (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
|
- A support from me for promotion to FA class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editAirshipJungleman29, here goes:
source review
|
---|
|
Mostly ok just needs the above changes and quotations. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Responses above Matarisvan. My general position is that citations to books don't need DOIs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source review is a pass then. I would appreciate it if you could comment at a PR I have running, linked here, your comments would be very helpful for improving that article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
FM
edit- Marking my spot. In the meantime I see a bunch of WP:duplinks at the end of the article, which can be highlighted with this script:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed a couple; I think the others adhere to MOS:DUPLINK enough.
- Link Hulegu in the first caption he's mentioned in (infobox) instead of the caption far below?
- Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi FunkMonk, wondering if you had forgotten about this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be back soonish, had to wrap up some other things. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.
I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
edit
This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:
- The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
- The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
- Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
- "Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
- "further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
- "the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
- "kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.
I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
editOn first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.
- Kha and Merit
- "but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.
- Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.
- 1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.
- Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".
- "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.
- Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?
- "Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.
- It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...
- Chapel
- Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.
- I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's see if other reviewers bring it up.
- I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "time of European interest in it, during" can be cut
- "the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"
- The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.
- Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would suggest linking Register (art).
- Tomb
- This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).
- So far I have only split up the large first paragraph in "Discovery and clearance". Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:A TT8 Kha sírja Dejr-el-Medinében.jpeg is a very unhelpful picture+caption. First, are we to assume the yellow dot covers up the location of the tomb? Surely an arrow would be better?Second, the latter part of the caption (viz. "visible diagonally to the left of the tomb, partially obscured by the hill") is just confusing. After around five minutes of searching, I think I can see a flat-topped structure, next to some terrace-like walls, on a bearing of 250° from the yellow dot—is that the chapel?If so, note that readers will naturally see "obscured by hill" and assume you mean the big ones at the back of the photo, where I spent the first four minutes playing I spy. You could alleviate this problem by saying "closer to the camera" or something.
- Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will see what I can do this weekend : ) Merytat3n (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That does seem to be the case. I ran into the same problem with Ai-Khanoum, but in that case others had uploaded their own renditions (presumably allowable per commons:COM:TOO France). If you are any good with a pen or with online software, you could probably do the same thing. If you can't, not a big deal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it sucks. Honestly, I will probably just remove the image. I would love to use a simple plan view of the area, such as appears in the general plan of Deir el-Medina in Bruyère's 1925 publication (chapel labelled 8A and tomb 8B, upper centre of image) but alas I believe they are still in copyright as Bruyère only died in 1971. Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the discoloured limestone fill was mixed with bone, pottery, and cloth" is this necessary information?
- Nope. Removed.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fourth paragraph duplicates the contents of the ... "Contents" section below. Most of the middle bit could be removed.
- "published the discovery" as in he published an account of the discovery,?
- Fixed (and expanded this section a little). Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "of the discovery" is repeated twice within two phrases.
- Reworded.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "leading to confusion" resolved or unresolved?
- Unresolved, but I have resolved the wording : )Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "A cubit rod ... may have been an award from [Amenhotep II]" this uncertainty is at odds with the "Kha and Merit" section, which shows no such lack of surety.
- Source checked and surety established.Merytat3n (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like . However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (Support)
edit- As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
- I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!
- Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting
You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.- That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
x-y-pair
do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables
why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".- Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ...
This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.- That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
An operation admits inverse elements...
explain what it means to "admit" an element.- I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers
Why not "positive integers"?- Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups.
studying -> which studies.- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?
- You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill
To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.- I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)
I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.
- I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
Image review
edit- File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception
- I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus.jpg needs a US tag
- I added an US tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Francois_Viete.jpg needs a US tag, and why is this linked to the article? Ditto File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added US tags and removed the links. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's confusing indeed, thanks for catching it. I added the US tag and replaced the dead link. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was a similar problem with Descartes's image. To avoid future confusion, the images currently linked in the article are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Viete.jpeg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes_(cropped).jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
editI know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:
- Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.
- Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?
- We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?
- Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest linking countable noun.
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.
- I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?
- Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.
- Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.
- I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?
- Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?
- Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.
- I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations and contradict each other since no values of and exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.
- I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?
- Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.
- Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?
- I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?
- Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
- the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).
- I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".
- I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.
- I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
editAlthough I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?
- You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?
- This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good
- We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?
- You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me
- I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?
- Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus
- I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations
- Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?
- I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?
- For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A bit more:
- x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?
- Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"
- Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
- 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.
- I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4
- I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.
- I'll brainstorm some alternatives:
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures
- The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
- This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
- This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures
- When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.
- Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- 4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.
- 5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.
- 6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.
- All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- 5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- 5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations
edit- Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
An unsuccessful nomination later and some significant copy editing with the help of others, I am renominating this article for a second time. For those of you who don't know about this article it is on an elusive comedy art film. It was directed by artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs, and was the first of several that he managed to complete until his retirement from the film industry.Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose (having opposed the first nom). This seems to be a visually remarkable but lost film, about which very little is known. I commend PFJ for pulling it all together; a fascinating insight into the genesis of the modern horror genre. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ceoil! Thouhg it is never classified as horror in any of the sources, it does offer some modern motifs to the genre that are quite fascinating.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose per Ceoil. I've had a good hack at the prose and clarified one item in talk. I'm happy that it now meets the standard. John (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks John! Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- Cite 23 has a p/pp error.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is cite 16 partially in all-caps? See WP:ALLCAPS.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cite 15: "films" should have an upper-case F.
- The article title uses lowercase. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter. All article titles should be given consistently in either title or sentence case regardless of how they appear in the original. (That's why you switched from all caps in the previous comment. :-) )
- Cite 16: the title should be in title case per MOS:CAPTITLES.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and has yet to receive a home media release." It is normal to use phrasing such as 'it has not received a home media release as of August 2024', using Template:Monthyear. Or Template:year if preferred.
- Done except without template as am old and don't understand. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer just mentioning the year, rather than month and year as it seems a bit more in line with the article. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. (I bet I'm even older.)
- "Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people proceeding across an otherworldly countryside, accompanied by a strange vehicle. At this point, the segment cuts from the cave ..." "Dispersed throughout the segment ... At this point ..." doesn't work: If something is dispersed throughout, there is no this point to cut from.
- I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- You missed this one.
- I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Plot": the 'The Blue People' section seems over-long and over-detailed to me.
- It's out of proportion to the other two segments, but that's more because the film is lost, and little is known about those two. It's not too long compared to other film FAs covering a third of the film. I would however like to see it cited, given nobody outside of those directly involved have seen it enough to make notes. Maybe it could be more suscintly worded, though I think readers will want to know. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Thrower's plot synopsis, there are more details with that section than any other portion of the plot. I agree with this assessment and will tone it down a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil I chose to use a footnote rather than an outright citation to save a little confusion of the readers wondering why there is a citation for a plot synopsis (not a lot of articles on fioms have one). It adds a little more reasoning to a citation for any editor coming in cause I have had that trouble before.--Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- "from whose extended arm hangs". Just the one arm?
- The description given by Thrower reads "A female figure reclines, extending her arm from which hangs the faces and forms of flayed humanity. A bird (an owl?) sits triumphantly astride her extended limb, with various grisly horrors dangling below." I had to simplify that because it becomes too confusing and symbolic for the average reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "with a bachelors degree in arts". Do you mean a bachelor of arts degree?
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- If "Trojan Horse" is the name of a sculpture or artwork it should be in italics.
- "it incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment." Optional: "for" → 'within'.
- Agree....done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Hobbs plays a fictionalized version of himself as the chef and fantom characters." A fantom character is not elsewhere mentioned.
- I looked over that synopsis but it does not mention the character of the Fantom. Yet it credits Hobbs as playing the character. It is very odd.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Linking "Christ" is probably overlinking.
- Agree. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree and done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This is in much better shape than for its first nomination, well done for sticking with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Ceoil you have an excellent person on board for that. Nearly there. A couple of comebacks from me above and awaiting further comment or action on the "The Blue People" section. Thinking on't, the "The" of "The Blue People" should only be there if it is a formal title, not if it is being used as part of a descriptor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The only part I would say that should include "the" is the descriptor of the segment, which includes this in my source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
edit- "homunculus (an artificial human)": That's not quite what a homunculus is – the key part of them is that they are small
- Considering the plot synopsis from my source just calls it a homonculus with descriptions that it is make of cloth, I removed the parentheses portion alltogether.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Hobbs exits the frame and the film ends": I think there should be a comma after 'frame' between the clauses
- Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The cast mainly drew from unknown actors": I'm not sure the cast drew anything: "The cast was mainly drawn from unknown actors" works much better
- Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Morgan Upton, later known for his roles as Wally Henderson in The Candidate (1972)[26] and Mr. Gilfond in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)": do we need the role names? Seems a bit too tangential and the details clutters the sentence a bit
- Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a tour undertaken by a Brazilian football club which quickly spiraled into chaos, becoming more and more unbelievable as it goes on. My first FAC! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from PMC
editWithin the week, badger me if I forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, slow night at work, so here we are. Please don't be freaked out by the number of comments, I write down everything that comes to mind when reading FACs. Suggested re-phrasings are always suggestions, feel free to do your own thing. If sources don't have info that I'm asking about, don't worry about it. Finally, I'm always open to discussion or disagreement - you're the one who knows the content, and FAC reviewers aren't infallible. And away we go!
Lead
- "looking to raise funds in friendly matches" - phrasing a bit odd here. Maybe "playing friendly matches to raise funds" or "playing friendly matches as a fundraiser"?
- Picked the first phrasing.
- Nice use of "who knows what the truth is" footnote :)
- Thanks! :)
- Sentence two is so, so long. Can it be split?
- Split into two, let me know if it needs to be split further.
- "misfortune, danger, and tragedy" - this feels a bit like over-egging the pudding. Can we pick one?
- Went with misfortune.
- Might link Nazism in Brazil since otherwise it's likely to be confusing (or maybe Brazil in World War II)
- Went with Brazil in World War II.
Natal
- Any details about what the financial crisis was or why it was happening? (Was it related to WW2?)
- Added.
- Link North Region again
- Done.
- For the ignorant among us, how would playing exhibition matches make them money?
- I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
- There's nothing more funny yet annoying than running into a situation like that, where every source is like "obviously everyone will know what a blorbo is, I don't have to explain" and then it turns no one knows what the damn blorbo is because no one explained it
- I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
- Recommend linking Brazil in World War II and maybe noting that German U-boats were patrolling the area, because many people might not realize they were
- Linked.
- Actually, the above three suggestions might fit well in a "Background" section (and you could give some brief background on the team)
- Created the background section.
- Looking good! (years ago I got taught to do Background sections and I've found it's such a help with setting up the rest of the prose)
- Created the background section.
- Is Santa Cruz from Pernambuco? I assume yes, but it's not clear - they could just be visiting there. Good fodder for the background section
- Yes. Added to background section.
- "local state's team" - no link I guess?
- Nope, not even an interlanguage link. :(
- Might want to clarify that Belem is a city, and add the state
- Added the state.
- I don't think "by" is needed when you're giving a whole-game score. You don't "win by" 7-2, you win 7-2, and win by 5 points. See what I mean?
- Removed the "by"s.
- Why is Remo 5 to 3 when everything else is given with a dash? Consistency is important
- Dash'd.
- Might be worth clarifying that all those teams are based in the city of Belém, as that's not clear from context
- Added. Doesn't read too smoothly imo, but it works.
- Are there no details in any sourcing about any of these games?
- There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
- Ah, just checking, in case any of them had any disastrous incidents :P
- There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
Manaus
- Again, might want to clarify that Manaus is a city, and add the state
- Done.
- Do we know who invited them?
- Clarified in background section.
- Was the head of delegation a player also, or like a coach?
- Clarified in background section.
- I know we don't always link countries, but I think Peru and Guyana are reasonably relevant links here
- Done.
- Link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Brazil)
- Done.
- I know the answer is likely WW2, but why were clubs not supposed to leave?
- Added.
- "Under the possibility of being suspended for 90 days" - phrasing a bit awkward here
- Suspended from what?
- I don't know, none of the sources elaborate on what the "suspension" would be.
- If they can be suspended for leaving, it's not really a request not to leave, is it?
- Clarified, hopefully.
- I might suggest moving the suspension to the previous sentence, or rewording a bit
- Reworded.
- Suspended from what?
- "relapsed from the dysentery" - "had a relapse of dysentery" is more correct
- Done.
- Are first names known for King and Papeira? If so, please include them on first mention; if not, maybe footnote it (if a roster is known, it might be worth putting one in a table in Background)
- I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
- Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
- Done.
- Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
- I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
- "both having disobeyed previous medical orders" about what?
- Added.
- To be fair I'm not sure I could restrain myself from eating eggs and lobster either
- Added.
- "but all maritime travel was prohibited by the Brazilian government" - since when? they were boating before, no?
- Added date.
Belém
- "Defender Pedrinho" first name thing again
- @Premeditated Chaos: - just jumping in here to point out that Brazilian footballers are generally known by a single name e.g. Pelé, Cafu, Dunga, Tarciso, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Often, but not always, but I'll leave that to Hilst to confirm if that was the case at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe so, since the majority of the players in the earlier 1938 World Cup squad are listed by a single name. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Often, but not always, but I'll leave that to Hilst to confirm if that was the case at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: - just jumping in here to point out that Brazilian footballers are generally known by a single name e.g. Pelé, Cafu, Dunga, Tarciso, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did Pedrinho still get to play in the game?
- I'm not sure if he did play against Remo, but he did play against Paisandu on the 9th. Added.
- "was also a club director, and was interested in the player's abilities." - so... he was going to arrest him then seduce him into joining his own team?
- Correct!
- I'm dying to know how he thought that was going to go, loooool
- "Sidinho, who had defected to the club a week earlier" - who is Sidinho? What is "the club" that he defected to?
- Added him to the roster at the top (confusingly, there's two players named Sidinho, and sources don't agree on how to spell their names...). "To the club" is a typo, it should've just been "defected the club". Rewrote the whole sentence.
- "The club then played..." I would flip the clauses in this sentence and remove "then"
- Done? I'll be honest, I'm not happy with either version
- Fair, I think it works better this way but if you want to change it another way it won't affect my support
- "before the end of the game" could tighten to "during the game"; similarly "After the end of the match" could be tightened to "After the match"
- Done.
- commemorated - I think you might want commiserated instead
- Done.
- "the Taça Cidade de Recife" - the what
- Translated "taça" to "trophy".
- Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
- Clarified.
- Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
- "starting the journey back" via? And if by boat, when did the government stop prohibiting maritime travel? (or are we riverboating here)
- Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
- Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
- No dice.
- Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
- Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
- Were the trophies valuable in and of themselves?
- Probably? Since they went out of their way to hide them, they probably had some value, but I can't verify it.
- "boat was retained" - I think you want detained
- I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
- Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
- Done.
- Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
- I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
- for the Campeonato Pernambucano - context? Even if you just say "the state championship, the Campeonato Pernambucano"
- Done.
Okay! Overall I think this is a well-researched and interesting article. It could use some polishing to get to the FA level, but it's definitely doable and I look forward to seeing it get there. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed all of your comments. Thank you for checking my article! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I'm a support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Joeyquism
editCommitting to a review in the next couple of days. Congratulations on the successful GAN for this, and welcome to FAC! joeyquism (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hilst: Apologies for taking so long to get to this. The article seems to be in pretty good shape after the preliminary reviews before mine; however, for the sake of being comprehensive, I've noted a few things below. Feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
- The introduction of the term "Suicidal Tour" in the lead feels a bit late. From MOS:BOLDLEAD:
- If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
- The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. (Electron)
- Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way:
- The United States presidential line of succession is the order in which officials of the United States ... (United States presidential line of succession)
- If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
- Perhaps the lead paragraph can have its sentences rearranged and reformatted so that the first sentence refers explicitly to this term? Otherwise, do not fret too much about this critique; I haven't seen it mentioned in other reviewers' comments, so unless that becomes a point of contention, I will not base my final stance on this entirely. Leaving this as a suggestion.
- I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm liking what you've proposed as a solution. joeyquism (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- I'm liking what you've proposed as a solution. joeyquism (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if "Brazilian Portuguese" needs to be included before "Excursão da Morte".
- Removed.
- No comma before "due"?
- Not needed with the new lead.
- I'm noticing that Brazil in World War II is linked here; however, it does not appear to be linked anywhere else in the article. Would this be appropriate as a replacement for World War II link in the Background section?
- I think that link would be a bit too MOS:EGGy for my taste.
Background
- I'm a bit confused by "subsist off of their suburban football fields" - is there something about the quality of these fields that using them would be seen as subsistence? Sorry if this is a silly question; I'm mostly just wondering. Feel free to tell me if answering does not seem worthwhile.
- They were subsisting off the revenue from leasing them to other people/clubs. Changed it to "subsist off of the revenue from their suburban football fields".
- What is meant by "buying" here? I'm not into the euphemistic use of words in articles; a clarification would be much better.
- Buying as in paying Transviário so that they would play a few matches against Santa Cruz. Feel free to suggest a reword, I can't think of anything. Removed the quotes around buying.
- The semicolon after "players" should be a colon, as it's coming before a list
- Done.
Natal and Belém
- Would it be worth it to mention that this was a relatively untroubled time for the team during their tour? Just an observation; if sourcing for such a claim is not possible, I'd say it's alright to go without it.
- No source says this as far as I can tell, sorry.
- No double link for Pernambuco; it's linked in the previous section.
- Already done.
- No comma after "lights off"
- Done.
- No comma after "3-3"
- That one was added by Gog, btw. Done.
Manaus
- "Thrice" is a bit of an outdated word; "three times" should be good
- Done.
- "as they were "attracted by good offers" from local teams - Not sure about the quotes again. Is this quote lifted from the sources, or is there some larger situation that is being euphemized by this phrase?
- Lifted from Aragão 1979.
- "two players had a relapse of dysentery" - Did they get dysentery again, or did their health deteriorate as a result of having a sustained case of dysentery? Just wondering.
- The latter, I assume.
Belém to Recife
- "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl" - Same issues as other noted usages of quotes.
- It's a quote from Aragão 1979, who lifted it straight from the mentioned telegram. Rewrote the proceeding sentence slightly so it's easier to determine where it came from. (Also moved the source up since that got left behind in a rewrite.)
- For footnote D, "Some sources incorrectly report the date as 3 March." - Is this known to be incorrect, or is there simply a discrepancy between sources (there is a difference)? If it's the latter, I would remove "incorrectly".
- It's the latter. Done.
- No comma after "Cidade do Recife trophy"
- Done.
- Is there an aftermath/legacy to all of this? Might be a big ask to include, but if there's information/analysis on this tour's impact, I think it would be worth it to include in the article.
- I don't think there is anything out there detailing it's legacy.
Overall, a very nice article on an interesting (albeit tragic) topic. I'll read over it again after my comments have been addressed. Looking forward to hearing back from you, and I hope you're having a wonderful start to your week. joeyquism (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Joeyquism: All done! Sorry for taking so long to answer your comments, oops. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hilst: Looking a lot better! Happy to support this for promotion. joeyquism (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
edit- Link football in the lead, so we know exactly which sport we are talking about
- Done.
- In the lead you have "friendly match" (unlinked) but in the body you have "exhibition match" (linked).
- Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
- Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
- "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks and deaths" => "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks, and deaths"
- Done.
- Link the club again in the body (and also show full name, like in the lead)
- Done.
- "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2, Tuna Luso 3–1" => "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2 and Tuna Luso 3–1"
- Done.
- "drew with the Pará state team 3–3, 4–4 with Paysandu" => "drew 3–3 with the Pará state team and 4–4 with Paysandu"
- Done.
- "While the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion" => "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion"
- Done.
- "they lost their first game in Amazonas to Olímpico by 3–2" => "they lost their first game in Amazonas 3–2 to Olímpico"
- Done.
- "the head of delegation and six players" => "the head of the delegation and six players"
- Done.
- "Defender Pedrinho was sent an arrest warrant" - I am pretty sure that arrest warrants are not sent to the suspect. Maybe "An arrest warrant was issued for defender Pedrinho"
- Fixed.
- "being accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl"" => "as he was accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl""
- Done.
- "It turned out that the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director" - which club?
- No idea, none of the sources mention it by name.
- "Santa Cruz entering the field before a game in Belém." - this doesn't need a full stop
- Removed.
- Do we really need the exact time of King's death and (particularly) funeral? If you feel we do, I think they should be shown using the 12-hour clock i.e. 2.35am and 4.00pm
- Removed the funeral time. I believe the 24-hour format is more appropriate here, since that's the one that is used in Brazil.
- "At 16:30,[16] before the end of the game" => "At 4.30pm,[16] before the end of the game"
- See above.
- "but had to return to São Luís due a thunderstorm" => "but had to return to São Luís due to a thunderstorm"
- Fixed.
- "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, via train" => "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, by train"
- Done.
- "Papeira's briefcase was given to his family, but King's briefcase could not be returned" - just a guess as I can't read the source but I suspect they were suitcases rather than briefcases
- Done.
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done all, thanks for commenting! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
More comments
edit- "buying a five-game season for five million Brazilian réis per match" - what does this mean? They had to pay 25 million reis to undertake the tour? Would that not make their finances worse rather than better?
- In the short-term, yes, but I assume the revenue they got from those first few matches was enough to cover the costs.
- "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive to the state of Amazonas" => "it took two weeks for the squad to arrive in the state of Amazonas"
- Done.
- "Three players, Cidnho, Omar and França" - first name seems to be spelt wrong
- Fixed.
- "Papeira played barefoot" - when? This section seems to be describing a journey and doesn't reference any matches
- I don't know. None of the sources say when.
- "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly after" => "He would play for Santa Cruz shortly afterwards"
- Done.
- "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after" => "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly afterwards"
- Done.
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: All done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 19:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- "they played over 25 matches". Is the exact number of matches played not known? Ok, one needs to read the unobtrusive note. Suggest 'they played either 26 or 28 matches'.
- PS. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main article, but I can't see this mentioned in the latter.
- I think you missed this one.
- Oops. I'm a bit confused by this suggestion: should I add they played either 26 or 28 matches to the main article or should I change the note to say that?
- IMO this important enough to be included in the lead - your suggestion works - rather than buried in a note. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- IMO this important enough to be included in the lead - your suggestion works - rather than buried in a note. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops. I'm a bit confused by this suggestion: should I add they played either 26 or 28 matches to the main article or should I change the note to say that?
- I think you missed this one.
- Leads are not usually cited, as they are summaries of the main articles, which will be cited.
- Removed.
- "and had to subsist off of their football grounds". I don't understand how their grounds (why plural?) helped them financially.
- I assume it was through leasing them to third parties. Changed wording so its closer to what's said in the source.
- "and the monthly payments from their associates." What associates? I mean, are we even talking people or organisations? And why were they paying money to the club?
- People. Associates in this case are fans who pay a monthly/annual fee for benefits like discounted ticket prices and merchandise. Check out the second paragraph of Sports club § Organization
- When I ask a question I am not asking it for my benefit, but for that of future readers. You have given a fine succinct explanation in answer to my query, along with a link. Could it be incorporated in line in the article?
- I think incorporating it inline makes the paragraph too clunky. I've trimmed the explanation down a bit and added it as a note.
- When I ask a question I am not asking it for my benefit, but for that of future readers. You have given a fine succinct explanation in answer to my query, along with a link. Could it be incorporated in line in the article?
- "Santa Cruz's directors decided to take a "quick spin" in the North Region". Why the colloquialism and the unattributed quote? 'take a short tour' would be more encyclopedic.
- It's a quote from Aragão 1979. Replaced.
- When quoting, bear in mind the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
- Who or what were "Transviário Esporte Clube"?
- Clarified.
- "The tour started at the height of World War II". What does at the height of mean. Perhaps 'in the middle of'.
- Done.
- "Due to fears of possible Nazi submarine attacks". Replace "Nazi" with 'German'.
- Done.
- "Afterwards, Santa Cruz traveled to" → 'Afterwards, the delegation traveled to'.
- Done.
- "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém". Suggest deleting "for".
- Done.
- "The club left for Manaus on 25 January". I suggest you stick with "delegation" throughout.
- Done.
- In the first paragraph of the Manaus section I suggest that you make it clear that they were travelling up the Amazon River.
- Done.
- "both having disobeyed the medical orders." What were the medical orders, and in what way were they disobeyed?
- They're defined in the previous paragraph. Clarified.
- "Santa Cruz intended to return ..." This reads oddly. Firstly, in what way is the football club synonymous with the delegation; secondly, I don't see how a football club is capable of intentionality, this is usually reserved for people.
- Changed to delegation.
- A map of Brazil showing the key places mentioned would greatly help.
- Costa 2020 has such a map, but I don't know its copyright status. I could make a free map, but I have no experience with this sort of thing.
- Oh the fun I had (not) doing maps for my first two FACs! So I left myself some notes and a couple of examples at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps. I have added the start of a Brazil map at the bottom - see how good to you I am. The map documentation is at Template:Location map many. The Wikipedia article on each location has its coordinates at the top right, click to get a conversion to decimal. You should be able to take it from there to fill in the other locations. Have fun and shout if you have queries.
- Lol, thanks. Done.
- Perhaps add the location of Santa Cruz's home ground? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- Perhaps add the location of Santa Cruz's home ground? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lol, thanks. Done.
- Oh the fun I had (not) doing maps for my first two FACs! So I left myself some notes and a couple of examples at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps. I have added the start of a Brazil map at the bottom - see how good to you I am. The map documentation is at Template:Location map many. The Wikipedia article on each location has its coordinates at the top right, click to get a conversion to decimal. You should be able to take it from there to fill in the other locations. Have fun and shout if you have queries.
- "An arrest warrant was sent for defender Pedrinho". What do you mean by "was sent for"?
- They received a telegram from Manaus ordering his arrest. Rewrote sentence.
- "the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director". Of which club? Santa Cruz?
- Not mentioned in sources.
- "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly thereafter". Suggest 'Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after'.
- Done.
- "being accompanied by a large crowd." Suggest deleting "being".
- Done.
- "Due to King's death, Cidinho, who had defected from Santa Cruz a week earlier, returned to the club." Who was Cidinho, why did he "defect", what does "defect" mean here, and why did King's death cause him to return?
- A player; he left so he could join another club in Manaus, see the last paragraph of the Manaus section; defect as in abandon (wording used in a source, can change if needed); I don't know.
- How come we know that Cidinho returned "due" to King's death, but not why? It seems odd and reads very oddly.
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Costa 2020 only says:
Because of his teammate's death, Sidinho gave up on leaving the delegation and going to play in Manaus.
I agree that it's quite odd. I can remove it if you want me to.- Bleh! How would you feel about replacing "due" with 'after'? Thus removing guesses at Cidinhos's motivation.
- Done.
- Bleh! How would you feel about replacing "due" with 'after'? Thus removing guesses at Cidinhos's motivation.
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Costa 2020 only says:
- How come we know that Cidinho returned "due" to King's death, but not why? It seems odd and reads very oddly.
- "A minute of silence was held before the match." It would be more usual to say 'A minute of silence was observed before the match.'
- Done.
- What is "the Cidade do Recife trophy"?
- I believe its just a random tournament Paysandu made up for a symbolic gift. The source says that "the Paysandu board [offered] the club the Cidade do Recife Trophy, played between those two great clubs and which ended in a draw for each team."
- "substituting for an injured teammate." The cook won't have been a teammate of the injured player. Better to say something like 'injured member of the delegation'.
- I think "substituting for an injured player" is the best option here.
- Yes, that works.
- "The players returned to playing football on 2 May". "returned to"? They had just played 26/28 matches.
- Changed.
- You state it is disputed whether 26 or 28 matches were played, then list every one. Which two are disputed?
- Not every match is listed. I don't know which ones are disputed, Aragão 1979 doesn't list all of them.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good. A few comebacks above. If I have not responded, assume I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the moment "The tour became known as the Suicidal Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão Suicída) and the Death Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão da Morte)" is in the lead, the summary, but I don't see anything in the main article to be so summarised. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how that should be included in the article. It feels out of place in "Belém to Recife", and it doesn't really merit it's own section.
- Putting it at the end of Belém to Recife seems ok to me. Or retitle the section. (Return home and aftermath?) The number of matches they played also needs to go in somewhere.
- After combing through sources, I couldn't find anything about how it became known as that. I don't think that info is really needed anymore since the lead got reworded. Added the match number.
- Putting it at the end of Belém to Recife seems ok to me. Or retitle the section. (Return home and aftermath?) The number of matches they played also needs to go in somewhere.
- @Gog the Mild: All done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- A couple more come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Done! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 17:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- A couple more come backs. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
source review from sawyer777
editan interesting topic and it looks like no one's done a source review yet, so i'll do one this weekend probably. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
alright, getting to it.
- the sources seem perfectly reliable for this topic; we've got some sports publications and good Brazilian newspapers.
- Guedes (2023) probably does not need to be a shortened footnote if it's not paginated/sectioned.
- Turned into full ref.
- not all citations have ISSNs - where they're available, this is useful info to add & will make the cites more consistent.
- Done.
- all of the sources are in Brazilian Portuguese, so i'll be relying on machine translation for spot-checks. if any Lusophones happen upon this page and take issue with my assessment, i defer to them.
- spot-check as of this revision:
- ref 2a - good
- ref 5b - good
- ref 11a - good
- ref 15c - good
- ref 23e - good
i will continue combing through in case i notice anything else. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.
The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the maps
- Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2
- Some images are missing alt text
- Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames
- File:Garapan_Fire,_Saipan,_3_July_1944.jpg: the licensing here is contradictory - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Updated licensing to PD; it is part of the Marine archives.Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
editI was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Matarisvan,
- I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
- All sources are from reliable publishers.
- #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
- #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
- #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.
- Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
Hawkeye 7
editI reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:
- "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hurricanehink
editI figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.
- "Organized resistance ended when at least 3,000 Japanese soldiers died in the final gyokusai attack" - eesh I had to look up what gyokusai was. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think a brief description here, either wave or swarming. I also noticed that gyokusai redirects to Banzai charge. Any reason for this particular wording here? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, just the first thing I've noticed.
- " and left Japan vulnerable to strategic bombing" - you mention this in the third lead paragraph, but it's also in the first. I'm not sure if the material in the first paragraph should be moved to the third, since that all kind of lumps together the aftermath of the battle.
- removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.
- Is it worth mentioning the brief history of Saipan being taken by Japan/Germany/US as part of the background? The US was kind of taking the island back, and it never gave it up after the war. Or furthermore, there isn't even much of a background to the Pacific campaign, just starting the narrative in 1944. I see you mention more history under "geography", but that kind of feels like "background" to me.
- Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.
- I notice that two times you use "nmi", without ever using the term "nautical mile". I was only familiar with the abbreviation because tropical cyclone articles (which I usually focus on) often have their units listed in nautical miles/knots, which we always convert since the average reader probably doesn't know what they are. Considering you mostly use imperial with metric units in parenthesis, I don't think you need the nmi, unless you think otherwise.
- " 81 and 91 inches" - convert to metric please. Ditto "seven miles"
- nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.
- "The largest towns on the island–the administrative center of Garapan with its population of 10,000, Charan Kanoa, and Tanapag–were on the western coast of the island, which was where the best landing beaches for an invasion were. " clunky wording here
- reworded, breaking it into two sentences.
- "Nimitz assigned Admiral Raymond Spruance, " - I had to scroll up to remember who Nimitz was. Maybe remind the reader his significance, since it's the start of a section (Opposing forces). Kinda similarly when you say "the amphibious landings of Forager". I had to look up what Forager was again. Not a huge deal, but to a non-military expert, it might be helpful to have a few more reminders.
- added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"
- Over 60,000 troops were assigned to the assault:[b] Approximately 22,000 were in each Marine division and 16,500 in the 27th Infantry Division. - I'm not sure the use of the colon after assault:
- Colon deleted
- "6 June 1944" - this stood out to me that your date format is European. Saipan is a US territory now, and most of the US uses Month and Day, not Day then Month. Is there a reason you chose this date format?
- I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.
- "This made the defenses brittle." - is "brittle" the best word here? I'm not familiar with military terms here, and I'm not sure if "weak" is better, but maybe there's a better word out there than a word that makes me think of brittle candy.
- "brittle" changed to "weak"
- Battle
- "On 11 June, over 200 F6F Hellcats from the Fast Carrier Task Force launched a surprise attack on Japanese airfields in Saipan and Tinian..." - we don't have an exact number?
- "which began around 08:40" - timezone? Is this local time? Washington time? Coordinated Universal Time?
- Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.
- That's fair, but anytime I deal with anything time specific, it's helpful to clarify with a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.
- Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a reason "8000 men" doesn't have a comma for 8,000? Also, is this exact or about?
- Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)
- I see "pillbox" is linked in the pic farther down in the article than when it's mentioned for the first time in prose.
- Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.
- "He proposed to indefinitely postpone the 18 June invasion of Guam." - I'm guessing that happened? There's nothing else of this
- Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.
- "Intelligence had estimated that there were no more than 300 Japanese soldiers in the area" - do we know what intelligence? It might be better saying "Advanced reconnaissance" or "Spies" or however they estimated that, than starting with "Intelligence", which is odd to me as a civilian.
- Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.
- Why does the "American firepower" section appear under "25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough"? I noticed that the Sherman tanks were already mentioned previously, just not in as much detail. I wonder if the "American firepower" should appear under "Opposing forces" under the American section? I think I see the logic having it where it is now: the American firepower allowed for this turning point. Right now parts of the section feels like it disrupts the narrative, considering what came before it. All of that said, the tanks with flamethrowers sounds fucking badass, which is partly why I think that needs to be highlighted better in the article than where it is. This section is what caught my eye:
- "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."
- Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.
- "But his army's cohesion was disintegrating. Some of the remaining forces moved north, others holed up in whatever caves they could find and put up sporadic, disorganized resistance." - I noticed a few times earlier where a sentence started with "But", which felt clunky. And then the second part felt like it was missing a word, or a semicolon. Maybe "while others holed up"?
- Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.
- "On 4 July, the 27th Infantry Division and 4th Marine Division headed northwest. The 27th division reached the east coast at Flores Point, south of Tanapag" - wait is the 27th the same for both sentences here? How did it go northwest and end up east? Going around the tip of the island, I'm guessing? If so, maybe clarify that?
- That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed
- "and inflicting 80% casualties" - the rest of the article used exact number of casualties, not percentages, so I suggest using an exact number if you can.
- Added "about 900 casualties". I left 80% as a clause to illustrate the magnitude of the loss.
- "who survived the last banzai charge" - see my earlier comment about gyokusai or banzai, as long as it's consistent.
- Changed to gyokusai.
- "Eventually 1700" - why no comma?
- Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)
- " It was the Americans' most costly battle in the Pacific up to that time." - seems to have been deadly, not costly, unless I'm mistaken
- Changed to "deadly"
- What is "ordnance "?
- replaced with "shells during the battle".
- "Hirohito only accepted Saipan's eventual fall on 25 June when his advisors told him all was lost" - in 1944 or 1945? The last year mentioned was 1945, so I have to ask
- added 1944
All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.
Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions
- File:EdwardPrinceOfWalesBeauchampPagaent.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
edit"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- General
- There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it
- Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.
- Background
- Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.
- Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.
- "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.
- Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.
- "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)
- Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.
- "York went into exile": ditto
- Ditto.
- "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto
- Ditto
- "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action
- Done.
- "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations
- Thanks, adjusted.
- "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?
- H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't :)
More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- York's claim
- There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
- Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab
- " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance
- No, removed.
- "argues Brondarbit": who he?
- New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.
- "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity
- Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.
- "says Ross": who?
- Linked.
- "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
- Excellent, thanks.
Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time? ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Support from Tim riley
edit
This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.
- "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III"–"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).
- Absolutely.
- "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines"– but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other
- I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
- Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
- "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish"– can one have "a York" tout court?
- Not that one would want to, certainly!
- "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.
- Check.
- "And coming there he walked straight on ..." –unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.
- Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
- Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
- "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." –I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.
- Family tree, check.
- Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Family tree, check.
- "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" –"before"?
- Done.
- "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?
- Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.
- "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?
- UC for House of, lc for people.
- "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".
- Done.
- "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?
- Quite an important word!
- "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required
- Done.
- Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?
- Check x2.
- "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)
- done.
- "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.
- Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".
- " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?
- Good choice.
- "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.
- Semi-c'd.
- "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?
- Both good.
- "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history
- Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
- "thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thwarted is just right.
- "thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
- "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".
- Thanks.
- "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.
- Check.
- "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.
- How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
- Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
- "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?
- True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
- If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Severe, also good thanks.
- If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
- "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".
- Indeed.
- "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.
- Named Henry.
- "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.
- I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!
That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Second batch of comments from TR.
Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:
- Lead
- "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.
- Done.
- Background
- "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?
- "began interfering in government business"?
- "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?
- Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.
- York's claim to the throne
- "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.
- Good spot!
- "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.
- OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?
- Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Negotiations and the act of Parliament
- "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?
- Butting in here - this looks to have been a typo, as Ross says it was the Clarence arms he never bore; I've gone and corrected it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's dead right, and many thanks, PMC, for fielding that! Absolutely correct, of course. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
editForthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)
- Lead
- Why was the king absent?
- No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.
- "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"
- Thanks, reads much better.
- I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.
- She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!
- What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead
- Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.
- "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?
- Dated.
- Background
- I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?
- Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
- We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P
- Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
- "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?
- Hh and the queen did their duty :)
- It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.
- Hh and the queen did their duty :)
- "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?
- Of course, absolutely.
- Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?
- I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
- Looks good to me
- I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
- "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?
- Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.
- Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger
- Done. Yes, much better.
- "Henry Bolingbroke" who
- Glossed him in that sentence.
- York claims the throne
- The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)
- see above, re. absenting.
- I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair
- see above, re. absenting.
- This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit
- Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D
- "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?
- Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!
- Negotiations
- Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that
- Thanks again.
- "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one
- "The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."
- "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?
- Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.
- "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding
- Duly cut.
- "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself
- Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.
- Aftermath
- Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?
- Still in London 'supporting' York's government...
- "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?
- point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).
Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've had a quick re-read and I think all of my concerns have been addressed. The top half of the background I think is much better in terms of setting the stage for someone with minimal knowledge. Happy to support this one! (Unbelievably rude of people to not have been thinking of Wikipedia editors when they were writing stuff down in the 1400s, we should put in a complaint)
- By the by, unrelated to my support, I have another McQueen collection at FAC. I found your commentary on The Hunger very helpful; if you have the time and interest to have a look at this one, I'd be very grateful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review and support, PMC; I enjoy your McQueen articles and will be happy to look in! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
John
editLead
What does this sentence mean?
Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.
Background
In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.
"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".
- Done.
York's claim to the throne
Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.
Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?
- Done.
York claims the throne
"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?
- It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?
Parliament
"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.
- Done.
Aftermath
"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.
- Blush!
"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?
- Absolutely.
John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi John, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: you should not ask; it is an impossibility. John can neither support nor oppose and to ask is infamia. The important thing is, the article underwent solid improvements and, as a result, the project wins. Thanks to all who took part on this page. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 20:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a hymn, or four hymns? I have a long history with it, DYK in 2011, GA in 2017 and a peer review in 2019. Today I was invited to the 15 years society and feel like celebrating, with this hymn which - in Luther's version - has been part of family functions. I made the article my story today, and that 2011 DYK explains two hymns (... that the first stanza of the hymn "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist", asking the Holy Spirit for the right faith most of all, is documented in German in the 13th century, and the later three relate to faith, love and hope?), while there are two others in Catholic tradition. Please explore. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Media review
edit- File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(GL).mid: what's the copyright status of the arrangement?
- File:Berthold_von_Regensburg.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(WA).jpg, File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(1653).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil
editReading through; very interesting and aligning to the type of early modern music I prefer. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest, and for copy-editing! I am not yet convinced of some changes in the lead, admitting that change is needed, just how?
- The first stanza came from a leise: no, not really. There was a leise, and it became the first stanza of all three later versions, - how can we say that better?
- I am reluctant to call a 1524 work "modern", even if it was 300 years more "modern" than the leise.
- There are three versions in today's hymnals, two from the 16th century (Luther, Vehe) and one from the 20th (Thurmair). Perhaps we need to find a way to say that at the very beginning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I now tried to write a new first paragraph to outline the relation of the three versions. Please check, but perhaps first read the body to know what the lead should summarize. History: when I began the article, I only thought of Luther's hymn. I remember how surprised I was to learn that singing in German had this long a tradition, - somehow I had thought it was all in Latin until Luther came along ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- but perhaps first read the body ' agh, you've lost me now. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Grand, will resume over weekend....Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship: prose
edit- Lead is rather repetitive:
- " in German, which all share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise" // "The first stanza in all versions is a leise in German from the 13th century."
- "wrote three additional stanzas in 1524" // "In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas."
- " Maria Luise Thurmair wrote a continuation based on this in 1972" // "Maria Luise Thurmair; her version was published in 1972"
- It also needs copyediting for prose—I have corrected a couple of minor errors, but sentences like "They also have in common that they use its medieval melody." and "The request to the Holy Spirit for the right faith especially ("um den rechten Glauben allermeist") suited Luther's theology." are stilted and/or confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, thank you for reviewing! Please see above: Ceoil pointed out that the lead lacked an overview of the versions, which was added late, and made some things repetitive. Should the first (new) paragraph be more condensed to avoid that, for example saying only that there were also Catholic expansions, or rather some details cut in what follows?
- Thank you for the corrections. I'd appreciate help with phrasing. Trying something for the melody, please check. I will have to think about the theology. I think that it's rather commonly known that Luther promoted a theology of sola fide, faith alone, - do you think it should be expanded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- A suggestion (I may have misinterpreted some content, so don't feel like this is a demand): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
concise lead
|
---|
"Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" (We now implore the Holy Ghost) is the title of several hymns in German which share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise, and its medieval melody. This stanza alludes to the Latin sequence for Pentecost, Veni Sancte Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit). Widely known, it was used as a procession song and in sacred plays. In his 1523 liturgy, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther recommended using the leise regularly in church services; it contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology. In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas, first published in Wittenberg in the same year as part of the Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. His version's themes of faith, love and hope are appropriate for general occasions and funerals. not only Pentecost. Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations. It inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping. Alternative continuations of the hymn have appeared in Catholic hymnals. Luther's contemporary Michael Vehe, a Dominican friar and theologian, published his version, also with three added stanzas, in 1537. His hymn was revised and expanded by Maria Luise Thurmair in 1972. Both Luther's and Thurmair's hymns have remained in use into the 21st century. |
- Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.
- I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- (I am far from claiming professionalism.) I trimmed the lead to no repetition (but see the danger of sandwiching text when too short). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.
- Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- General comments
- I have added four {{cn}} tags to uncited material. You should look to combine short paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH.
- It would be useful for all readers if a translation of the verses into English were provided. The {{Verse translation}} template may be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll look into the first point later. Translations: sadly, I didn't see a free translation. Bach Cantatas Website (external link) comes with a good one, but from 2015. The various hymnary pages don't offer text, possibly for the same reason. But I now found this and will use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed one of the required citations. Looking for something online for Vehe's version in the Limburg hymnal (which I own), I found nothing for that fact, so may add a book ref. I found, however, interesting other sources leading to some rewrite, patience please. The short explanation of what the Vehe hymn says: call it OR, - it's my rendering in English of what it says in German, instead of a translation of that version which - I'm afraid - we will not find. I'll move the publications in other languages to translations, and add more publications of the Luther version. Before all that, there's garden work and dealing with the article of a cellist who died - my plan for today. I can ping you when I'll get to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- (The cellist is on the Main page. Today's topic was a conductor, still far from how the article should be.) I added a ref for the 1975 Gotteslob, and modified to Vehe being the editor of the hymnal, not necessarily the author. As for what that version means in English: would it help if I'd write individual phrases in German with their translation, as for Thurmair's? For hers that seemed necessary because the English is under copyright (but can be seen in the "Fischer F" ref). - Too tired to search for more publications and translations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Airship, by now I managed to use Fischer (encyclopedia of hymns) more. I also think I found a better way of referring to it, listing its subpages as pages instead of new references. It led to more versions, and a complete rearrangement of the article structure: trying to avoid level-four headers, I dropped the distinction of Text and Music and then subdivided, changing to one of Leise - Protestant - Catholic, putting all music and translations under Protestant, because I noticed those only for the Luther version. I hope to expand the translation corner which is still short. I found a general ref for many appearances in songbooks and hymnals and wonder if I should mention some of those. What do you think. Do you know the verse template enough to find a way to avoid the excessive white space that comes with it - the more stanzas the more it seems? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
MyCat
editI'll gladly review; however, know that my liturgical knowledge is very limited, so much of my review will just be about the prose rather than comprehensiveness. I'll review once Airship's comments are resolved, so I don't say anything they already said. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
editSaving a spot for later; I'm working on a source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the source eview. I havae a busy weekend with company and concert, so just brief replies at the moment, and no major changes to the references right now. When I wrote the article, I had access to the volume of Liederkunde written by Hahn, similar to this one but can't find it any more. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editCitation numbers from this revision.
- In the interest of consistency, convert the references styled liked citation 34 to full citations in the reference list with short footnotes pointing at them.
- I would recommend adding archive links to all web sources.
- Adding translated titles using the
|trans-title=
parameter would be preferable, but all non-English citations must use the|language=
parameter. - There needs to be consistency for where the page numbers are located. Some sources confusingly have pages in both the short footnotes and the full citations. Recommend moving them all to the footnotes.
- The books should all have publication locations or none of them, for consistency.
- Citation 25 needs a page number or section title provided using the
|loc=
parameter. - What makes Fischer 2007 a high-quality reliable source? (I was unable to track down the author due to their extremely common name, unfortunately!)
- It's a research project of the University of Freiburg, Fischer is one of the co-editors. --GA
- In Becker 2022: Switch to {{cite journal}}. Oldenburg University → University of Oldenburg Press. I'm not a fan of the PDF download URL, I would recommend removing. Add
|doi=10.25619/BmE_H20224
in any case. - Recommend removing the URL from Hahn 2000 as Google Books does not actually provide access to that source.
- Kluge 1975 needs a bunch of formatting improvements but, more importantly, it appears to be a dictionary and not a secondary source. Does it actually verify anything in that sentence other than the meanings of the words? Does the inclusion of that information constitute due weight?
- I'm rather confused by Korth 2004, which has the same ISBN and URL as Hahn 2000 but seems to be a different publication?
- In Randel 1996: link Harvard University Press.
I appreciate your patience with my review, Gerda! Still going through at the moment and might be back with a few more comments later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from The ed17
editHello Gerda, and I apologize for the number of the below comments seeing as you invited me to comment. I've gotten through the first part of the article, and unfortunately I found it quite difficult to parse and understand. Some time could be spent simplifying the information we're telling readers, as well as reducing the number of translated words to make is less complicated to read.
- First of all (allermeist) thank you for copy-editing. As said, this is an "old" article, deals with historic events, in two languages different from English, - great to have feedback from a native speaker! Thank you also for the time to go into details. I reverted two things (of the many) and hope the edit summaries were clear. --GA
- Overall question: Why is {{langr}} used so often? The typical {{lang}} sets off translated text in italics so it's easier for a reader to parse.
- I recently was introduced to it, and found it a blessing to use instead of saying "italic=no" each time. I was trained that things separated by quotation marks and coming with the lang template don't need italics also. Incipits of hymn, common Latin phrases that became part of English, - such things. --GA
- "retaining its text as a first stanza": do you mean "retained the first stanza"?
- No. There was no first stanza, there was the leise. He used its text completely, making it the first of four stanzas. How would you word it? --GA
- "using melodies derived from its medieval tune": what medieval tune? That isn't previously mentioned.
- We are still in the lead, and to devote a sentence to the tune seems to be undue weight. I was encouraged to trim the lead (further up). --GA
- Additional context around the Protestant/Catholic split may be needed. Otherwise, a reader will not understand the importance of Martin Luther's using it.
- I am not sure, for the same reason - keep it concise. We have a good article about the Reformation, and what of it should be summarised, and how? Would you think of a background section?
- What is a "a song for the dying"? Was it used in funerals?
- The German term is "Sterbelied" which implies that it is sung with someone dying. The term appears almost 70 times in the German Wikipedia but has no article. It's also used for poems written by a poet who was approaching death (Hildebrand's Sterbelied), an example for a Sterbelied is "O Welt, ich muss dich lassen". I never heard of a similar thing in English. Help? --GA
- What's a procession song?
- a song sung during a procession --GA
- "The leise contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology ...": what's the "right faith"?
- depends for whom as the different versions show ;) --GA
- The lead may benefit from a straight divide between Protestant and Catholic usage. Weaving the two together makes for a somewhat whiplash-y experience.
- sorry, that word is new to me ;) - When I wrote the article - see infobox - I wanted to write about Luther's song, in an attempt to have articles about his hymns (in 2017 I believe, when 500 years of Reformation were remembered). Only later did I realise that the other versions should perhaps also be mentioned. --GA
- "Catholic use was discontinued after the Baroque period, but the hymn reappeared in a modified version in Heinrich Bone's Cantate! hymnal in 1647. It became used more after the 1938 collection Kirchenlied ...": several points here.
- Most people, including me, do not know offhand when the Baroque period started and began. Can we use a year or even a rough decade instead?
- I see from our article that the Baroque period ended in 1750, but despite being discontinued by then it appeared in a hymnal in 1647? That's confusing.
- I apologize for a severe typo in that number which I corrected to 1847 as the body has. - When the Baroque period ended depends on who looks at what, so I'd try to avoid one year. Yes in music it's probably with Bach's death in 1750. --GA
- If it was discontinued, it wasn't later "used more" -- it was "used again".
- Sorry that I didn't find a way to say what I wanted. It appeared in 1847, but it wasn't used much (if at all, we don't know). It appeared in 1938, and was used - how much we still don't know. It was used more later, and from personal experience I'd say: still not much. People love and sing "Der Geist des Herrn erfüllt das All" by the same Ms. Thurmair, even Protestants. That has become e song suitable for ecumenical service. Where I live we have had one every year on Pentecost Monday for the decades I live there, and we had Luther's version only once (and people not knowing it complained about its "old" language, and Thurmair's version also only once, and I achieved that the last (counter-reformation) stanza wasn't sung ;)
I need a break, RL, more later today. --GA
- Sorry that I didn't find a way to say what I wanted. It appeared in 1847, but it wasn't used much (if at all, we don't know). It appeared in 1938, and was used - how much we still don't know. It was used more later, and from personal experience I'd say: still not much. People love and sing "Der Geist des Herrn erfüllt das All" by the same Ms. Thurmair, even Protestants. That has become e song suitable for ecumenical service. Where I live we have had one every year on Pentecost Monday for the decades I live there, and we had Luther's version only once (and people not knowing it complained about its "old" language, and Thurmair's version also only once, and I achieved that the last (counter-reformation) stanza wasn't sung ;)
- "Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages ...": should this sentence begin with something like "In the modern day, ..." ?
- Doesn't the present tense imply that? (I was trained to avoid "currently", "today", "modern times" ... --GA
- "It has inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping.": We can simplify this sentence by saying "from the 14th century into the present day", and removing the unnecessary bluelinks to our general articles on Renaissance music and Contemporary classical music that don't immediately benefit readers.
- We could but specific names give more an idea of what kind of composers would use it, without long explanation. --GA
- "It was first a Sterbelied, a song for someone dying.": The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.
- You think readers would remember? --GA
- "As in the conclusion of Veni Sancte Spiritus ("da salutis exitum") ...: The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.
- "The concern is "most of all" (allermeist) the "right faith" (rechten glouben) ...: Like the lead, what does the "right faith" mean?
- replied there --GA
- "The person praying is aware that human life is transient and believes that the true home is Heaven ...": What does "true home" mean in this context?
- The German word that I tried to translate is "Heimat" which doesn't have an exact translation. What would you suggest. "heimfahrn aus diesem Elende" means "return home from this exile", not easier by modern-day Elend meaning misery. Help welcome - this is talking theology, so difficult. --GA
- "Protestant Reformers tried to continue medieval tradition": Does this refer to medieval Catholic traditions or something else?
- This was added late for the context that Luther, like other reformers, had no intention to through traditions over board, almost the opposite. I simply took it from a source. The word "Catholic" had a different meaning after the Reformation resulted in different denominations. --GA
- "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" and "Christ ist erstanden" (Christ is risen) are the only medieval songs still in use.": in use by who?
- sung in "modern day" services, - or what would you think "use" means? Again, I took that from a source. --GA
- "The leise had a long tradition.": I suspect this should say "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" vs. "the leise" to specify we're talking about a specific leise, and not them generally.
- We would still have to add "the leise" to not be ambiguous, and teach me English: could "the song had a long tradition" mean "songs" in general? --GA
- "Its topics of the right faith (rechter Glaube, veram fide) and the thought of the time of death must have appealed to Luther. He had mentioned veram fide in an early sermon about the leise (1509 or 1510), and promoted salvation by faith alone (sola fide)":
- There's no need to translate "right faith" again, and "veram fide" should just be "right faith".
- "veram fide" would literally mean "true faith".
- We can remove "sola fide" and just link "faith alone".
- We can, but would loose a short illustration of how much Luther relied on medieval Latin tradition. --GA
- There's no need to translate "right faith" again, and "veram fide" should just be "right faith".
- "... as "Du wertes Licht" (You esteemed light), "Du süße Lieb" (You sweet love) and "Du höchster Tröster" (You highest comforter).: these translations don't line up with the translations given in the full translation above it.
- No, and if they did, they didn't have to be there. The translation given next to the poem is a singable English version, which means that aspects of rhyme and number of syllables have prominence over literal meaning. --GA
- If you are going to shorten the name of the leise to "Nun bitten wir", I would prefer that you start doing that in the lead to prepare readers
- I guess I'd then rather have the full name consistently. --GA
- "... which mention its manifold gifts ...": what are manifold gifts? I suspect this sentence clause could be dropped without impact on readers.
- I gave it a link to Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. --GA
- "His three stanzas can be seen as related to "Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung", the theological virtues of faith, love and hope, which Paul the Apostle expressed in his letter, 1 Corinthians 13:13.": We can simplify this sentence, and "can be seen" needs in-text attribution. E.g. "Historian Michael Fischer has said that his three stanzas relate to the theological virtues of faith, love and hope."
- I suspect this is not one historian's view ;) - I see the same, and would you not? (It was even the DYK fact, DYK? ... which was years before I even looked at the Fischer source.) I can check if others see the same, but not today. --GA
- That makes it to the beginning of the "Publication" section. I'll try to return and look through the rest of the article, but for the moment I hope this gives you some ideas on how to improve the article. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I like the discussion, - thank you for taking the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
editThis has been open for three weeks and we currently don't have a single support for promotion. Unless this changes within the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. I recommend that you ping the above two users who expressed an interest in reviewing this later. 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs)
- Don't be afraid, just archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a fictional species in the Pokémon media franchise, the evolution of mascot Pikachu. The article discusses the character's design and appearances, as well as reception in the context of it as its own species and in relation to Pikachu from both audience perception and company handling of the character.
The article passed GAN in January of this year, and underwent a peer review in April, with feedback from both worked into the article. Additional discussions to refine sections have also taken place on the video game character task force to help get consensus on how to approach commonly used terminology and help a reader unfamiliar with the franchise or gaming understand them. One point of issue may be the use of a ScreenRant source in the reception section, however this source is being used strictly for the author Niki Fakhoori's opinion, and they have a long history in gaming journalism for outlets such as Prima Games and RPGFan as illustrated here (the latter of which recognized as a reliable source by the Wikipdia Video Game project).
I hope this article meets FAC standards, and will be receptive to quickly fix any issues or concerns that may arise.Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Pokelego999
editI don't normally look at FANs but given that this is within my main subject area, I thought I'd stop by and leave some comments.
-"Sugimori asked Nishida to design the form, who gave it a "soft and fluffy" appearance. Nishida felt that Raichu's original design was far cuter than people gave it credit for, and wanted to express this in the Alolan form" The wording feels a bit informal here, and I feel this could be better worded.
- Reworded for better flow.
-What are Types? (Electric and Psychic) and what do they do? For those unfamiliar with Pokémon this aspect isn't very well-defined.
- Added a definition to the opening paragraph explaining this.
-I'd define what an ability is (Clarify it with something like "an in-battle special ability or something like that) for those unaware of in-game terminology
- Fixed.
-I'd also clarify what Electric Terrain is, given it isn't clarified what that is.
- Fixed,
-"First found in Pokémon Red and Blue, they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since, including every major game." This statement seems to be unsourced.
- Reused the Ode to Raichu reference here as he mentions capturing it in every game.
-"and another Pikachu must be obtained instead." I'd reword this to also mention "...must be obtained instead in order to obtain Raichu" or something like that
- Reworded
-I'd clarify "the games" Pokémon Sun and Moon in the prose in the Appearances section
- Fixed
-I'm not sure how necessary "due to the latter evolving his as quickly as possible" is in the article's context.
- Reworded
-I'd utilize a source that isn't Comicbook.com for cite 27 (Verifying Goh's Raichu) given that site is inconclusive in terms of reliability and tends to have low quality articles.
- Sadly this is the best source for that matter, as all others omit details. The anime at this point is not heavily discussed in sources and ComicBook.com offered the best material for this matter.
-How reliable are "Visual Entertainment Plandas" and "Gung Ho Bookings"?
- Both are the booking companies of their respective talents, and while still primary sources the alternative would have been to cite episode credits directly for Japan or Ms. Mongillo's Twitter, which per the previous FAC attempt was frowned upon. Most voice work in the anime are often either difficult to find secondary credits for or uncredited entirely in the English end.
-"or ending up not using them at all" I'd just change this to "end" for grammatical reasons
- Fixed
-"and expressing his confusion at the reaction." I'm very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.
- Reworded
-I feel the Comicbook.com source in the Reception isn't really adding much. I know there's other small sources used, but these at least have a reason to be used. The Comicbook.com source just feels unnecessary.
- While it's lighter it's used as a glue for that whole paragraph as it helps offer another reaction to how the fandom and company have treated the character. I feel removing this would undermine that paragraph and an idea of how the character was received in that regard overall as the series progressed.
-" to Ash's idealized childlike state instead of maturing in Pikachu's refusal to evolve into Raichu and how this displayed that they drew power from their younger states respectively." I'd cut the "instead of maturing" here because this sentence is very hard to comprehend otherwise.
- Fixed.
-The LGBTQ+ source is honestly really cool, but it only mentions Raichu once and is a small part of the article. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage in the scope of a FA.
- I feel strongly it helps bring a different enough viewpoint to the relation between the two and is significant enough to keep. While smaller sources on their own may not be ideal, they can help cement larger opinions and give the reader a more thorough perspective on how a relationship between two fictional characters can be seen.
-I think this article has potential but does need some work. Fantastic job overall, but do let me know your thoughts on the above or if you need any clarification, since this article still needs some improvements before I'll give my Support vote. (I believe that's how this works? Do correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not as familiar with FA voting.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: I believe I have addressed all your concerns.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kung Fu Man thank you for addressing the above concerns. I don't believe I have many concerns regarding the sources above per your explanations, and your fixes are very good. Happy to Support this for FA. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from the Night Watch
editI'm traveling right now but I think I'll be able to get some comments up within the next week or so. Haven't looked at Pokémon in a long while but this might be a good start. The Night Watch (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just know that the review is still forthcoming, I'm just not feeling the best. May take a few more days The Night Watch (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hurricanehink
editI figured I'd review this, since I noticed this FAC when I nominated my own FAC.
- "concepts of self-identity and portrayals of youth in anime media" - I feel like one of these could get a wikilink
- Wikilinked self-identity, portrayals of youth may be too broad to pinpoint to any one wikipedia article I fear.
- "the Japanese franchise began in the 1990s with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy" - I feel like I need to be pedantic and point out that it was called Red and Green in Japan. I think you should mention the exact year the first game was released, since you mention that in the infobox, and otherwise there's no reference for when Raichu made its first appearance. And then you could also say, it was re-released in North America as Pokemon Red and Blue. Maybe even having a note that for consistency sake, they are referred as Red and Blue? I don't want to belabor the point too much, but the remakes were FireRed and Leaf Green, so that lends to the originals being Red and Green. I'd just like some clarification that the article is deliberately calling them Red and Blue.
- We've actually had some back and forths regarding this across the wikipedia community as a whole, and part of the problem is that the games themselves are listed on here as Red and Blue, causing confusion for some readers when wikilinked if Red/Green was used in the text (I think this even came up with MissingNo. back in the day but that's over a decade ago now). While we could go into more detail on it too, I feel the Keep It Simple, Stupid policy may apply here also as the exact game names bear little weight on understanding Raichu as a concept or character, and going on a tangent about it may confuse readers in this article and others (given this block is shared among multiple Pokemon character articles)
- Well regardless of the Green/Blue, there should still be a reference and indication that the game came out in 1996. Leaving it to "the 1990s" is too vague when 1996 is a much better answer, and is what's in the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tweaked this a bit, avoided saying "released" to bypass an earlier issue (Red and Blue were technically released in '98, that's why the whole "1990s" bit came about as seen here.
- Also, since this is up for FAC, I have to ask, is there any literature on when the designs for the Pokemon started? Like, I know Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever created, so I wondered if there's anything about when the rest of them were made. If the first Japanese game came out in 1996, and it was apparently approved as a game in 1990 when Satoshi Tajiri pitched it. I feel like some of this should be mentioned for context, so it's not just leaving it to a vague decade long period that could have served as the origins.
- Not really, sadly. Pokemon had a very long development period, so an exact window of when certain designs were considered or even when exactly Atsuko Nishida was brought onto the development team isn't clear. We're only now getting more of the behind the scenes as time goes on.
- "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train Pokémon." - feels redundant to say Pokemon twice, and "Trainer/train". Any way you could reword this a bit?
- Reworded this a bit with the following sentence.
- Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's "Thunder Stone" item,[9] while Raichu was originally planned to evolve into a Pokémon species dubbed Gorochu. - I love this factoid. I highly suggest splitting into two sentences.
- Split into two sentences.
- I wonder if it's worth mentioning the addition of Pichu in Gold/Silver. Raichu is the final evolution in that family, so I think that's worth mentioning.
- The problem is Pichu came afterward, and has no real bearing on Raichu's design or vice versa, and there's no discussion about a relationship between the two. It would be especially awkward to work it in as it has no bearing on the rest of the article at all.
- Except Pichu completes the evolutionary family. So when you mention Raichu as "Pikachu-related product lines", I have to wonder about other parts of the Pikachu line. I think it would be natural to mention Pichu after mentioning the canceled Gorachu, since that completes the evolutionary line. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to work it in carefully, since Pichu's design is Sugimori's and I didn't want to throw too much at the reader.
- "In Red and Blue the Gym Leader Lt. Surge, a Trainer that acts as a boss the player must defeat to proceed, utilizes a Raichu" - the grammar could be better
- Reorganized, is this better?
- Much! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- " Outside of games, Raichu has appeared on several pieces of merchandise, including plush toys, figurines, and as promotional material with companies such as Burger King." - could you go more into this? I think this is the most significant proof that Raichu is indeed fairly notable, independent of its relationship to Pikachu. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to remember when there was an article for every Pokemon, until there wasn't, and only certain ones were important enough for an article. Given all of the sources and analyses about Raichu, there is probably enough here, but expanding on the sentence I mentioned would really help prove that.
- I expanded this a bit with some references noting how Raichu's been part of Pikachu-themed product lines, I'm hoping that suffices for this. There was some commentary about it being part of the Year of the Rat promotion in 2019, but the only source I could find to corroborate that was Nintendo Soup which isn't a reliable source per WP:VG/S.
- Yea that's much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
And that's my review. I didn't get into checking out the sources or images. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: Hit everything I could and addressed the others the best I could, let me know if there's anything else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much better already, just two follow ups, if you don't mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink:Addressed it the best I could, lemme know what you think!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much better already, just two follow ups, if you don't mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Support, yes thank you! Happy to support this now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Sammi Brie
edit- First introduced in the video games Pokémon Red and Blue, they were created by Atsuko Nishida at the request of lead designer Ken Sugimori, with the design finalized by Sugimori. Since their initial appearance, they have appeared in multiple games The lead is inconsistent as to the use of "it" vs. "they".
- Electric and Psychic-type Try "Electric- and Psychic-type" as both items are hyphenated.
- "look strong." MOS:LOGICAL the quote of a sentence fragment should have period outside quotes. This also recurs in the Critical reception area multiple times with commas and periods.
- they had previous explored missing "ly"
- Both have appeared in the mobile game Pokémon Go, and, in physical media, were in The number of commas obscures that the one after "Go" must go. It is a WP:CINS error, as the subject is the same on both sides: "Both". Try Both have appeared in the mobile game Pokémon Go and, in physical media, were in
- series of articles arguing that Raichu was "loved by many and despised by more," an This comma is unnecessary
- that evolving Pikachu would be a disadvantage, or, in some titles, prevent Pikachu Remove comma after "disadvantage"
- was treated with less recognition, and added Should be was treated with less recognition and added,
- He argued that Raichu was simply a stronger counterpart to Pikachu, and felt Raichu Remove comma
Very solidly written. The they vs. it dichotomy, especially given that like every other Pokémon the singular is the plural, is a bit tough to square up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do have an FAC open myself for your consideration if you wish to review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: sorry for the delay in responding but got everything done, let me know if there's anything else! As for the FAC, I'll take a gander, though I'll admit radio stations tend to be a bit outside my scope of expertise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sammi, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editI know next to nothing about these sources (quite aside from language barriers) so I'll lean heavily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. What makes https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/fukayomi/20180501-OYT8T50139/ a reliable source/translation? Same question about plandas, Gung Ho Bookings, Pocket Games, The Gamer, Woman.excite, PokemonCenter Online, Kakaku and ComicBook.com. Some archives, like #5, seem to be broken - all needs checking. It seems like formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Yomiuri Shimbun is a major newspaper in Japan. The interview was translated by Nintendo for their Pokemon website, which was the original citation until primary source concerns were raised.
- Plandas and Gung Ho Bookings are the respective talent agencies for their voice actors. It's the only available source to attribute them short of citing the episode credits itself for the Japanese voice actor and tweets by the North American VA (unlike Japan the English VAs are not credited in the episodes). This was considered a preferable alternative to those sources in the first FAC, as direct citations were seen as too primary.
- Pocket Games is a printed sub publication magazine by the Electronic Gaming Monthly team. It was released seasonally in the late '90's/early 2000's.
- The Gamer is a long standing news website that, while owned by Valnet, has been recognized by the Video Game project as viable for verification and in cases where the author's opinion meets WP:SIGCOV the author's opinion. In the case of the latter with reference 38, Isaiah McCall is a longtime freelance writer with a variety of publications and went to Ramapo College of New Jersey and is a Communication Arts major with a concentration in Journalism according to his bio on the Gamer.
- Excite is one of the world's largest web portals, with Woman.excite being a sub website of the main Excite hub. It is cited here strictly for secondary confirmation of the existence of these products. I've now wikilinked the reference.
- PokemonCenter Online is a primary source cited here because there was not a secondary source that could confirm information to the same degree. It is owned and operated by Nintendo.
- Kakaku.com is a longstanding price comparison company in Japan that started in 1997, and is cited here strictly for secondary confirmation of the existence of those products. I've now wikilinked the reference and fixed the website name.
- ComicBook.com is a longstanding website with editorial oversight that is part of Paramount Global. They have been cited in multiple articles across wikipedia. The article in question is cited strictly for the author's opinion, who has a degree in Journalism and has written for multiple publications.
- Fixed the reference error in #5, it appears to be an isolated case due to a bad copy/paste.
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone through and fixed everything that needed to be, and added verification/justification for each source brought up. Please let me know if there's anything else!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
edit- For this part, (Since Raichu's initial appearance, it has appeared in multiple games), I would avoid the repetition of appearance / appeared.
- Fixed, replaced initial appearance with debut.
- I was initially surprised by this part in the lead, (a large brown mouse), as I see Raichu as being more orange than brown. The article describes Raichu as having orange skin with brown paws so I would think that makes him more orange than brown?
- Fixed.
- I would avoid repetition in the following sentence if possible: (Designed to be the stronger counterpart to Pikachu, who evolves into Raichu through use the of a "Thunder Stone" item, Raichu was intended to be able to evolve into 'Gorochu' before the latter was removed.) I am specifically referring to Raichu and a variation of evolve being used twice.
- Not really a clean way I can see to fix that, as evolve tends to be a rather fixed term in the pokemon franchise.
- That makes sense. I tried to think of different ways to word this as well, but I agree that it is best to stick with the correct in-game terminology. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This could just be me over-thinking things, but I am uncertain about the word "reputation" in this part, (and overall damaged its reputation). I just do not really think of "reputation" in this context, and I would consider something like "appeal" to be better.
- Replaced, though the term is based off its reception. I can see why on its own it feels amiss.
- Thank you for the response. Just to be clear, I could just be over-thinking it so I would be okay if you decide to change it back. It was just something that caught my eye for some reason, but like I said above, it could just be a case of me over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- For this part, (Raichu is a species of fictional creature called Pokémon), shouldn't it be "a species of fictional creatures" instead? Something about the singular in the current version seems off to me, but I could be wrong.
- Replaced with creatures after some digging online. I was unsure if it should be singular or plural in that case as we're discussing one species, but it seems the terminology is more often plural for the creatures part in similar sentences elsewhere.
- Thank you for addressing this. If it helps, I was also unsure if I was right with my suggestion, but it did catch my eye while I was reading through that part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have any further context on why Satoshi Tajiri changed Pikachu / Raichu from squirrels to mice? I understand if there is not any further information, but I was just curious.
- We do not unfortunately. A lot of information was kept pretty close to the chest for a long time when it came to Pokemon development. For a long time many articles on here even said Tajiri made most of the Pokemon because that was the common assumption in media due to a lack of info.
- I had a feeling that was the case, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This part, (When developing sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon, "Alolan form" variants), is grammatically incorrect as it literally reads that these variants are the ones developing the games. I would instead use something like "During the development of sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon" to avoid this mismatch.
- Fixed.
- Since the special ability for the Alolan form is mentioned (i.e. "Surge Surfer"), shouldn't the special ability for the original form be mentioned as well? Or is this not done as this ability is not discussed in third-party sources? If that is the case, then I understand, but I was just curious about it.
- I haven't found it discussed in third party sources in the same manner. I think Surge Surfer's standing out is in part due to it being unique to Alolan Raichu while the others are more generic abilities shared by others.
- That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any information about Raichu's appearances in manga that are not about Ash Ketchum?
- The Japanese citations should have English translations for the titles.
- Fixed, did the French book title too!
- Why isn't TV Tokyo linked in the citation for this source (here)? I have a similar question for University of California Press, Screen Rant, Digital Spy, and St. Martin's Paperbacks not being linked in later citations? What is your approach for how works/websites/publishers are linked? There appears to be several areas where items are not linked at all.
- It's just more an oversight on my part due to not knowing which of these have an article given that some do not (for example TheGamer doesn't, despite being a more prominent part of Valnet ironically)
- It happens. It is interesting TheGamer does not have an article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I hope that this review is helpful so far. I have left comments on the citations and on the article up to the "Critical reception" section. I will continue after everything has been addressed so far. I am enjoying the article so far. Hopefully, this FAC will lead to more Pokémon and more video game characters in general being nominated for FACs in the future. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: I'm glad you're enjoying it! I hit up everything you mentioned, let me know if there's anything else, I'll get to it as fast as I can!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything so far. I will start looking at the rest of the article later today and post the rest of my comments then. I did notice that the question about Raichu's appearances in non-Ash Ketch-related manga was not answered. It could be the case that they were not covered in third-party, reliable sources (or Raichu may not have any importance or major role in those manga), but I just wanted to double check. I am always happy to help (or at least try to help). Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Missed that bit but yeah it's an issue of not being covered by third party sources and not having a significant role.
- I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as shown in this part (with IGN in their "Pokémon of the Day Chick" series of articles arguing). I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I do not know that it is brought up quite often in FACs so it would be best to avoid it.
- Tried to fix this somewhat to make things smoother.
- This part, (Later articles, such as Nintendo Life's retrospective of Pokémon from Red and Blue,), mentions that multiple articles, but only cites one in the actual paragraph.
- Reworded this.
- I am a bit confused by the overall structure for the first three paragraphs. The last two paragraphs have a clearer topic (i.e. different views on Raichu and the reception for the Alolan form), but could you explain to me how the first three paragraphs are structured? WP:RECEPTION is a great resource as these sections are notoriously difficult to write well.
- The first paragraph is to cover initial reactions compared to a significant later one, while the second leads into Kenneth Shepard's multiple articles in support of Raichu and his view that the company mishandled the species. The third shows others than Shepard offering similiar views to support the second paragraph, while the fourth is regarding discussions about the species' themes as presented in media. The last paragraph is for reactions for the Alolan version, and how it was received by others including Shepard.
- That makes sense to me. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would avoid "Meanwhile" as a transition as done in this part, (Meanwhile, Kenneth Shephard of Kotaku criticized). This transition is used to say something is happening at the same time as something else, and that is not the case here. I have the same comment for this part, (Meanwhile, journalist Nicole Hill).
- Fixed.
- I have a clarification question about this part, (or, in some titles, prevent Pikachu from evolving at all). I have only played a few Pokémon games, and I know that Pikachu refuses to evolve in Pokémon Yellow but what are the other games where this occurs? To be clear, I am not saying that the titles need to be explicitly stated in the article. This is just more so because I am curious about it.
- Let's Go Pikachu is another title where the Pikachu you get at the start cannot be evolved in Raichu in-game and requires the player to trade another pokemon to it.
- Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- For this part, (In an article for Fanbyte, he further explained), I would use Shephard rather than "he" to avoid any confusion as it has been a bit since Kenneth Shephard was mentioned in the prose at that point in the paragraph.
- Fixed
- I would revise this part, (such as the book La Culture de l'Enfance à l'Heure de la Mondialisation, which compared it to the story of David and Goliath), as whoever wrote the book made these comparisons, not the book itself.
- Fixed.
- I made a small edit to this part. I removed the university part as I do not think it is particularly beneficial when that can and likely will change for professors. I changed "Social Sciences" to "social sciences" as I do not think this is a proper noun and does not need to be capitalized in that way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This could just be a matter of personal preference, but I have a comment on this part, (Gina O'Melia in the book Japanese Influence on American Children's Television drew). I personally think it is more beneficial to use some sort of descriptor for these individuals to highlight their expertise rather than naming the book in the prose itself (unless the book is notable).
- Fixed.
- This following sentence would need to be revised as it is coming across like Wikipedia is saying this: (Despite praising the design on its own aspects, the form came across as a reminder that "if Raichu is to get any spotlight", it would be "as a kind of canvas" for new ideas instead.)
- Fixed
- This is more of a clarification question, but did any of the coverage mention any of the more positive representations of Raichu in the anime? I have a feeling that is not the case, but I wanted to double-check with you. It is a shame that Stage Fright! was banned for its usage of Jynx as it would have been a more positive usage of Raichu in the original series.
- Not that I was able to find sadly. Outside of certain standout episodes a lot of the show itself didn't get deep dives into character handling.
- I had a feeling that would be the case, but thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
This should be all of my comments for the "Reception" section. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoba47: I've got to head back to work on my end, but I tried to address everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice any other issues and I'll get them done when I get home tonight!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay. I hope you are doing well with work. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience. I have read through the article again, and I do not see anything further for me to point out in my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay. I hope you are doing well with work. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.
This article passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "
A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->
" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Why would this need to go to WT:NFC? As far as I can tell there's nothing there supporting either the tagging or the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "
For visual identification of the object of the article
", you haven't provided a valid reason to object to this image and it appears to me to have no issues. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Passing GAN doesn't guarantee that something will pass FAC. I don't think this image is correctly tagged or correctly captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "
- Why would this need to go to WT:NFC? As far as I can tell there's nothing there supporting either the tagging or the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Quick question Nikkimaria, what part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals are you referencing? From what I can tell, the only image-related item on the list is in regards to non-commercial images (i.e. Created Commons By-NC) licensed images. The image in question isn't a CC-related license, so I'm not sure what part of WP:PEREN you are referencing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The section regarding bylines (which includes discussion of CC requirements but is not limited to that). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "
- Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't generally support on an image review alone, but best of luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well thank you for the image review. I appreciate you for taking the time! (Personal note: Sad time. All of that to not get a support. :( On the bright side, at least I didn't get an oppose. :D !) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't generally support on an image review alone, but best of luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Dylan620
editAlways glad to see weather-related topics up for consideration at featured processes; if you're at all interested, I have a tropical cyclone FLC that could use some feedback. I've done a read-through of this article and I have the following comments regarding prose:
- a large and violent EF4 tornado struck – The rating can probably be removed from this sentence, as the very next one states that the tornado was rated EF4 on account of the severest damage it caused.
- Removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- with dew points in the mid-60s – Missing a unit.
- Added °F. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The second half of §Meteorological_synopsis implies that the tornadic supercell was the only one to blow up in intensity, whereas the cited source states a few discrete supercell thunderstorms became exceptionally strong. I'm also not sure if "eventually" needs to be used in two consecutive sentences. The final decision is yours, obviously, but I'd like to suggest the following as a potential way of rephrasing this portion:
- As the QLCS was moving across Georgia, a few discrete supercells formed and became particularly robust, owing to strong wind shear and storm relative helicity values exceeding 300 m2/s2. One of these supercells eventually produced the Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.
- Changed to the proposed wording above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- evidence to support a rating above EF4 – considering there is only one higher, I wonder if "a rating above EF4" should be replaced with "an EF5 rating".
- Changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Around the golf course, the tornado reportedly changed the landscape – This feels pretty vague. The relevant anecdote from the cited source describes a hole being put in the ground by the tornado, so I'd maybe say something about that instead. As it is, this sentence feels redundant to the earlier mention of significant tree damage at the golf course.
- Changed to: “
Around the golf course, the tornado reportedly changed the landscape, including a hole it created big enough for a pickup truck to fit inside
.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to: “
- which prohibited people from traveling around the area to prevent trespassing in the tornado disaster area – The two parts of this clause seem to mean the same thing, and I'd recommend removing one of them. It reads a little clunky as is.
- Changed to: “
…which prohibited people from traveling and trespassing around the the tornado disaster area
.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to: “
That's it, methinks. The article is a short but great read overall, and I will probably support once the above items are addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have made the changes suggested above. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Is there anything else you would like to comment about, or would you feel good about supporting this for FA? Courtesy ping: @Dylan620:. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: One last bit: upon double-checking the source, I suggest replacing "traveling and trespassing around" with "trespassing on", since the source doesn't explicitly mention travel, and traveling through the area would categorically be trespassing. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "
which prohibited people from trespassing around the tornado disaster area
". I did not add the "on" since "around" was already there. Courtesy ping: Dylan620. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- Everything looks good to me now. Great work, WeatherWriter! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "
- @WeatherWriter: One last bit: upon double-checking the source, I suggest replacing "traveling and trespassing around" with "trespassing on", since the source doesn't explicitly mention travel, and traveling through the area would categorically be trespassing. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator comment
editThree weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive me if this seems dumb to ask, but why would it fail? Right now, there is no opposition and another editor who supports it. Why wouldn't WP:SILENCE apply? No one seems to be in opposition to it becoming an FA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to RoySmith and Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good to see this here -- will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Count me in for a review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Courtesy ping. Just wanted to see if you were still interested in reviewing this since it's been a few weeks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- "Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
- Rephrased.
- "several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
- Done.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gog! Looking forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
- Good catch. Fixed.
- "Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
- Fixed.
- "However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
- In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
- In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
- Fixed.
- In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
- Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
- I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
- "The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
- I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
- Yep, that's fixed it.
- And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
- Ibid. above
- Likewise.
- "linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
- Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
- "Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
- Done.
- "See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
- I like "further discussion". Fixed.
- "Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
- Clarified.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gog. Thanks for your feedback. I've responded accordingly. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Everything should be addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you for the comments and support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Borsoka
editBefore starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:
the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
- If I'm reading you correctly, discussion on this is found in the "Relative chronology" section, where I've written about the two competing views: Kortlandt (Proto-Indo-Iranian only) and Kloekhorst (late Proto-Indo-European, excluding the Anatolian languages).
Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
- Done.
I assume that the three sounds mentioned in the article are not attested, but assumed - this should be clarified.Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think this has been fixed with what I wrote for the above suggestion, since I talk about how PIE is hypothetical and no record of it exists. I go over that in the representational conventions in "Terminology", so I think all the bases are covered.
- I have responded accordingly. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or need to do anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Borsoka: Gentle nudge to see if you're still planning on reviewing/giving support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
editI am struggling to find too much to say, though I know I have already stuck my oar in a great deal on this article. I hope the below is useful nonetheless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a ton for your help on this article. I've fixed most of what you've pointed out and responded to the rest accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- No doubt. Thank you for your tireless effort making this article more accessible and better quality. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The biggest point throughout -- I still think we could do more to help non-linguists understand what is going on here, particularly in the lead. I admit that I was never particularly good at philology in undergrad, but I've got pretty good training in it and find causes the depalatalization of the palatovelar consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ in certain contexts. In short, when *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ are followed by *r, they depalatalize and thereby merge with the plain velars *k *g *gʰ, respectively, unless the *r is followed by *i or the palatalized form is restored by analogy pretty tough to parse. I also found the penultimate paragraph of the "Overview" section a little tricky.
- I've been thinking about how to de-technicalize the lede for some time now. I think I've figured it out, but let me know if I'm still off the mark. As for the penultimate paragraph in "Overview", I've also rewritten part of that. Same goes.
- I wonder whether "merge with" is likely to be confusing for most readers -- I'm not sure many non-linguists will parse it as "become [indistinguishable from]". A bit later, with One such example of this is Sanskrit अज्र ájra 'field, plain', which is derived from h₂éǵ-ro- 'field, pasturage'; in this example, the reflex of the palatalized consonant has been restored: can we say what it would be if Weise's law were followed, or what's "wrong" with ájra under it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Had to do a little source-digging and ended up clearing up a few things I thought could be further de-technicalized, but I added the expected reflex for ájra. As for the "merge with" issue, I asked a non-linguist whether that term was clear and they confirmed your concerns, so some thoughts: With respect to changing it to "become indistinguishable from" as an alternative, I'm concerned this may lead to the belief that they are still somehow distinct in some meaningful way; linguists do distinguish surface representation from deep structure. In other words, something may not be distinguishable in discourse, but may still be distinguishable in some other way. What I've done instead – since I cannot think of an sufficiently broad term that is correct in the linguistic sense – is link Phonological change#Merger. I think this will adequately address my technical concern about accurate terminology and the general concern about accessibility to non-linguists. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I think this has been adequately addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- One thing that I think would help with this is a demonstration -- could we perhaps do a table with three columns -- PIE, [example centum language -- Latin?] and [example satem language -- Sanskrit?], with a few words that show the distinction written out in easily-parsed transcription?
- I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure what should be demonstrated with a table. There is a table on the Centum and satem languages page, which demonstrates the difference, which I suppose I could add with real examples (instead of just descriptions) to show the difference between the two fairly generally. The problem is, in the cases in which Weise's law applies, the difference between centum and satem languages can't be differentiated as a result of that depalatalization; Weise's law basically causes the "pseudo-centumization" of certain palatal sounds. I'm also concerned that using attested languages like Latin and Sanskrit may be unhelpful to the layperson because they will invariably show forms that are the result of later sound changes and may further confuse someone unfamiliar with historical linguistics.
- Similarly, some of the (entirely correct) technical notation could be written in plain language without sacrificing much: instead of (e.g., Sanskrit: श्रवस् śravas 'fame' < *ḱleu-es-; ह्राद् hrād 'to resound, to make a noise' < *ǵʰleh₃d-), try for example, the Sanskrit word for 'fame', śravas, derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ḱleu-es.
- Fair enough. Fixed.
- The law is named after German linguist Oskar Weise: a false title: this and similar are better as "the German linguist..."
- Done.
- According to Alwin Kloekhorst, Weise's original article has "been largely forgotten by the scholarly world",: is the tense quite right here, given that Kloekhorst was trying to bring it back to scholarly attention? Might be more accurate to do was largely forgotten as a paraphrase. I think we do need to put a date on K's work here.
- I'm not gonna push back too hard here, but I'd say it's still kind of forgotten. I think Kloekhorst did a good job reminding others that the law existed and sort of established the boundaries better than Weise did, but sound laws like Grimm's, Szemerényi's, and Verner's are commonly mentioned in the field's literature, whereas even narrow etymologies of Sanskrit don't mention it at all. Still, I'm willing to stand down on this if you think Kloekhorst successfully brought it back to scholarly attention, but I'm skeptical. That all said, I've dated the quote as requested.
- Note how the tongue's point of contact or constriction moves increasingly forward, from the palate to just behind the teeth. the MoS discourages editorial asides like "note how...", and takes the position that everything we write is notable. Better simply to start the sentence at The tongue's...
- Fixed.
- Another tough bit: since the metathesis of late Proto-Indo-European *u and *r occurs after both the divergence of Anatolian (e.g., Hittite: 𒍝𒈠𒀭𒆳 zama(n)kur 'beard' < *smóḱ-ur) and any depalatalization under Weise's law.
- Good call. I revamped this paragraph entirely.
- there is positive evidence that this kind of depalatalization never occurred in Armenian (սրունք srunkʿ 'leg' < *ḱrūs-ni-; մերձ merj 'near, close to' < *méǵʰsri).: as above, I think it might help to write out the bit in brackets in layman's terms.
- Yep. Done.
- Albanian and Armenian have a controversial placement in centum–satem taxonomy. See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for further discussion: this currently seems a bit disjointed, since we then talk about this in the last paragraph of the article.
- Yeah, I originally put this in here to get in front of any head-scratching coming from someone with linguistics knowledge, especially since I originally wrote an extremely technical article (i.e., one in which a reader would only have gotten that far with some background in PIE linguistics). I think the discussion on the page is better (and better sourced), so would it be better to just {{slink}} the "Relative chronology" section of this article instead? Or should I just remove it outright?
- I think it mostly works: While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages, Kloekhorst considers Albanian and Armenian to be satem languages: is it worth sticking in the middle "it does affect Albanian and Armenian; most scholars categorise these as centum languages, but Kloekhorst..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- My take on the scholarship is that "Albanian and Armenian are satem languages" comprises a plurality – but not a majority – of opinions on the topic. I'd say "Albanian and Armenian exist outside the dichotomy/exist on a spectrum within the dichotomy" is a close second (usually in "inoffensive" contexts, such as intros to the field and papers in which Albanian and Armenian do not constitute a significant portion of the data). And I found this to remain the case as I developed the article, though scholarship is changing somewhat on what exactly the dichotomy is as a whole. That's why I simply put "have a controversial placement" rather than implying any sort of majority opinion because I don't think any polls or reviews of the literature would support an outright majority. And if they did, it might be outside the scope of this article; Weise's law affects these two languages, so for the purposes of most of scholarship on the law, they are categorized as such and that's really all the reader needs to know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. It's fixed, but let me know if the verbiage is still off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure that footnotes always end in a full stop (the citation template adds one automatically, as does sfn; harvnb doesn't) -- see note 3 for instance.
- Good catch. I think I got all of them now.
- Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.
This is the fourth article of my U.S. first ladies project that I'm submitting as a featured article candidate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg
- File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg
- File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
- File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
- File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
- File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the earliest publication date that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- TBUA, just a reminder that Nikkimaria's outstanding comments need addressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- As I said previously, I am unable to verify publication. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by from Kavyansh
- link White House in the lead
- "came to be her most enduring legacies." — I feel we are stating a widespread scholarly opinion as a fact. I would have written it as "are considered by scholars/historians/authors<whatever deeps appropriate> to be her most enduring legacies."
- "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making," — Interesting! But do we need this in an encyclopaedic article?
I might add a few more comments, but I won't be supporting or opposing the nomination, primarily because these are just drive-by comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated! I've made the first two changes. For my part, I've always liked having a few more personal details to give a better picture of the subject's family life and personal thoughts, but I have no objection to changing how it's presented or just removing it if others agree that it doesn't work as it currently stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
MSinccc
edit- Placeholder for the time being. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year. The specific year or month-year might be mentioned as it has not been done previously in the paragraph.
- Edith resented the press, so she used her influence to control its coverage of the family and had photographs taken of the Roosevelts so she could provide them to the press at her discretion. Can this sentence be reconstructed to make its meaning clearer?
- This sentence gave me a lot of grief when I was writing the lead. I've given it another try and split it into two sentences. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing more for the lead. I will return with further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien More comments below. Looking forward to hearing your response.
- Legacy
- Historians have little information about Edith's own state of mind while studying her life,...
- The historian Stacy A. Cordery said that the White House renovations organized by Edith were one of her "most important legacies",... Grammatically correct, now.
- Edith has been ranked:... Can this sentence be rephrased into one sentence?
- MSincccc (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement
- Over 300 letters celebrating Franklin's nomination arrived as Sagamore Hill. The last phrase "...arrived as Sagamore Hill" is vague. Could you please explain it to me? The rest of the section is fine.
- Typo. Should have been "at Sagamore Hill". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- MSincccc (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Return to Sagamore Hill
- She temporarily lost her taste and permanently lost her smell from the accident.
- Rephrased sentence. MSincccc (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me this makes it sound like she enjoyed kitsch art and her body odor was cured. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Return to Sagamore Hill
- Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement
MSincccc, I've replied to everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- First lady of the United States
- Rather than hiring a housekeeper, she took personal responsibility for the care of the mansion. I suppose it should be "hiring" instead of "hire".
- Each Tuesday, Edith organized a meeting with wives of all the cabinet members to run concurrently with cabinet meetings.
- For two months beginning in April 1903, Theodore ventured off on a trip to the west, and Edith cared for the children on her own, first on a cruise aboard the USS Mayflower and then in the White House. What do you mean by the "White House" here? Was it a vehicle for him to travel to the West?
- Besides her own children, Edith also ensured to dedicate time to her stepdaughter Alice, who felt neglected by Theodore.
- @Thebiguglyalien Till here for now. I will return with further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "ensured to dedicate time" doesn't sound right to me, but I've made the other changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien Fine. I do not have any major suggestions for improvement at the time being. Keeping that in mind, I will not hold back my opinion for this article's FAC. Support. MSincccc (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- "ensured to dedicate time" doesn't sound right to me, but I've made the other changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
editOutstanding work as usual; as usual, this is nothing but a list of minor nitpicks and I expect to support once these are dealt with or argued away.
"until after Theodore was engaged to Alice Hathaway Lee": suggest making this "until after Theodore was engaged to his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee". I suspect I know more about Teddy than most Americans (I live near Sagamore Hill and have visited it several times) but I still had to click through to remind myself that he did marry Alice."and got elected governor of New York": suggest "and was elected" as a little more formal in tone."She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year." A bit repetitive in structure, and I'm not keen on the "then". I also think it would help to have one or two dates in this paragraph. How about inverting the first half: "When Theodore was elected Vice President in March 1901 she became second lady of the United States for six months, and then became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency in September of that year"? Mentioning a year once or twice earlier in that paragraph wouldn't hurt either."she featured various musical artists at the White House": perhaps "invited to" rather than "featured"?"held a mutual animosity toward his wife Helen Herron Taft": I don't think there's a good verb that you can use in the form "she Xed animosity towards". If you want to keep "animosity", I would suggest "and there was mutual animosity between Edith and Taft's wife, Helen Herron Taft". If you'd rather avoid the passive, maybe "and she and his wife, Helen Herron Taft, strongly disliked each other"."She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932—the latter being an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...": this doesn't work syntactically -- "the latter" refers to Hoover himself, not her support for him. Maybe "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932. Her support for the latter was an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ..."."Edith's early schooling took place at the Roosevelt home": can we give the location?- It says in the previous paragraph that they were in Norwich, Connecticut. I don't want to be redundant, and this is how the source handles it.
"Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making". I don't think "as" works unless the source is clear that it would not have been a large responsibility without Theodore's attitude, which seems unlikely given the number of children and the expectation of the day that mothers were responsible for day-to-day parenting. Suggest "Managing the family became an increasing responsibility, and she counted her husband as one of the children because of his involvement in the children's trouble-making".- I went with "in part because", does that work?
"cared for their family friend Cecil Spring Rice during his visits": this makes it sound as if he was an invalid?"Fischer's antique shop": this is mentioned as if it's well-known. Is it a candidate for a redlink?- The source makes it seem this way, but I also can't find any sources with a surface level search.
"Attending several receptions in 1890, Edith was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist": suggest "She attended several receptions in 1890, and was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist". I assume some of these receptions were not at the White House? If they all were at the White House then that could be made definite with "She attended several receptions at the White House in 1890 with her husband, and was now received as a guest rather than a tourist"."on February 1, 1894, by President Grover Cleveland, where Edith was sat directly next to the president": suggest "on February 1, 1894; Edith was seated directly next to the president, Grover Cleveland". I don't think we need to say Cleveland personally issued the invitation (and he probably didn't, anyway).- Is "sat" formal AmEng usage? In BrEng it would have to be "seated"; "sat" sounds very odd to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
"The promise proved to be short-lived." This doesn't sound right to me; promises don't last -- they are kept for a long time or a short time. Perhaps "The promise was not kept for long"?Is the link for Friday Morning Club correct? That article is about a building in Los Angeles."Edith was uncomfortable with the proposition of Theodore running for Vice President of the United States": I think it would be better to start with the vice presidential opportunity as context rather than assume the reader knows what's coming -- e.g. "In 1900 Theodore was urged by Henry Cabot Lodge and others to accept the vice-presidential role on the Republican national ticket" (stealing from our article on Theodore). Then we can say Edith was uncomfortable with the idea.Our article on Theodore says he actually did issue a public statement that he would not accept the nomination, but here you say he only drafted one -- is one of the articles wrong?- Schneider & Schneider (2010) and Morris (1980) both say they drafted it together and then skip straight to him accepting the nomination. Gould (2013) says "Yet, Theodore never went the final step of saying he would decline the vice presidency if it were offered to him."
I don't doubt your adherence to the sources, but Cleveland's reassurance to Edith seems odd as it doesn't seem to address any of the concerns listed -- it's as if Cleveland was reassuring her that Theodore could cope.- It's possible that I didn't convey it very well, but it tracks in my mind. She was worried for his safety and about how much he was doing, and Cleveland assured her that he could handle all of it.
- But the list of her concerns doesn't include "how much he was doing", which is what Cleveland's reassurance seems to be mostly aimed at. Can we add that to her list of concerns? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's possible that I didn't convey it very well, but it tracks in my mind. She was worried for his safety and about how much he was doing, and Cleveland assured her that he could handle all of it.
"For her sitting room, Edith used an oval library adjacent to the president's office". Was this the Yellow Oval Room?- It's possible, but I don't want to assume, especially since the White House has been redone a few times.
"Edith seemed to regret how her role as first lady": suggest "that" rather than "how"."with new obligations that brought her displeasure: suggest simplifying, e.g. "that she disliked"."commenting on how it ruined the grass": suggest "saying that it". I think "how" in these constructions is more useful when the intended meaning is "the manner in which" rather than just "that"."Because of a lack of historical records": does this really add anything?I don't understand the account of her interactions with Frances Metcalfe Wolcott. If the Wolcotts were divorced and stayed so, in what way did she "help ... fix her marriage"?"the handkerchiefs were scrutinized and criticized": I don't know that more details are worth including, but I am curious as to what the criticisms were -- poor fashion choices?- The source doesn't give much. It quotes one person as saying they were "tacky" and mentions one women's group in Texas that liked Varina Davis's handkerchief better.
"Edith featured the famous German composer Engelbert Humperdinck when he visited the United States": what does "featured" mean here?"She exerted her influence over journalists, such as occasions when she wore the same dress multiple times but convinced the reporters to describe it differently": suggest "She exerted her influence over journalists: for example, when she wore the same dress on multiple occasions, she convinced the reporters to describe it differently each time.""Edith and Helen had developed a rivalry over the years, both distrusting each other and the other's husband. This rivalry contributed to a rivalry between Theodore and William in the following years." Repetition of "rivalry"; can we eliminate at least one?Suggest linking Richard Derby Jr to Ethel Roosevelt Derby#Marriage and family, to satisfy the curiosity of readers who wonder via which child Richard was a grandchild."Then in 1927, Edith ferried across the Paraná River in Argentina until she reached the Iguazu Falls in Brazil". I don't think "then" is necessary; and this phrasing makes it sound as if she piloted the ferry. Could we say "took a ferry" or even just "crossed"? I had to look at the linked article on the falls to understand why the sentence is constructed this way -- is the intended meaning something like "she took a ferry across the Paraná River in order to reach the Iguazu Falls"? If so I would suggest that phrasing, with "on the border between Argentina and Brazil" at the end to simplify the first half of the sentence."By this time, Edith began having": either "had begun to have" or "was beginning to have", or cut "By this time"."Knowing that her health would not let her travel as frequently": suggest "Knowing that her health would no longer let her travel frequently"."as it had been thoroughly furnished": surely "refurnished"?"and her allowance of racist songs to be performed at the White House to suggest strong anti-black views": suggest "and the fact that she allowed racist songs to be performed".Steinmetz is in the list of references but does not appear to have been used.Not a FAC requirement but you might add "|ref=none" to the further reading citation templates to avoid harv errors for those who have them enabled.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie I've made changes for each point except for the ones I've replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most points struck; a couple of minor queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, agree that "seated" makes more sense. And I went back to the source and looked to see what concern it raised immediately before Cleveland's comment, so that should be fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most points struck; a couple of minor queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie I've made changes for each point except for the ones I've replied to above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
editA nice piece of work. Reads well and looks very comprehensive. I tried my best to nitpick and managed a few. Please ignore as you wish, especially since I am not a native speaker.
- Edith Carow began a romance with Theodore Roosevelt --> the body text is more neutral about who took the initiative
- I don't read this as her taking initiative, just that he was the person she was with when it happened.
- she participated in New York social life --> just wondering if a 's would be better
- but she preserved only one of these letters --> the but makes it sound there is an intriguing story here
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- Sorry for not being clear. Let me try again: Why is the word "but" here? This to me hints at something of a controversy among historians whether they were or were not in contact. If there is some kind of controversy, this should be explained. If none such is the case, I wonder what the value of adding "but she preserved only one of these letters" is.
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- because they could not count on a mayor's salary --> sorry I don't understand count: could it be that NYC's finances were shaky or something?
- in Albany --> link?
- incredibly thin --> not sure I would use incredibly, I think "very thin" sounds more like WP's tone
- subsequently had lunch with the McKinleys --> I had to look up who had won the 1900 election. Would be nice to tell the reader at some stage, so that this lunch is understood to be with the top cheeses
- he would experience as presidency --> president?
- former president Cleveland --> we have a P in President McKinley, which is definitely good, but is it former president Cleveland or former President. I'm not sure, I suspect you are.
- In this case I'm not sure if "former president" is a common noun descriptor and "Cleveland" is the object, or if "former" is a modifier and "President Cleveland" is the object. MOS:JOBTITLE has never been intuitive to me.
- MOS:JOBTITLE does not seem to help. If I had to guess, I'd go for former president Cleveland
- In this case I'm not sure if "former president" is a common noun descriptor and "Cleveland" is the object, or if "former" is a modifier and "President Cleveland" is the object. MOS:JOBTITLE has never been intuitive to me.
- Edith was confident in Theodore's chances for his reelection --> when was this?
- moved back in to --> moved back into
- by Caroline Harrison --> by former first lady Caroline Harrison
- Done, but the JOBTITLE issue might also be relevant here.
- Republican Party --> link?
- been granted the right to vote --> link perhaps to Women's suffrage in the United States
- Franklin D. Roosevelt --> should be linked. I realise this may generate a sea of blue, so perhaps a little rejigging of words is possible?
- "Everything she did was for the happiness of others". --> "Everything she did was for the happiness of others."
- nineteenth century --> earlier we have 19th
That looks to be it. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Edwininlondon I've replied to a few above, and I made the suggested changes for all of the others. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
- I cannot find one. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest expanding the alt text
- I have previously made alt text a short summary and this has always passed FAC, but recently an editor has been deleting alt texts in my FACs on the ground that it duplicates the label, and another editor commented that the alt text should be a place marker as it only prevents readers from seeing the file name instead of the label. I see from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images that this is incorrect, so I have gone back to make alt text a short summary. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Medieval_south-east_Wales_map_Lloyd.jpg is tagged as life+100, but gives an author date of death less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to PD-old-70-1923. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Nikkimaria. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
source review from sawyer777
edityay, a medieval Wales FAC!! one of my favorite topics. i'll get to this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Sawyer777. There is another one below at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- aye, i'll give it a review if i've got the time and/or it stalls out & needs more feedback. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
alright, let's get to it.
- in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
- no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.
small spot-check (ref numbers as of this revision):
- ref 8 (a & b): good
- ref 10: good
- ref 15: good
- ref 18: checked Charles-Edwards and Davies, both check out
- ref 25: good
no significant issues i could find. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- Could "charter" be linked?
- Linked to charter. The article on Anglo-Saxon charters is much morre informative, but the title would confuse people. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "in order to get protection". 'in order to gain protection' sounds a little more encyclopediac to my ear.
- "Brochfael's acceded to the throne" ?
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and submitted to the West Saxon king." And who might this be? They don't seem to have been previously mentioned.
- Clarified that Alfred the Great was the West Saxon king. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and thus in an important step towards the unity of England." What unity of England? I think this needs unpacking a little further.
- Deleted as too complex and speculative. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest linking landed estates.
That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Gog. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
UC
editYou wait years for an early medieval Wales FAC, and then...
- Mercia claimed dominion over Wales: in the body, we've only said most of. How much are we talking here?
- Changed to "most of", although I suspect that is just the source being over-cautious. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
- That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Surely there's the usual reasons that any ruler submits to another -- most obviously, feeling a choice between voluntarily submitting (hopefully with benefits or at least gentle treatment) and involuntarily submitting? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
- The map is from Lloyd's history. It is just labelled 'Medieval Wales'. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, but we do need to caption it appropriately. If the borders of Gwent on the map are not the borders of the kingdom of Gwent that we describe, we should say so; if it's a map of 13th-century Wales but happens to have a lot of the right places labelled, we should say that too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed this. The full map in the book is labelled 'Medieval Wales'. If it is of any date it seems to be 11th century as it has Gwent, which was conquered by the Normans soon after the Conquest, and Morgannwg, a name for Glywysing which came in at the end of the tenth century. (The legend says that "9" means Morgannwg and I wrote that it means Glywysing.) I do not have any source for specifying a date, and the map may include some earlier names, but I could change the caption to "Medieval south-east Wales. The number "9" means Morgannwg, a name for Glwywsing which came in by the year 1000." The borders are not exactly known and changed with the conquests and defeats in each generation. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
- Historians often use the term Vikings as a general description and I do not think that going into more detail is relevant here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we could do better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the current approach is wrong. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
- Revised. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
- I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Owain probably became king of both territories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. : I'm a bit uncomfortable here -- taking no position on your judgement here, I think it's OR to say "this looks too early" purely on our own initiative. At the moment, it sounds as though we have Davies saying 910, Sims-Williams saying 893, and Charles-Edwards saying before 918 (which is compatible with either). Has anyone actually put it in print that 893 is impossible? If not, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT means we need to include it, even if we weight it as a minority view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've found out the sources, and I agree that Sims-Williams is light on justification, but he does unambiguously give the terminus post quem for Owain's rule as c. 893, not 927. Rebecca Thomas, here (search "893") also gives 893 as the terminus post quem for Owain gaining control of Glywysing and Gwent. I'm not sure it needs to contradict what's in the article already, but I do think we need at least a footnote to the effect that both Sims-Williams and Davies say that Owain's rule over the two kingdoms began at some point after c. 893. We've given a terminus ante quem, so the other side of the date range is manifestly relevant, and we need to observe both WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
- Added dates. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael: may therefore? I think we need something to tie the logic of this sentence into the previous one.
- Not sure about that one. The source does not say "therefore", so it would verge on SYNTH. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does the source not connect those two dots at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is successive sentences. Changed to "several show Brochfael as a royal grantor and witness, so Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
- Revised. I had missed Sims-Wiliams's explanation of why he thinks Davies is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy: suggest reminding us of the date, particularly for readers who won't go through the article top-to-bottom.
- Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
- three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
- It looks better to me the way it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- De gustibus -- not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Latin text should be in lang templates, which will do the italics for you.
- Quotations that are put into italics for language reasons don't then have quotation marks around them (MOS:"?)
- Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
- I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but any comment would be an unreferenced personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Giving the date of the manuscript, with an appropriate reference, would not -- you could cite here, p. xxv, for instance, for a date in the mid C11th. In fact, the date of a historian/historical source is the sort of context useful, perhaps essential, for non-specialist readers to properly handle the information we're giving them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added. Like all extant versions of the ASC, it was a conflation of earlier lost versions, but that would be going into too much detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but any comment would be an unreferenced personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- She died in around 910: just around 910 is more concise and, I think, more natural English.
- King of the people of Gwent: definitely needs a decap of king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
- he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
- This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
- One is a statement in the text and the other an entry in a table. I have given greater weight to the text, but I am happy to change it if you disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as c. 848 – c. 874 or c. 850 – c. 870"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, it sounds like Davies is saying the same thing with two different levels of precision, so the latter formulation would work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as c. 848 – c. 874 or c. 850 – c. 870"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Dudley Miles and UndercoverClassicist, how's this review coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think my points on submission, captioning and dating are still live. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dudley Miles and UndercoverClassicist, how's this review coming along? FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
editOnly two quibbles from me:
- In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
- Done, but you have ruined my best synonym for "and". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
- Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Tim. King Bronchial has a certain ring to it! Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
editI'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Who is "Brlochfael"? Is that a typo of Brochfael?
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, and in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians." Suggest changing to "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians."
- "The historian of Wales Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig..." It's not clear that this is referring to the father, and not Brochfael ap Meurig.
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere that "grants" can link to?
- I cannot find a suitable article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In the previous generation, ..." Is this part of the sentence strictly necessary given that the latter part of that sentence establishes that it is talking about the father?
- It is not necessary but it is helpful to indicate at the start of the sentence that it is going back in time. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would change "(about 120 acres (50 hectares))" to "(about 120 acres or 50 hectares)" using
disp=or
in the convert template. This solution avoids using double brackets. Same with "(about 240 acres (100 hectares))" to "(about 240 acres or 100 hectares)".
- "...which Brochfael gave to his daughter, ..." Is this Brochfael's daughter or Cyfeilliog's daugher?
- I think "his" must be Brochfael grammatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 927 Owain, king of the people of Gwent..." Suggest adding a comma after 927 and before Owain.
That's all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Steelkamp. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no more comments to make, so I give my support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Ceoil
editHave read through (with trivial edits) a few times and have been following the reviews above. Really like these Anglo-Saxon Kingship articles, and this one is very clearly written and precise with no unnecessary padding. Sourcing is excellent, and I gather that info is so scant that it easily passes comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ceoil. I have removed the word "believes" in your edits. Some historians strongly object to it as they think it implies an opinion not supported by reasoning, as with religious belief. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah was thinking you might :) Was trying to avoid "thinks" x 2, and there was the hedge "may be" just afterwards. It's something I struggle a bit when writing about the dating of Iron-age artifacts. So no worries. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Serial
edit- Although the caption says that Glywysing is the 9, the map seems to suggest that that is Gwynllyg. Am I misreading it?!
- The map covers the whole medieval period. 9 is Glywysing, and Gwynllyg is a later medieval kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't actually say much about Brochfael the king himself, more the regional politics.
- There is only one sentence in the lead which does not mention Brochfael. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "having a higher status" > the higher status.
- Anothr map, showing the broader geography—where Mercia, Wessex etc were positioned in relation to Glywysing would be useful for the background. (Maybe a crop of this?)
- I agree that a broader map would be helpful, but the one you link to is of Britain in 600, 300 years too early. There is a better map at [16], but it is of the mid 10th century and shows Gwent as one large territory, so it might confuse people. What do you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- re. Ffernfael's subordinacy, probably worth adding "Charles-Edwards has speculated", since no-one else has; indeed, it's odd that he doesn't mention the dangers of relying too heavily on charters when it is known that only a (random) percentage have survived.
- I think "may have been subordinate" is sufficient qualification. Other historians have not made the point because Ffernfael is such a minor figure that he is rarely mentioned. He is only recorded twice, by Asser and as a witness to one charter of his father, and I think he probably died soon after Asser mentioned him, but of course I cannot says so. I take your point about charters and have qualified by saying "Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- All from me. Nice one Dudley Miles, compact but comprehensive. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Serial_Number_54129. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- All good changes, Dudley Miles, mutatis mutandis, and I'm very happy to support this article's promotion. I love the obscure fugures! SerialNumber54129 18:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Unlimitedlead
edit- "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." Suggest changing to "The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." for clarity.
- "The historian of Wales..." This sounds like an official title. Suggest revising to: "Thomas Charles-Edwards, a historian specializing in Welsh history, thinks that Meurig...", or something of that vein in order for improved sentence flow.
- Introduce Wendy Davies; we do not know who she is.
- Revised to cover both points. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why does Davies postulate a different date?
- Davies attributes it to "the claims of the relative chronology of the witness sequence". I intend working on an article on Meurig, and I think the question is better covered there. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can more be said about Brochfael's own family? The fact that he had a daughter is suddenly thrust open the reader in the last few sentences.
- This is the only reference to a daughter. A speculative suggestion that he had a son is covered in note b. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please notify me when you have had the chance to reply to my concerns. Great work; it's always nice to see more history articles here at FA :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Unlimitedlead. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Goodness, Dudley. I didn't even realize this article was written by you! It's been nice catching up with an old friend. I'd be happy to pass this review; great work as always! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles, Santería and Rastafari. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest editing captions for grammar
- I've gone through and made some tweaks to the image captions. Any further recommendations on these captions would of course be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest adding alt text
- I've gone through the article and added these to the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?
- In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The photograph's licensing is not an issue, but as the US does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, we do need to account for the copyright status of the work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?
- The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
- I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- What about the author question? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Adechina.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
editThis has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless there's substantial progress in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've been waiting for the right moment to review this one, will it postpone it being archived if I begin soon? FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Jens
editI already started on this a few days ago. Very difficult for me to find any issues here (it is an excellent and very solid work as always), but here is what I got so far, more soon:
- link "orthodoxy"?
- meaning "a person who works a nganga" – Nganga is mentioned here for the first time in the main text, not sure if this needs a short gloss?
- From reading the article it seems to me that this religion has more connections to forests than similar African diasporic religions, maybe because the Bakongo originally depended on the African rainforest? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Caption: human skull and bones displayed in the Museo de Orishas in Havana. Human remains are included in the nganga of Palo. – Does this particular specimen on display have any connections with Palo? If so, could these be pointed out?
- judíasto – space missing
- When a new nganga is created for a padre or madre, – I couldn't follow here; "padre" and "madre" are mentioned here for the first time but are not explained. Maybe they can be avoided here (maybe replace with "senior practitioner")?
- and draw marks on their body, often in cascarilla – what does this mean? Cascarilla is a plant? What is "draw in cascarilla"?
- Practitioners kneel before the ngangas in greeting; they often greet it – should "it" be "them" so that the plural matches?
- they often greet it with the words "Salaam alaakem, malkem salaam." – Can this be translated?
- does its keeper's bidding, the latter sometimes threaten it, – "threatens"?
- In "Beliefs", there is this sentence: Senior practitioners may have multiple ngangas, some of which they have inherited from their own teachers. In "Peactises", this is stated: At their initiation ceremony to the level of padre or madre, a palero/palera will often be given their own nganga. – This now sounds as if most paleros don't have their own nganga? That's not what I imagined after reading the "biefes" section. Maybe this could be shortly mentioned in the "beliefs" section too.
- Some practitioners are content to remain at this level and do not pursue further initiation to reach the level of padre or madre. – This contradicts the earlier statement that initiation into padre or madre is "rare". Should it be "Most practitioners are content to remain at this level"?
- When the tata or yayi or a house is close to death, – How can a house be dead?
- After this leader's death, other senior initiates often have the option – Is this indeed only referring to the death of the new leader, and does not apply when the original leader dies?
- it is also expected that sacrifices one the ngangas cumplimiento – please check grammar
- Is there any membership fee for being part of a house? Or how do the leaders sustain themselves?
- A practitioner may later experience a second rayamiento, enabling them to become a full-ranking initiate of the praise house and thus create their own nganga. – Does this mean becoming "padre" or "madre" (terms that were used earlier)?
- the Cuban anthropologist Lydia Cabrera studied made a study of Palo – remove one "study"
- Palo is found all over Cuba, although is particularly strong in the island's eastern provinces. – "it" missing?
- @Midnightblueowl: That's all from me. Fascinating article, and I expect to support this soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Australian politician John Tonkin. This is my first featured article candidate for a politician and, if successful, would by my longest featured article yet. Tonkin was the longest serving member of the Parliament of Western Australia, at 44 years, and was the premier of Western Australia for three years. My main sources are the Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry on Tonkin and a book by Peter Kennedy, supplemented with newspapers from Trove and the Australian Political Chronicle in the Australian Journal of Politics and History. Many thanks to GMH Melbourne for reviewing this article at GAN. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career". 750h+ 00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have such a large portion of the article under one section and I think the current sectioning works. Steelkamp (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Nuralingup_school,_1920s,_cropped.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure, so I will remove that image. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
edit- "Tonkin was a minister in the John Willcock, Frank Wise and Bert Hawke governments". I suggest "previously a minister" as you have just mentioned his later premiership.
- Done.
- "After working several jobs". "Working...jobs" sounds wrong to me, but maybe it is AusEng?
- I've reworded this.
- "Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age as his father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party." I would not say "as". Children of politicians are not necessarily interested in politics. Maybe "His father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party and Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age."
- Done.
- "After leaving school age of 15". "After leaving school at 15"?
- Done.
- "party figure Joe Chamberlain". "Party figure" is too colloquial and you do not say how it helped him.
- I will have to take some more time on this one. I'm not entirely sure what Chamberlain's exact position at the Labor Party was at the time. I'm going to take a look at Chamberlain's autobiography to see what I can find there. It's possible that Chamberlain wasn't even in an important role in the Labor Party at the time. In that case, I will just remove any mention of Chamberlain here.
- Update: I've decided to remove the part mentioning Chamberlain. It seems he wasn't in a position of authority in the Labor Party at the time.
- "Douglas credit committee" You should explain this in the same sentence. For example, "Douglas credit committee to assess the proposal".
- Done. I've moved the explanation to the same sentence.
- I think you need some clarity on this. It sounds like a local proposal from your wording. If I understand correctly, it was a Labor party state committee which examined the theory of a British economist about the solution to the Great Depression and its application by the Federal Australian government. I am not sure it is worth mentioning and I do not think you can say that the committee "ruled" on it.
- I've made some changes to this section. I think its relevant to mention because it shows Tonkin becoming more involved with internal party affairs and is a result of him gaining a profile from his previous attempts to enter parliament.
- "became standout members of the backbench" "standout" is POV. Maybe "leading".
- Done.
- "Wise was elected to the ministry". What does "elected" mean here"? Were ministers elected by Labor assembly members? You say below that Tonkin was appointed a minister.
- I have changed it to say that the Labor caucus elected them.
- "Tonkin spent much of that time on leave without pay". Why? What did he do? Did he serve in action? Was he discharged because he was coming up to 40 years old?
- I'm not sure. The sources don't say why.
- "appointed by cabinet to travel to the eastern states to lobby Prime Minister John Curtin". You need to explain that Curtin was federal Prime Minister and I do not think you need to mention eastern states.
- I reply re federal prime minister in the comment below. I mention eastern states because sources disagree as to whether they visited Melbourne or Canberra (possibly both).
- You refer to state premier and federal Prime Minister. Are there different titles at different levels in Australia? If so, I think you need to explain as premier and prime minister are synonyms in British usage.
- I've changed it so that "prime minister of Australia" and "premier of Western Australia" are written out in full the first time those terms are mentioned in the body. I hope that is enough distinction between the two positions. In Australia, prime minister is exclusively used to refer to the head of the federal government and premier is exclusively used to refer to the head of a state government. I've hesitant to use terms such as "federal prime minister" because that is not a term that is used often (if at all) in Australia, and it is not a source of confusion for Australians or those familiar with Australian politics.
- "Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education, fulfilling a long-held dream of Tonkin's,[17] and minister for social services, a newly-created position, in the Willcock ministry." This is confusing. Were the appointments simultaneous or successive, and you do not need to say "in the Willcock ministry" as you have said that Willcock appointed him.
- The appointments were simultaneous, which I think is clear because the sentence begins with "On 9 December 1943", which was the date he was appointed to the ministry.
- "Tonkin saw his greatest achievements in education being the merging of one-teacher schools into larger schools, commonplace in rural areas. I think it should be "as being". Also, what was commonplace, one-teacher or larger? This is ambiguous.
- Fixed. I've rearranged the sentence to make this clearer.
- "Nevertheless, the commission made no findings against Tonkin." What was he charged with? This is not clear.
- I've decided to completely remove that section. Only the Australian Dictionary of Biography source mentions that, and the royal commission report does not mention Tonkin at all.
- "state aid for private schools". You do not need to repeat the expression three times in a short paragraph.
- I've removed the second use of this phrase.
- "it still retained government". This sounds odd to me. I would say "it still retained power".
- Done.
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In the Legislative Council" You should explain that this is the upper house.
- Done, and explained the lower house as well earlier.
- "The twelve-man ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and Tonkin had the responsibility of allocating the specific ministerial positions." You should explain this above when you say that Tonkin lost in the caucus election.
- I've added it to when he is first elected to the ministry as that's where I think it fits best.
- "The next election was held in December 1943; parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war.[14] Labor won for the fourth time in a row, and in the days following, the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry.[18] Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education" For clarity, I suggest something like "The next election was held in December 1943. Parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war[14] and Labor won for the fourth time in a row. The ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and the premier allocated their roles. Tonkin was elected and[18] Premier John Willcock appointed him as minister for education". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and so over the course of the Tonkin government, 21 bills were voted down by the Legislative Council". I would leave out "so" as implying that specifically 21 were lost.
- Done.
- "Labor had lost its majority and Coalition supporters called for a snap election, believing that the Coalition would win." You should clarify here that the loss was only pending the byelection.
- Done.
- "Court was unusually exuberant, even going doorknocking in Belmont". "exuberant" is an odd word here.
- I've changed that word, although I would have been fine with exuberant.
- "much to the surprise of Labor MP Don Taylor." How is this relevant to Tonkin?
- I've removed that part, as its already covered by the word "unusually" in that sentence.
- "against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, albeit with a reduction in the seat's margin by around 10 per cent". The article on the byelection says that the Liberals did not stand in the previous election. "a reduction in the seat's margin" is meaningless.
- Turns out the the source is comparing the by-election with the 1968 result, which I have clarified in the article.
- "the seat's margin" is meaningless. Maybe "winning the by-election against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, who was only 12% behind even though the Liberals had not stood in the 1971 state election". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've decided to just get rid of that part. The by-election wasn't very close. The noteworthy part was the decline in Labor support, but as the 1971 election was not contested by the Liberals, making comparisons gets murky. I don't have a map of the electoral districts in 1968 and 1971, so its possible that changes in support for Labor and Liberal could be down to changes in boundaries. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "however, bureaucrats at the mines department were opposed". "bureaucrats" is POV. Maybe "officials".
- Done.
- "boycotted visits to Western Australia by the South Africa national cricket team and South Africa national rugby union team amidst apartheid". "amidst" is odd and unclear. Did he boycott specifically because black people were excluded from representing South Africa or as a general gesture against apartheid?
- I've added an additional source and reworded this section a bit.
- "The machine was discarded by the Court government due to being ineffective." Presumably the succeeding Court government.
- Done.
- "The appointment angered the party caucus though due to the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and due to Graham being one of the government's better ministers." This is clumsy. Maybe "The appointment angered the party caucus in view of the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and because Graham was considered one of the government's better ministers."
- Done.
- "Opposition Leader Charles Court". Here and in othee places I do not think "Opposition Leader" should be capitalised.
- I would have thought it should be capitalised in those situations because it's directly followed by a persons name as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
- "Arthur Tonkin. You should clarify whether he was related to John Tonkin, and if so, how.
- They are not related, which I have clarified.
- "He delayed further pressure. Maybe "He resisted further pressure".
- Done.
- "By that point though, it was too close to the next election for it to be a good idea to change leaders." This should not be stated as a fact but as the opinion of specified people.
- Done.
- Presumably, elections were held every three years. This should be spelled out.
- Done.
- "a swing against Labor of 0.81 per cent." This is a minimal swing. The article on the election says it was 2.5%.
- I have clarified that this is referring to the primary vote swing and not the two-party-preferred swing.
- The linked article does not explain primary vote spring. Maybe "first preference vote swing". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've modified the linked article as primary vote is just a synonym of first preference vote, and its shorter so I prefer that phrase. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Many people laid the blame". This is too vague. What people?
- I reckon that is covered by the rest of that paragraph, which mentions Ian Thompson, Charles Court and his wife Joan.
- "chose not to recontest his seat" What does recontext mean here. He chose not to contest it.
- I've changed it to "contest", which is simpler and has the same meaning.
- "This came under controversy" This is clumsy. I think you should say that it was opposed.
- Done.
- There does not seem to be any logic which sources you put in the bibliography and which only in the references. I would put them all in the bibliography for the convenience of readers, but this is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The logic I used is to put sources that use multiple different pages in the bibliography, which is where shortened footnotes are really useful. Steelkamp (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is better to have all sources in the bibliography so that readers can easily see what sources have been used, but as I said, that is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would you be ok if I put all the book sources in the bibliography? Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I leave it to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments Dudley Miles. I have responded to everything now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
editI should be able to post comments tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I've copyedited as I read through; please revert anything I screwed up.
"Tonkin was previously a minister in": suggest "Tonkin had been a minister in"- Done.
"When Labor won the 1953 state election, he reassumed his role as a minister, most notably serving as the minister for works and minister for water." From a glance at the body he held these roles for the entirety of the 1953 government, so it would seem simpler to say "When Labor won the 1953 state election, Tonkin became the minister for works and minister for water".- Well he was also the minister for education for a short while, so I've changed to to "he reassumed his role as a minister, including as the minister for works and minister for water."
"By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each resulting in the near defeat of Labor." Suggest "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each of which was narrowly won by Labor".- Done.
"He contested the state electoral district of Sussex in 1927 and Murray-Wellington in 1930". Can it be made clear whether this election was for the upper or lower state house?- Done.
How about making that sentence "He unsuccessfully contested the ..." and then the next sentence could be shortened to "These campaigns helped him gain a profile within the Labor Party"?- Done.
"appointed Tonkin to the Douglas credit committee to assess C. H. Douglas's social credit theory that ...": suggest just "... to a committee to assess ..."; the name of the committee doesn't tell the reader anything they don't get from the rest of the sentence.- Done.
I don't think any change to the article is needed, but I'm curious -- were the Australian states issuing money independently of each other, in which case Douglas's theory could have led to a change in Western Australian banking and currency, or was this a more theoretical exercise to determine if the WA state wanted to support Douglas's ideas at the federal level?- The latter. Each Labor Party state branch could make its own policy, which could be used to influence the federal party's policy.
"The Labor caucus elected Wise to the ministry": does this just mean Wise became a minister? I think in the UK one would say "he joined the cabinet"; "the ministry" isn't a phrase one would use to mean ministerial positions in general.- It just means Wise became a minister. The Wikipedia article Ministry (collective executive) seems to be using the word in this way. Each premier's ministry has an article, such as Willcock ministry or Hawke ministry (Western Australia). Also, the source seems to be using ministry in this way. In Western Australia, the ministry and the cabinet are one and the same, but at the federal level and in some states, the cabinet consists of only the more senior ministers.
"which led him to put greater concentration on his seat". A bit vague -- did he spend more time in his district, have more meetings with constituents, change his focus to work on issues important to his constituency?- The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
- It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\
- Sorry, should have recognized that you were already using that source. That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\
- It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
"but Tonkin spent much of that time without pay": it's not clear what period this refers to -- May to December 1941? December 41 to January 42? If the former, why "but"? Being called up for deployment in December doesn't imply he should have been paid prior to that date.- This is referring to December 1941 to January 1942, which I reckon is clear because the leave without pay part is directly after the part that says the battalion was mobilised.
"were appointed by cabinet to travel": should this be "appointed by the cabinet to travel", or is the usual usage in Australian English?- This is usual in AusEng. See the Cabinet Handbook, which says "by Cabinet" 15 times.
"The next election was held in December 1943 ...": suggesting making it clear we are still talking about WA state elections -- the last seat we mentioned was Curtin's in the federal government.- Done.
"parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war": I don't think we need "as a one-off measure".- Done.
"...the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry. Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education ...". I see you're using "to the ministry" again, so it seems this may be standard usage in AusEng. This makes it sound as if the caucus gets to pick who is in the cabinet, and then the Premier assigns them a portfolio. Is that right? So Willcock couldn't give a portfolio to someone the caucus had not elected, and the caucus had no say in the portfolios of those they elected? If so maybe a footnote explaining this process would be helpful, and if not then I don't understand what's going on here. Added later: I see from the section on 1971-74 that this is indeed how it works, so I would suggest moving the explanation up or (I think the better option) putting the explanation in a footnote at the first point it's relevant.- I think you wrote that before I made some changes in response to Dudley's review above. You are correct that the caucus elects the ministry and the premier allocates the portfolios. I've added that this is just a Labor Party rule.
"made himself the minister or works and the minister for water supplies". The latter is just given as "minister for water" in the lead. I see from the linked article that the title of the post has varied over the years. I think if you're going to use lower case, I'd stick with one usage throughout -- "minister for water" is probably simplest. If you want to use "Minister for Water Supplies" I would capitalize it as it's the title in use at the time. Either way I think the lead and the body should have consistent usage.- The "minister for water" in the lead was a mistake, I meant minister for water. It remains uncapitalised though, due to MOS:JOBTITLES, particularly the part that says "When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower-cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs".
Did Tonkin's 1955 assumption of the role of deputy premier mean he lost his portfolios, or was it just an additional responsibility? And had he been the deputy during the earlier period when it was an unofficial role?- He kept his portfolios after becoming deputy premier. He was deputy leader of the Labor Party before that, which means he was unofficially the deputy premier, which is why he was acting premier a few times. I'll see if I can find some sources that show this.
- Update: I've changed this section a bit with this diff to show that he was in the position unofficially since 1953.
Why was Tonkin acting premier in July 1953?- Turns out Hawke was attending the Coronation of Elizabeth II over a three-month trip. I wouldn't otherwise write the reason in the article, but since Tonkin's time as acting premier was so long, I decided to add it.
Do the sources give any more detail about the "Golden West" name for the bridge? Was Tonkin really choosing to name the bridge after the drink or was it just that "Golden West" was a term in use for the area and the drink was just a product that took advantage of it?- It seems the name was chosen because of Gold mining in Western Australia and "golden grain". It was then criticised for being unoriginal and too similar to the soft drink name, regardless of the soft drink company inventing the name or not. Perhaps an unfair criticism, but that's what occurred according to the sources.
"the Coalition's alleged secrecy within government" -- this is opaque to someone like me who knows nothing about WA politics. Can it be unpacked a little?- All I've found mentioning that is the Sydney Morning Herald source, which doesn't say very much. All it says is "John Tonkin has been a consistent critic, in and out of State Parliament, of Liberal-Country Party coalition's tendency to secrecy in Government."
- How about "Tonkin also persistently criticised the Coalition government for being too secretive", which avoids saying who alleged it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Tonkin also persistently criticised the Coalition government for being too secretive", which avoids saying who alleged it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- All I've found mentioning that is the Sydney Morning Herald source, which doesn't say very much. All it says is "John Tonkin has been a consistent critic, in and out of State Parliament, of Liberal-Country Party coalition's tendency to secrecy in Government."
"At age 69 years, he is the oldest premier at the time of swearing to date": suggest "As of 2021, Tonkin, who was 69 when he was sworn in, is the oldest person to have become premier of Western Australia". Or is he the oldest for any of the Australian states and territories?- Done. He is only the oldest in Western Australia.
"Tonkin wanted to make it easier for Hanwright to develop McCamey's Monster": given that this name is somewhat hidden in the linked article, and the name doesn't make clear that this is a mine, suggest "to develop McCamey's Monster, an iron ore mine [or deposit, or discovery, if it was not yet a mine at this point] in the Pilbara region of the state".- Done.
"has been compared to the later case "Mineralogy v Western Australia": in what way?- I've expanded upon this.
"free return airfares for people working north of the 26th parallel". What was special about that latitude? And presumably this only applied to public servants? And does this mean that if the government required you to fly somewhere south of that latitude you had to pay for your own travel?- The source does not expand upon this. This just applies to public servants, as does the rest of the things mentioned in that sentence. I couldn't find any information online about this, but I did find the currently active Pensioner annual free trip scheme, which is for pensioners living north of the 26th parallel, giving them one return journey by air or coach per year to Perth or elsewhere in the South West Land Division. I would presume the free airfares that Tonkin implemented was similar to that, and would be used to make it more attractive to work north of the 26th parallel, where it's isolated and hard to attract people to work there. As for why they chose the 26th parallel, I would guess its just an arbitrary limit which was easy to legislate, rather than using local government boundaries which would be liable to change.
"block supply" -- you link this, but it's a term I'm not familiar with. If it's the standard term in Australia that's fine, but it would be good if it could be rephrased as something more definitional. Maybe something like "to refuse to pass funding legislation" or "budgetary approvals"?- Changed to "block spending bills", although "block supply" is still a common phrase used in Australian politics and is used on 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.
The paragraph about the Balcatta by-election has no dates till we get to the September/October comment at the end. Maybe give the date for the YLO's motion of no confidence? And for the conversation between Bryce and Tonkin? And does "By that point" mean "at the time Tonkin suggested he should reveal the unpopular budget" or "September/October 1973"?- I've added a date for the by-election when its first announced in the previous paragraph. The source does say that the YLO's motion was "a few days after Burke's election", but I'm hesitant to include that, as I don't want to overdate everything as I think that doesn't make for the best writing. All that matters is that the threats from within his own party came soon after the by-election.
"This was opposed when the owners applied in December 2003 to have the house demolished". What was opposed? The decision not to add the house to the register? If so, who by? When East Fremantle rejected the application from the owners did they say it was because it's should have been added to the register?- I've reworded this section by changing it to "Stephens' decision became controversial..." I think the following sentences explain the main groups opposing the decision: the Town of East Fremantle, local heritage activists, and the National Trust of Western Australia.
That's everything from a read-through. Nothing major; just a list of nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers Mike Christie, I've responded to all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- A couple of follow-up comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
editAs always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification. I have done some minor copyediting.
- "Tonkin was first a minister from 1943 to 1947." slightly awkward to my eyes, perhaps "first served as minister"?
- ", among other things." bit of an awkward trailing-off, perhaps just cut?
- "the economic crisis was caused by a "shortage of purchasing power" and that the government should "take over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" as the Great Depression has not previously been referred to, this comes slightly out of nowhere and is a bit long-winded to boot. Would suggest trimming to "that the government could help the ongoing economic crisis by "tak[ing] over the control and issue of all money" from the banking system" or similar.
- I think the 43–71 period would flow better if the sections became subsections of one level-2 heading
- "On 12 June 1971, Tonkin married Winifred Joan West, a divorcee, at Wesley Church." do we know anything about her—life dates at least would be useful.
- "The financial state of the Government of Western Australia was poor throughout Tonkin's premiership. Tonkin managed to secure A$5.6 million (equivalent to A$68.71 million in 2022) in federal funding at the premiers' conference in April 1971 which went some way towards getting the deficit to manageable levels." do we know precise numbers for the deficit/manageable levels?
- "with Tonkin going on a tour of Hanwright's mines" it's not immediately clear that Hanwright was the company of Hancock and Wright.
- Also, the dispute seems to be with the company, rather then the two men specifically, so maybe adjust the section heading?
- "The Legislative Council blocked legislation that provided private sector employees with four weeks of paid annual leave, ten days of paid sick leave per year, and long service leave after ten years" any idea why it was these specifically?
- "Tonkin had for a long time had a rivalry" excessive "had"s
- "Graham had long-held ambitions to take over as leader from Tonkin. According to Mal Bryce, Tonkin was determined to stay as leader at least until Graham retired." might be worth combining these sentences.
- "the Legislative Council declined to go along with Court's plan" any idea why? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Generalissima
edit- File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
- File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
- File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
- File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
- File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
- File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY
Everything has appropriate alt-text and is laid out well. All images seem relevant to the subject at hand. Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
edit- When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress Kate Winslet and model Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
- Yes, good point. Swapped.
- The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
- Reworded
- For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
- I reordered some content, how does it look now?
- It looks good to me. Thank you for addressing it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reordered some content, how does it look now?
- I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
- I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
- That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
- Does robot need to be capitalized in "Robot couture"?
- I capitalized "couture". I think it works as a proper noun, although the article itself is inconsistent
- That works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I capitalized "couture". I think it works as a proper noun, although the article itself is inconsistent
- For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
- I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
- Thank you for the explanation. I agree with your rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
- I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
- Removed
- Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
- "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
- That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
- I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
- Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
- That should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
- From what I remember, Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
- Let me see what I can find
- Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
- Thank you for looking into this. I really like the information that you added to this section. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
- Let me see what I can find
- Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race (for an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
- Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
- Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
- I could only find these two sources, (this one from W (magazine) and this one from The A.V. Club), which only briefly mention that Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the McQueen dress. Since they are only brief mentions, I will leave it up to you on whether or not that would be notable enough to mention in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
- Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as always for your comments, Aoba! My articles are always better after you look at them :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
asilvering - partial source check
editJust zooming through as many non-sfn fns as I can in 15 minutes:
- fn 3: eh, I don't think you need this one here? btw, it's also fn 12, you should probably merge these
- fn 4: definitely move this one to futher reading instead. This isn't actually about the cited claim at all. I think you should just remove the footnotes from this sentence anyway, since it's so top-level; if the rest of the article doesn't inherently confirm the information in this sentence, you have much bigger problems than citation going on.
- Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
- With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
- I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
- Ah, I was just going to say that the problem with that one would be solved if you cited a specific page number for that source, rather than just citing it generically, but I see now that you did do that, so that's my bad. No more "skimming through as many non-sfns as I can in 15 minutes" for me. I still think this is so top-level it doesn't need specific citations, but I no longer think that's a misleading citation.
- I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
- With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
- Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
- fn 11a: This sentence worries me a bit. He felt this? I think you're just looking for "said" or "wrote". I can't find this in the source to give a better suggestion.
- I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
- Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
- I've added another citation and revised the wording entirely.
- Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
- I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
- fn 11b: the thing that needs checking here is whether anyone calls McQueen "historicist" - I'm not sure what that word is in Italian, so I have no idea. imo the sentence would work just as well if you removed the historicist bit; the rest is so obvious to anyone reading the rest of the article that you don't need a specific citation here.
- The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
- I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
- With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
- Great! This comment was when I was checking fn11b, and I didn't see that exact word there. If it's in fn 3, you're fine for this one obviously.
- With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
- I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
- The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
- fn 11c: I don't think he "argued" this so much as stated it as fact. I don't see any reason to imagine this is a controversial statement, so you can just start this sentence with "With Joan..." and not specifically attribute it.
- It's a subjective assessment, not an objective fact, so I felt it best to attribute
- fn 11d: I don't see anything about sexuality in here at all? Is this citation a mistake maybe? No ctrl+f hits for "hem" either, and these images are definitely not sexual, plunging necklines, etc.
- From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
- Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
- Revised.
- Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
- From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
Ack, that was 15 minutes already, so I'm back to work. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for having a look, even if your time was limited. Sorry to push back so much, but I think perhaps there were some issues with the translation software you used to check ref 11 - maybe you ran it as Italian? I've provided quotes, if that helps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I did note that above. I've responded to your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Another quick zoom through the most accessible fns, working from this diff, in case fn numbers change, sigs on each line for your convenience in replying:
- fn 16a: I think this is the wrong Vogue link? Did you mean this one: [17]? It mentions the water, but not that the runway was flooded - but I'm not sure if I'm seeing the entire article here or if I'm being locked out of the rest of it by a paywall. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This one's my mistake both ways round. I was crossing the Untitled runway with Eye and Bellmer la Poupee. Untitled had clear water tanks and rain but the models didn't walk in the water. It was Bellmer and Eye that had flooded runways that the models waded through. I've revised the wording and fixed the Vogue ref.
- fn 16b,c: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn16d, e: imo these are redundant, given how you already cited this in fn 16d and it's clear the source will still be the same asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, fair
- fn16f: not sure what's going on here, when I click on this one it doesn't send me anywhere asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, it's bundled in with ref 89, which begins "Several remarked upon the contrast of elements..."
- fn18: this doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- "religion was a fascination for McQueen throughout his career"? Regardless, I've dumped it, as it's a review of the collection the Bolton book is from, so largely redundant to it
- fn21: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn23a: checks out for the Dante claim asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn23b: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn26: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn27: checks out, but also there's some context here that I think would be helpful to include: I don't think "creative differences" quite gets across the issue, which appears to be that Givenchy "was all about elegance and ladylike tailoring and then this wild-child street kid ripped the hell out of it". asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was
a huge dick about itunhappy with the situation
- I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was
- fn30: same problem as fn16f, where's this supposed to point? asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, that's so weird. I removed some images from the multi-image template and I guess the caption (with ref) didn't get removed somehow, so the article was basically showing an invisible reference. (This was the same problem with ref 42; I've tidied both now)
- fn38: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn42: also not working? I'm getting very confused asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi asilvering, most fixes made and I've replied above where necessary. Thanks for doing the source review, I appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi asilvering, how do the sources look now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, forgot to check back in. Happy to assume honesty+competence on all the revisions. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from ZKang123
editWill be looking into this.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- By "collection" at the beginning, I understand this is a fashion showcase?
- Yes, "collection" is the typical word for a set of fashion designed with a unifying concept, presented seasonally
- McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists from attending. – Maybe can elaborate a little further why? And cite a few examples of banned journalists
- I considered expanding on this when writing the lead, but decided against it. I'd have to explain that he (allegedly) did it for class reasons, which would necessitate the quote, and I prefer not to quote in leads.
- Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team. – This short sentence by itself seems to be left hanging a bit. Might combine with the latter sentence
- The general statement about the creative team doesn't relate to the details of the set design though (there were other recurring personnel like hair and makeup for example)
- as something of a working-class trespasser – "as something of" seems a little unencyclopedic unless you are quoting right from the source.
- Fair, I've cut it entirely.
- McQueen's collections were both historicist, in that... , and self-referential, in that... – probably just me but I'm not very used to the repetition of "in that" here. Maybe you could say:
...historicist through his adaptation of historical narratives and concepts, and self-referential as he revisited and reworked ideas between collections.
. Maybe consider splitting the sentences.- Normally I'm quite a hawk about repetition, but here it's intentional and I think it works better than your suggested tweaks. I'll see if anyone else points it out though.
More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, ZKang123, I appreciate it. No rush on anything further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reading over the rest of the article, I don't think I have any nitpicks. Your command of English and expression is way much better than mine in very high quality prose. I shall just give my support.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Epicgenius
editI will look at this nomination as well. I'm currently on vacation and might not be able to take a good look at this for 2 weeks, however, but I'll see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead:
- Para 1: "eponymous fashion house" - Personally I'd extend the link to include the word "eponymous", i.e. "eponymous fashion house". Otherwise it looks like you're linking to the article about fashion houses.
- Fair, done
- Para 2: "Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team." - Is it possible to mention specific people? If not, I would say "Production was handled by McQueen's longtime creative team" or something like that.
- I could, but I think it would be hard to justify noting certain people out in the lead and not others, and I definitely don't want to list everyone. I like "usual" more than "longtime" in this context because it doesn't imply quite as much about the length of time each person had spent with him.
- Background:
- Para 1: "nearly twenty-year career" - Should this be "nearly-twenty-year career" (with a hyphen between "nearly" and "twenty")?
- I don't think so, but I could be wrong
- Also, I like how one of his collections is just called Untitled.
- It was originally titled Golden Shower, but in the vein of Fall Out Boy, "His Sponsor Made Him Change the Name of This Collection So He Wouldn't Get Sued"
- Para 4: "From 1996 to October 2001, McQueen was also – in addition to his responsibilities for his own label" - "Also" and "in addition" are redundant to each other. I suggest removing "also".
- Hmm yeah. I've removed it from here, and a few other articles that had the phrasing to boot.
- More in a bit (hopefully before tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Epic, I'll hop over to your FAC within the week. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Sammi Brie
edit- McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists for being. Being what?
- For being incomplete sentences :) Fixed
- men's and womenswear Is this styling correct? It is inconsistent with the body.
- Someone noodled with it at some point (possibly me? I don't know). I've cut the Gordian knot by making it "menswear and womenswear" always
- However, McQueen "got a bit carried away" and the show "turned into another huge production". We have one CinS here, after "away".
- She was upset that guests were expected to enter the show via a "small entrance in pitch darkness", and that following the show, bouncers refused to let photographers exit the venue for unexplained reasons. Remove comma after "darkness"
- She criticised the "bizarre little episode", but felt she should not have been surprised given McQueen's treatment of GMTV. Same here.
- The staff writer from WWD thought that the Joan finale lacked the impact of the rainstorm that finished Untitled, but considered the collection stronger. Remove comma.
- Callahan considered the collection an expression of McQueen's "ongoing martyr complex", and wrote that "the more he abused himself, the better his work became". Remove comma.
- Judith Watt felt that it was the end of the press dismissing McQueen as a low-class intruder into the high-class fashion scene, and considered the collection a demonstration of McQueen's "informed mind". Remove comma
- All the above done
- for her, the red dress represented "flayed flesh", and the dangling beads, "dripping blood" Drop both commas
- Normally I don't fuss, but stylistically, I think the commas work here, especially since "dangling beads" drops the "represented", so the comma puts a slight pause before "dripping blood"
- Grimaldi Figueredo argued that the finale of Joan incorporated both sacred and profane imagery, and cites it as an example of the aesthetic of abjection in McQueen's work Remove comma
- Final prose sentence, hyphenate "black-and-white" as an adjective.
- Above two done also
No other issues that I see. Very good as always. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sammi Brie, thanks for your comments, always appreciated. All fixes made except one that I'm going to be a brat about for style reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I recognize that not even I can get that one changed. Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- SC
- "Costin to quit working with him": "Stop", rather than "quit" would put this on the right side of WP:IDIOM
- Done
- "Author Andrew Wilson pointed out that both Joan of Arc and Sorel died in service to Charles VII of France.[34]": Did he say anything more on this point? With McQueen in service to a French fashion house, was Wilson making any other points?
- I wouldn't be surprised if McQueen himself had that thought in mind, but Wilson doesn't press the question any further than discussing the women.
- "including both menswear and womenswear": "including" (meaning there was something other than both mens and womenswear), or "comprising" (meaning just those two)?
- I see what you mean, I've revised the wording
- "maturity": reviewers": I think that should probably be a semi colon, rather than colon
- Done also
That's my lot. Another very enjoyable piece, for which thank you! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments Schro, I've made the changes. Have a good one :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. All good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
serial support
edit- "which he found frustrating". Any idea why? I guess he felt type-cast?
- Yeah, type-cast and discriminated against. The whole "East End yob made good" narrative followed him around, and he got sick of it being the thing that journos inevitably focused on, as opposed to just saying he was a great designer. ("You're pretty funny for a woman", more or less). The problem is that he's not very articulate in interviews and he never quite clearly says this, so I didn't want to put words in his mouth when I summed up. I could expand, or maybe try to find a chunk of quote to add if you think it needs more.
- "theatrical to the point of verging on performance art". I think this could be a little stronger; at the moment, they were only occasionally nearly performance art. How about "theatrical to the point of being performance art."
- Fair! Trying to restrain myself and went a little too hard :P
- Perhaps precede "In Untitled" with "For example", as that's what you're providing.
- Done
- Link Dante the first time, and add the date.
- Oop, victim of reorganization
- Any idea why his work with Givenchy was poorly received?
- It's a bit complicated, which is why I didn't get into it in the text, but since you asked... Givenchy's whole schtick is elegant classic Frenchness, while McQueen's was beauty with brutality. It's a total aesthetic mismatch. They were expecting him to be like their last London bad boy, John Galliano, who reined himself in with two reasonably elegant collections (and even those were controversial). McQueen on the other hand had always been very much his own man, so although he made a bunch of lovely clothes for his first Givenchy collection, he also did a bunch of blatantly McQueen stuff like styling outfits with sheep horn headpieces and exposed breasts. It would've made a great McQueen collection, but it was just way too fucking weird to be Givenchy. The press went nuts, Givenchy management was like "well we didn't sign up for this", McQueen was like "you knew what I was like when you bought me", and things went downhill from there. The irony here is that the McQueen label is now going through this. Their new head designer is using a lot of streetwear elements, and basically nobody liked his first collection for the brand. Any time it posts anything on Instagram, the comments get flooded with people yelling "this isn't McQueen!"
- If you're looking for incoming links, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc could probably do with a sentence on McQueen's piece :)
- Didn't even think of that, good idea
- Link burned at the stake?
- Unlink second martyrdom
- Both done
- It's true that it does "subtly reference[e] the history of Scotland", but perhaps it more bluntly references (per our page), "the Jacobite risings and the Highland Clearances"? Which, of course, dovetails with the overarching theme of Joan (OR, but the reader will put 2 and 2 together!).
- Ah, sorry, that's meant to say that Joan is what's subtly referencing Scotland. Highland Rape is about as subtle as a swift kick to the head. I've tweaked the wording, is that any better?
- Does Dante need linking again?
- No, I suppose it's pretty close
- ...medieval period.
- Oop, didn't realize that was a distinction with a difference
- Some inline quotes (ignoring those after colons) begin with a cap ("It was fucking the most expensive show...", for ex) compared to others using lc (e.g. "so far up his own bottom", or "a small entrance...")
- Oh, I've been keeping the capital where it's from the text, I didn't realize that MOS says we can adjust that. I've gone through and it should be consistent now
- Out of curiosity, but speaking as someone who went to the next school up the road to him, did McQ actually say "It was fucking the most expensive show I ever did"? It's only a little thing, but it jars slightly; you'd usually expect to hear "It was the most fucking expensive show I ever did" (or, "It was the most expensive fucking show I ever did". And no, it's not just an excuse to gratuitously swear at FAC ;)
- He really and truly said it that way around, at least according to Thomas; I thought it was quite cute
- Link crossdressing to Cross-dressing, gender identity, and sexuality of Joan of Arc?
- Ooh, yes
- The footnote about the Romanov children is dead interesting—to the extent that it could probably be incorporated into the body with no loss of focus—but does it need to be in duplicate?
- Main-texting it feels........iffy. Esguerra & Hansen 2022 shows what the image really is, but they don't discuss the Romanov thing. They just say, basically, "here's the image that's printed" and then move on to the next thing. Since the age of that image makes it impossible that it's the Romanovs, I'm counting on it being safe to point out an objective error. However, I don't have a source that actually comments on the nature of the error - where it came from, who first made it - or even calls it out as an error at all. I'm trying to skirt the line by explaining the newspaper and Evans sources without really stating a conclusion - I can't objectively say that no contemporary source says Romanovs or that no earlier source than Evans says it, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. I do think it's worth duplicating, as not every reader necessarily reads articles in order, especially on mobile where sections are closed by default and readers might skip around more.
- Apologies, as I know you've already had source reviews, but I couldn't help noticing fn 41 (Evans). What's "IDK", and why not p.27?
- Don't apologize, I should've caught that. IDK is "I don't know", and I put that in there when I wrote the footnote but didn't have the book available and forgot to go back and fix it. Whoops!
- Another great one PMC; these articles are such a different walk of life to my own, it's completely refreshing. And I love me some macabre :) Mostly all suggestions above, except. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Serial, glad to hear you're enjoying them. Great comments and nice catch on IDK. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies; forgot to follow up! ...The important bit :) SerialNumber54129 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Serial, glad to hear you're enjoying them. Great comments and nice catch on IDK. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another great one PMC; these articles are such a different walk of life to my own, it's completely refreshing. And I love me some macabre :) Mostly all suggestions above, except. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Costello's was a watering hole for journalists, writers, and cartoonists on the east side of Midtown Manhattan. Ernest Hemingway reportedly broke a cane over John O'Hara's head on a bet; the bar's owner responded by displaying the broken cane over the bar. I wish I could have dropped in for a whiskey there. As an aside, I've been having trouble finding images that are either in the PD or that would satisfy WP:NFCCP, particularly photographs of Tim Costello and the bar's exterior and interior. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Vacant0
edit
Will leave some comments here after I have a look at the article. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've asked for an image, so I did find one but the author and the date of the photo are unknown (we know that it was taken between 1949 and 1973 because of 699). Taken from Classic Chicago magazine.
- That's a NYT photo, first published on October 3, 1973, and taken by Cosmo-Sileo, which appears to have been a photography studio. I've looked in the copyright catalogue and found just one registration by Cosmo-Sileo. Nikkimaria, do you think this image is likely PD? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That part is unclear. My guess would be the former, but I can't find very much about the studio. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That might be a complicating factor - NYT has historically been more protective of copyrights and renewals, so we'd want to be sure the rights weren't assigned to them. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Would this photograph of the bar's owner (dead since 1962) talking to a customer (James Thurber)? The article describes the bar's owner at length, including his relationship with reporters/journalists/cartoonists. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could make a fair-use claim for that photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I found some PD images, so it's less needed now. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a NYT photo, first published on October 3, 1973, and taken by Cosmo-Sileo, which appears to have been a photography studio. I've looked in the copyright catalogue and found just one registration by Cosmo-Sileo. Nikkimaria, do you think this image is likely PD? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sources appear to be reliable. Good job on using the {{sfnm}} template.
- Link Richard Severo in the NYT ref.
- @Vacant0: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link Richard Severo in the NYT ref.
- Shouldn't the second note be at the end of the first sentence? It is currently at the end of the second sentence.
- Do we know why they moved premises in 1949?
- I haven't seen anything about why they moved in 1949. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Overlook website is a primary source and I do not understand what it is supposed to verify. The NYT source confirms 225 East 44th Street and that it is a sports bar, I verify the year, though.
- Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to say "I cannot verify the year, though". My bad. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave more comments in the following days. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What year can't you verify? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What year can't you verify? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editWill review this in a bit. lunaeclipse (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. No issues with ref formatting or reliability. lunaeclipse (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive by comments by DWB
edit- I feel like this desperately could use an image of the building/business even if it is NFC. I believe it would be incredibly useful in establishing a visual identity for something we are identifying as notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still mulling over whether any of the images can be used under an NFC rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call any of the photographs I've been able to find "basic". They're all well-composed, artistic shots under the NYT's copyright. For example, [18] and [19]. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think if you can use both images they both offer something unique, but the second is my preference from an aesthetic POV. I can see you're already speaking to nikkimaria above, I was going to recommend them since I think they've helped with copyright in the past. Both images would likely have to go under NFC though since I assume the photographer and the NYT are still within the copyright period. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call any of the photographs I've been able to find "basic". They're all well-composed, artistic shots under the NYT's copyright. For example, [18] and [19]. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't use both per WP:NFCCP#3a. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, maybe I could since they both depict different things. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still mulling over whether any of the images can be used under an NFC rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially, although having multiple non-free images means the rationale for each needs to be stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've added an unambiguously PD image of the exterior of the bar. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Pendright
editPlaceholder! Pendright (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- My circumstances are such that I will be unable to review the article at this time. Please accept my apology. Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering to review the article. All the best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- "speakeasy". In the main article could this be briefly explained in line for the benefit of non-US readers.
- Is the wikilink not sufficient? I find that trying to explain these things in line leads to unwieldy parentheticals that disrupt the flow.
- I am afraid that the MoS requires it. MOS:NOFORCELINK: "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." We are after all building an encyclopedia, we are writing in order to explain things to people who don't already know them. Doing so while maintaining a professional standard of prose is part of the challenge of FAC.
- "... a speakeasy in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The speakeasy was located on Third Avenue ..." "Speakeasy" twice in nine words seems unnecessary. Suggest "The speakeasy" → 'It'.
- Done.
- "James Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the "Battle of the Sexes"." Why the bold?
- Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT.
- "during a gut renovation for a new restaurant". What is a "gut renovation"?
- Changed wording.
- "and during renovations, they preserved the cartoons". I am not sure about this comma.
- Changed wording.
- "John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories that he wrote for The New Yorker." Wrote twice? Perhaps '. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker.'
- Done.
Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thank you for reviewing. I've replied above. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, just speakeasy outstanding. Perhaps something like '... in 1929 as a speakeasy—a bar illicitly selling alcohol—in Midtown Manhattan ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review -- Pass
edit- File:Costello's, 701 Third Avenue, Manhattan (c. 1939-1941) (cropped 2).jpg: PD as the work of a US government employee; the provided source seems to verify that.
- File:Battle of the Sexes (c. 1934-1935) by James Thurber.jpg: another slightly complicated one: PD status hinges on it not having a copyright notice. It does have a signature, but as I read the letter of the law applicable at the time in our article, without the © symbol, it doesn't technically qualify as a copyright notice, so I'm happy that this is above board unless someone with more knowledge comes in to contradict me. There is then a further restoration in the 1970s, but that wouldn't pass the threshold of originality to generate a new copyright.
- Both images are well captioned and supported by detailed alt text.
All checks out as far as I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Nick-D
editIt's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- " was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
- How about "Recorded in New York, it was Springsteen's effort to break into the mainstream..."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- "the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
- I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
- Removed confidence
- "Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
- How about "...and rejected all but one, which he approved in early August."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "such as a road can take you anywhere" - I suspect that a 'that' is missing here
- Fixed
- ""Born to Run" uses an automobile to escape from a depressing life" - this is unclear
- ""Born to Run" uses an automobile as a means to escape from a depressing life." That better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
- Would 'revitalized' not work here? He had a career before this (albeit struggling financially), but this record turned that around and brought him success. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "revitalise" usually means to renew something or restore vigour, which isn't the case for Springsteen. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D The source uses "saved"; although that technically is true (Columbia would have dropped him if it had failed), I'm not sure if that's appropriate for WP. What about "rejuvenate"? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to 'saved' – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "revitalise" usually means to renew something or restore vigour, which isn't the case for Springsteen. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
- Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article cites a wide range of very high quality sources, but not any academic articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does this one not count? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are there no other journal articles worth citing? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found this one and this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Pinging in case you didn't see. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found this one and this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are there no other journal articles worth citing? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Thanks for the comments! Replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Apologises for my slow response here - I was travelling and the pings fell through the cracks. Those changes look good, and I think that the FA criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by ChrisTheDude
edit- "By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
- "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
- Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
- "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
- "Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
- "The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
- "a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
- Clarified it's the latter
- "The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
- "The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
- "Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
- "Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
- Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
- "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
- "receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
- "and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
- Clarified 'between'
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude All fixed, with some comments above :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil
editPlaceholder. Was part of the PR and intend to continue the review, but it may be a few days. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ceoil Friendly reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the co-ords re this timing out; I'm a likely support but haven't had the chance to re-look since the PR. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I said my piece at the PR, where my main concerns were addressed. Support especially given all the work from other reviewers below. Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Moise
editPlaceholder for me too. I'll try to start my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I should be able to get started this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments (as usual, I'll add them as I go along, in some cases one at a time):
- "The band went back and forth between studio recording and live performances." This could be clearer. What exactly does "go back and forth between" mean here? Does live performances that aren't in the studio mean concert performances? Maybe it means some kind of jamming (because it says Springsteen used these to develop new material)? Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes concert performances. To me it's clear but I can see how you got confused. Clarified.
- "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras and had previously known of Springsteen's music, but Weinberg had not and had experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions." A bit awkward overall. "Weinberg had not" presumably is only referring to "had previously known of Springsteen's music" but it's not totally clear. In a way "experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions" emphasizes the rock/Broadway vs. symphony, which may suggest "Weinberg had not" is also about the symphony, which sounds like an unusual thing to say. Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Separated them into different sentences.
- Not sure what to suggest here, but it's also a bit awkward to say that Bittan "replaced" Sancious and then right after that he "mostly replaced" Federici. Moisejp (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Iagree. I'm not sure how to reword either... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The songs themselves feature introductions that set the tone and scene for each." Maybe specify the kind of introduction this is referring to, I imagined you meant extended musical bits before the singing starts. Moisejp (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added "musical"
Thanks, Zmbro. I've finished my first read-through. I'll be busy the next few days but hope to get back to this review later in the week. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I did another read-through and am now satisfied the article meets the requirements. Moisejp (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
edit- No, I'd say this is the realest Springsteen album. Before he really went commercial and then political ....
My comments:
- "The album cover, featuring Springsteen leaning on E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons's shoulder, is considered iconic and has been recreated by various musicians and in other media." I'm not sure recreated is the word. Maybe (not sure) imitated?
- Changed to imitated
- "By 1974 his popularity was limited to East Coast of the United States," Should be a "the" in there.
- Fixed
- "the then upcoming artist Billy Joel" this should probably have a hyphen somewhere in it.
- Fixed
- "the label conceded" Maybe "the label agreed"
- Done
- "From the Churches to the Jails, The Hungry and the Hunted, War and Roses, and American Summer.[23]" is it worth mentioning that some of these are lyrics in the completed album?
- Maybe but the source doesn't mention that so I think that would qualify as OR. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "an early version" a demo?
- Re-reading the source cited it was actually the final track (which would make sense if it was in November) so I shortened it to just "Appel sent "Born to Run"..." – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "By January 1975, the band had been working for over a year with only one finished track." Maybe " ... the one finished track"?
- Removed the 'only'
- "and the highway as a means of escape and coming-of-age journey ... "Jungleland" I'm not quite clear on who uses the highway as a means of escape/comes of age in "Jungleland".
- The source has the song listed in quotes; I assume the authors grouped it there since the song takes place on a street and tells the story of the Magic Rat and his unnamed girlfriend. Think I should just separate it in a new description? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the songs on Born to Run are not specifically tied to New Jersey and New York" none of them? Really?
- I mean yeah some obviously are. I added "most of" does that work? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "According to Masur, the Rat was gunned down by his "own dream"." Why does that need Masur? That's what the lyrics say, "the Rat's own dream guns him down". And the quote makes it sound like it's Masur's words, not Springsteen's.
- The quote after "symbolizing" is Masur's. Reworded to clarify.
- "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets until they are left in complete devastation" "they wind up wounded, they're not even dead"?
- Removed 'death and'
- "an article by Henry Edwards in The New York Times that slandered both himself and Born to Run." Slandered is a pretty strong word. Is it justified here?
- I believe so. I recall reading through Edwards' article and thinking it was pretty harsh. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Greil Marcus paraphrase would probably be better as a direct quotation. If you're going to paraphrase at that level of detail, you are probably better off with a quote.
- Not done Will come back to this one. I'm sure Ceoil won't approve of the full quote so I wanna get his opinion (I also can't access the source for whatever reason atm). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was the album nominated for any awards at the time of its original release?
- Not that I found/know of (no sources mention anything like that that I can recall either) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is the action of the state assembly to try to make the song Born to Run the state's unofficial rock theme worthy of mention?
- It certainly would be on Born to Run (Bruce Springsteen song), but here it might stretch to WP:OFFTOPIC
- That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt Thanks for commenting. Replies/Questions above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt Thanks for commenting. Replies/Questions above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Ippantekina
editMy review will be focusing on prose exclusively. Ippantekina (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ippantekina are you still planning on offering a review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I do, please bare with me as I'm figuring how to contribute to this review taking into account the opinions of other reviewers here--but it's a positive thus far. Ippantekina (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I like the way this article is organized and written, very interesting. My concerns are mostly regarding the tone of language here and there:
- "... via lyrical imagery steeped in the romantic images of highways and travel" would something like "... via romantic lyrical imagery of highways and travel" work?
- Sometimes the language seems editorializing somewhat ("dense, crisp, and energetic yet difficult-to-achieve", "grueling sessions", "the cinematic storytelling and music"). I'd try to frame them as opinions rather than facts as the current language implies.
- I'm curious; does this part include false titles? "saxophonist Clarence Clemons, organist Danny Federici, pianist David Sancious, bassist Garry Tallent, and drummer Ernest Carter;"
- "a favorite of artists such as Aerosmith and John Lennon" "who had recently engineered Lennon's Rock 'n' Roll album (1975)" I'm unsure how these help with the prose
- nitpick-y "The songs
themselvesfeature musical introductions that set the tone and scene for each" - Attribution needed for quotes e.g. The characters are "grounded",[102] regular people[103] "trapped by the space they inhabit" Utilizing a "four corners approach" to album sequencing
- nitpick-y "Springsteen
hassaid that" (I was told somewhere that it's best to avoid the present-perfect tense, though I'm open to discuss)
- I'd strongly disagree that the present perfect shouldn't be used in articles, and in fact I come across lots of articles where I feel it should be used more. The simple past and present perfect serve different functions. The simple past is used when the time in the past that it happened (or was said) is explicitly indicated, or very clear from the context. Or if the person who said it is no longer alive. But the present perfect is open-ended and if it was said somewhat later than what it was being said about (not shortly after), I almost always use the present perfect. Using both tenses in tandem help separate the two timelines of what was initially happening, and what people have said about it later (if you use only the simple past, these two timelines get unnaturally compressed into one). That's a simplified explanation of how their usage is different, and there are nuances when (if it was me) I might have a special reason not to follow such guidelines, but in general that's how I write. Moisejp (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pay extra attention to quotation (WP:LQ) e.g. Masur argues the song "lays out hopes and dreams, and the remainder of the album is an investigation into whether, and in what ways, they can be realized."
- I'm not sure if other reviewers have pointed this out, but I'd like to see a short sample of a song that can demonstrate the musical styles/instruments of this album.
— Ippantekina (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Support by FM
edit- Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
- I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.
- There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:[20]
- Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.
- Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
- Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.
- That's all three comments worked on, thanks again for your review. Awaiting your reply. Mattximus (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Femke
editThanks for working on the article!
- Thank you for your review!
- I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per WP:EXPLAINLEAD
- Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
- I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
- We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
- Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)
- Done.
- I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings
- Done
- Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
- Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
- The sentence is now very long and more difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rewrote this sentence, splitting it. Should be better now?
- The sentence is now very long and more difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
- I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in Figure 3 here
- A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?
- In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.
- Done.
- There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?
- Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.
- but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".
- Done
- At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?
- I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?
- I've made some minor edits directly to the article.
- Thank you!
- I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.
- Done.
- Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.
- Done, that is much better wording.
- Source formatting is not quite consistent: first names are sometimes written full-out, sometimes Vancouver Style, and sometimes abbreviated with a full stop. Please choose a consistent style. First read done, might add some more comments later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
- Thank you so much —Femke 🐦! What an excellent review. I've addressed all comments, but a few require your response. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, removed. I think I addressed all your new points.Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's continue with the first paragraph. It's better than it was, but still has room for improvement.
- The first sentence still contains both the word monotypic and containing a single species. Okay if you disagree, but I think it's redundant and an easy opportunity to remove the word monotypic
- I agree completely, this technical term belongs in the taxonomy section not the lead. Removed. Mattximus (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its body consists of a tubular feeding and sucking organ called the proboscis which is covered with hooks and a short, wide trunk. --> I would start with the trunk here, as the next sentence is about these hooks again.
- Done.
- There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings that are not radially symmetrical which surround the proboscis, with seven large anterior hooks. --> put the "surround the proboscis" next to the word rings "arranged in rings surrounding the proboscis". You could say. "There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings surrounding the probiscus. They are not radially symmetrical. Long sentence about sizes of the hooks as a function of distance from trunk." Overall, ensure that you vary sentence length, and include short sentences as well. Also keep ideas together as much as possible. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tried my best to reword as you requested. I think it's much better, but maybe I made some grammar error I can't figure out on the last sentence of the first paragraph? Other than this part, I believe I've completed the next batch of questions! Thank you —Femke 🐦! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks better now! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
edit- "formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.
- I linked it to Natural History Museum, London, as there are many natural history museums, would this work?
- "sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.
- Done
- "these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?
- Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.
- "Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.
- I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.
- "without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?
- Oops, nice catch!
- "into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)
- yes that is much more clear. Done.
- "found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.
- Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.
- "the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".
- Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.
- Is it known whether the worm harms its host?
- Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.
- A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your excellent review! I believe I've either completed or addressed all your comments above. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Fixed
- Is there no image of the worm to use in the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly there is not. There is a line sketch but it remains copywrited and behind a paywall. It is possible none actually exist as the last paper on this species was over 30 years ago. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
editMattximus seems to be taking a Wikibreak. Which is fine, except this article is getting close to timing out for lack of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry was on vacation. Was hoping to pass before I left, but only had 2 supports. Am back at it and will be able to complete any missing tasks today and tomorrow. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually managed to finish up all the comments already! I await any further responses. Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild. it's been a week with no movement and there are three supports, are more needed? If so I can canvass again to see if anyone is interested. Thanks! Mattximus (talk)
- I have requested a source review. While we are waiting for that let's see whether further general comments also turn up. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This office building, constructed for the Time and Life Company, opened in 1960 as part of an expansion of Rockefeller Center. It's distinctive not so much for its exterior (which resembles any other 1960s office building in NYC), but for its whimsical modern interiors, which include a serpentine pavement, steel-and-marble walls, and burgundy glass ceilings. The building also featured a dining club, stores, and even an auditorium. Perhaps the design of the interiors is why the building was nearly fully occupied a year after it opened.
This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Joeyquism
editI'll get to this in the coming days. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Below are some comments on prose, most of which are nits; feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
- "The lobby contains serpentine floors; white-marble and stainless-steel walls; reddish-burgundy glass ceilings; and artwork by Josef Albers, Fritz Glarner, and Francis Brennan." - I think that the semicolons here should be replaced with commas, though I recognize that this is technically proper usage as the last clause itself contains a list with commas. Just a small grammatical nitpick on my part.
- The first instance of Time Inc. should be wikilinked. Premature apologies for further comments on wikilinking - I recognize that it can be a bit of a nuisance to the nominator and that there are certain MOS standards that should be upheld with regards to it, though I will try to keep it to a minimum here.
- "Construction started in May 1957; the building was topped out during November 1958; and occupants began moving into their offices in late 1959." - In this case, however, the second semicolon should be a comma, as the last clause is not independent (contains "and").
Site
- No glaring issues.
Architecture
- I happened to be familiar with Syska Hennessy for reasons I am not too sure of at the moment; however, to someone who may be unfamiliar, it could appear to be a person with a rather unconventional name. Would mentioning that it's an engineering firm (or just a firm/company) be worth it here, in your opinion?
- Wikilink Limestone in "1271 Avenue of the Americas' facade is made mostly of glass, which at the time of the building's construction cost the same as a wall made mostly of limestone."
- Wikilink Canopy (architecture) in "At ground level, there is a canopy over the 51st Street entrance." I won't include further comments on wikilinking from here, though I would suggest it be done for the more technical terms such as emissivity, parapet and terrazzo. I will leave the determination of what could be considered technical up to you, unless more elaboration is requested. Hoping this isn't too big a bother :( I realize that I'm being rather pedantic here.
- "Internally, 1271 Avenue of the Americas was divided into eight zones for air-conditioning." - Is this currently how the building is set up, or has there been further development here (as of right now, I am not sure whether the upgrade in 1957 was done to address this division). I think that "initially" between "was" and "divided" would be a good disambiguation, though if it's set up like this now, perhaps change "was" to "is".
- "The ceiling throughout the lobby is 16 ft (4.9 m) high. The ceiling is made of dark maroon glass tiles, finished in a matte covering, with white lighting coves in some tiles." - Perhaps these can be combined into one sentence?
- "The interiors were designed by Alexander Girard and furniture by Charles Eames." - In contrast to my previous supplications that other terms be wikilinked, I will suggest that the names of the designers be unlinked to avoid too-close duplicate linking.
- "This arrangement was inspired by the PSFS Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - In its current location, this sentence feels a bit out of place, as the arrangement hasn't been described other than the footage of the floors and the presence of columns. Perhaps this could go at the end of the paragraph instead, or could be expounded upon with regards to how it was the column arrangement that was inspired by the Philly building.
- No further issues with the rest of the section.
History
- Apologies, I lied. David Sarnoff has an article you could wikilink in "NBC ultimately dropped out of the project because its CEO, David Sarnoff, dissented."
- "In addition, Major League Baseball moved its headquarters to the building,[162][163] and it leased two stories in the building's base for use as an MLB Store, which opened in 2020." - Should "MLB Store" be in title case here?
- Rest of this section is straightforward and well-written.
Impact
- No glaring issues.
@Epicgenius: It was a pleasure to read Hearst Tower when it was at FAC, and I'm glad to say the same for this article. This is looking to be in great shape already, and once my comments are addressed, I will likely come back to support. Looking forward to your responses, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far. joeyquism (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @Joeyquism, and hope you're having a good week as well. I'll take a look at these on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great! I won't hold you any longer for further wikilinking; I'm already glad to support this FAC for nomination. Hope you're having a great week so far! joeyquism (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Pickersgill-Cunliffe
editWill have a read through soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, just a gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agh! Hope to be on this later today. Sometimes I need less of a nudge and more of a shove... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, a hearty shove. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agh! Hope to be on this later today. Sometimes I need less of a nudge and more of a shove... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
editHave one other to review first, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing to review the article, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe and @SchroCat. Just as a heads up, I'm going to have limited internet access for about 2 weeks beginning on August 9, but I probably will still be able to address your feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture
- "Harrison & Abramovitz, a firm composed of Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz": I'm sure it was composed of more than just those two individuals, so maybe "a firm headed by WH and MA", or something similar?
- Yep, they were just the lead architects. I've rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, Syska Hennessy": you don't need the "In addition" – works better without
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a 48-story slab": I'm not sure what you mean by "slab" in this context (unless you mean slab construction. Is there something you can link to?
- Yeah, that may be confusing - basically it's a tower without any setbacks, but "slab" could refer to floor slabs. I've changed this to "tower". Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Offices
- "largely uninterrupted by columns": the lead says "Each of the upper floors ... consists of a column-free space". Both of these can't be true
- I've fixed the lead. The sources do say that there were a few interior columns. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "largest floor plates": again, anything "plates" can link to?
- Funnily enough, these are floor slabs. I've added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The panels themselves were": you don't need "themselves"
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The chairs remain in production as of 2015": Any update on this? As it's nine years old, the use of the present tense jars a bit
- They are indeed still being produced, but I wasn't able to find any non-primary sources confirming this. I changed it to "The chairs remain in production during the 21st century". Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Late 20th century
- "Although Life magazine shuttered in 1972": I'm not entirely sure what "shuttered" means. I think I can guess, but it sounds idiomatic to me
- I've revised this too. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, Glarner's and Albers's": Again, you don't need "in addition"
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @SchroCat. I've addressed all the points you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Another very nice article. I don't normally think tower blocks are particularly interesting, but I do like reading your articles on them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
editIncoming! Bug me if I don't get back within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead & Site
- This is neurotic, but "serpentine-shaped pavement" doesn't really work; I don't know that I'd call serpentine a shape. "pavement with a serpentine pattern" might be better (applies for the same phrasing in the body also)
- I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The ground floor also includes storefronts and originally also" too many alsos
- Fixed as well. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a members-only restaurant during the day." this begs the question of what was it at night?
- I forgot to mention that it was open to the public during the evenings. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "After Time Inc. expressed its intention" sentence opens and closes with "time inc", which is a bit awkward. "to accommodate the move" maybe?
- "Just prior to the development of 1271 Avenue of the Americas, most of the site was occupied by a parking lot,[6] which had previously served as a New York Railways Company trolley barn." I feel like this sentence is written backwards? Something like "Part of the site was originally a New York Railways Company trolley barn, later a parking lot" feels tighter
- I rewrote this sentence in chronological order, but with different wording. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture to Interior
- "was hired as" twice in one sentence, I think you could write around that
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, a provision" I don't know that "furthermore" is necessary
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is an accordion wall? Google only shows me room dividers, uselessly
- I've changed this to "accordion-shaped wall". Basically, the windows on each story would have sloped inward, and the spandrel panels between the different stories would have sloped outward. (I've seen this in at least one other building before, though its name eludes me - otherwise, I'd link to a picture.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The glass curtain wall covers either" - that's a big discrepancy, what's up with that?
- I have no idea. The WSJ said "Plans call for the replacement of its 450,000-square-foot glass-curtain wall", but the Pei Cobb Freed website mentions that 626,000 square feet of curtain wall was replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm. You might want to efn the unexplained discrepancy, as it's so significant it sticks right out.
- I have no idea. The WSJ said "Plans call for the replacement of its 450,000-square-foot glass-curtain wall", but the Pei Cobb Freed website mentions that 626,000 square feet of curtain wall was replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure you have a good reason to have it there, but the sidewalk image on top of the text, centered with all the whitespace... aesthetically I do not like it and I wish it was elsewhere. I will not attempt to enforce this as it's a personal preference but I wanted to say it
- This was in response to a concern that Nikkimaria raised about sandwiching. I've added Template:Wide image. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Right...yeah, I can see there's kind of no great place to put this. Could we pair it with another image to reduce whitespace? Maybe the current fountains, or an image of Cubed Curve since it seems to be out of copyright? Or a historical image? There's some in the Commons cat
- I've done this now (adding a few of my own images to reduce the whitespace there). Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Right...yeah, I can see there's kind of no great place to put this. Could we pair it with another image to reduce whitespace? Maybe the current fountains, or an image of Cubed Curve since it seems to be out of copyright? Or a historical image? There's some in the Commons cat
- This was in response to a concern that Nikkimaria raised about sandwiching. I've added Template:Wide image. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- " a tribute to its location along Avenue of the Americas" Possibly a question from ignorance, but what's the connection from Copacabana Beach to Avenue of the Americas?
- The source actually says "...an illustration of the 'good neighbor' ideals of the Avenue of the Americas Association..." so I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Harrison had believed" - can just be "Harrison believed", as "had" implies that he stopped believing this at some point
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "A seating parapet ...covered by cement and terrazzo" the past tense in these three sentences suggests that these items were removed? When?
- "Trees and shrubs were originally also planted" - similarly, are these gone now?
- Yes, both of them were replaced in the 2010s with new plantings and pools. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In 1972, the Association for a Better New York hired William Crovello to create a sculpture called Cubed Curve." the paragraph manages to never say that it was placed at the building
- Oops. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk)
- "supposedly inspired" why supposedly? according to who?
- The source (CultureNow) says "His 'Cubed Curve', placed outside the Time-Life building, is said to have been inspired by a fluid brush stroke." No further attribution is given. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I did find a couple of sources that indicate his work was generally inspired by Japanese calligraphy, including Cubed Curve. Might be of use to remove the "supposedly"? [21][22][23]
- Not sure if you saw this, but it's unaddressed.
- Oops, I must have missed this. Thanks for finding these sources, by the way; I couldn't find before. I have added them. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if you saw this, but it's unaddressed.
- Thanks for the initial comments, PMC. I forgot to ping you when I addressed all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I did find a couple of sources that indicate his work was generally inspired by Japanese calligraphy, including Cubed Curve. Might be of use to remove the "supposedly"? [21][22][23]
- The source (CultureNow) says "His 'Cubed Curve', placed outside the Time-Life building, is said to have been inspired by a fluid brush stroke." No further attribution is given. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture from Ground floor
- Link breezeway?
- "The lobby has the same...relate with the plaza." - these two sentences feel somewhat redundant. And then later in the paragraph you repeat yourself a bit with "marble-based terrazzo tiles that matched the original pavement design". How about tightening the beginning to something like "The lobby was resurfaced in the late 2010s to match the style of the exterior plaza, with white serpentine terrazzo tiles bordered with stainless steel and aligned from west to east. The pavement was installed by the American Mosaic & Tile Company, replacing the original floors of cementitious terrazzo..." and then go from there?
- There are actually two ideas being conflated here. The original floors were installed by the American Mosaic & Tile Company and made of terrazzo. The current floors are made of marble and contain the same design as the original floors. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I copyedited the paragraph a little; it still wasn't doing it for me. Feel free to revert.
- Your edits look good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I copyedited the paragraph a little; it still wasn't doing it for me. Feel free to revert.
- There are actually two ideas being conflated here. The original floors were installed by the American Mosaic & Tile Company and made of terrazzo. The current floors are made of marble and contain the same design as the original floors. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This may be a consequence of lack of coffee, but in the paragraph about the ceiling it's all present tense "are suspended" etc, and then you finish by saying the original ceiling was replaced in the 2010s. So does all that present tense stuff, including American-Saint Gobain Corporation, apply to the new ones?
- Except for the manufacturer (which I'm not sure about), yeah. The replacement ceiling tiles had to be nearly identical to the originals, since they were protected by the city's interior-landmark designation. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The seven lowest stories each have about 62,000 sq ft" of floor space, I assume, but I think it should say so in the first instance. The second sentence can chop it now that we've established what we're talking about
- Link floor slab?
- context for Henry Luce?
- Added. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the detail about the Time-Life chair is relevant to the article, especially the revised design and price
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "also has offices" lose the "also" since you're not talking about any other Rockefeller offices or 24th floor offices
- "it was redesigned by Davis, Brody & Associates in 1983.[89]" redesigned into what? or was it reopened as an auditorium again?
- I've clarified this - it became a conference center. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- History & impact
- Link Manhattan schist or maybe pipe to Geology of Manhattan?
- Minor gripe - earlier La Fonda is said to have closed, here it's said to have moved. Should be consistent?
- I reworded this to reflect that it has relocated. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "to the Rockefeller Group, which by then was the majority owner" was Rockefeller not always the majority owner with their 55% stake?
- Oops. I have removed the extra detail. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Time Inc. removed a time capsule" - maybe link time capsule, and are there any details about what was in it?
- I've added a link and a few details about the time capsule. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, the 2013 film" not sure you need "in addition"
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any modern reviews or criticism of the design?
- I've added another review by Carter B. Horsley. There was a review of the artwork by The Daily Beast, but that source is classified as only marginally reliable in WP:RSP. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That's all for me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the review, PMC. I've addressed your remaining comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PMC, just checking in to see if you saw my comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes, I just haven't had time lately to really get stuck in on anything. I cleared out one FAC reply obligation earlier and I'll deal with this one either today or tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, never mind, it was an easy run-through. Two things remain - the additional sourcing for the Cubed artwork, and you signing off on my revision to the lobby paragraph. Otherwise I'm basically ready to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PMC, oops, I missed your other point above. I've addressed both of these points now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support from me then! Nice work as always. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PMC, oops, I missed your other point above. I've addressed both of these points now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, never mind, it was an easy run-through. Two things remain - the additional sourcing for the Cubed artwork, and you signing off on my revision to the lobby paragraph. Otherwise I'm basically ready to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes, I just haven't had time lately to really get stuck in on anything. I cleared out one FAC reply obligation earlier and I'll deal with this one either today or tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PMC, just checking in to see if you saw my comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- The templated map results in significant sandwiching
- I think I fixed this. However, I'm currently traveling across the US and on my phone, so I can't determine whether the sandwiching issue is still present. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some images are missing alt text
- I added alt text to the remaining images. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Curtiss-Wright,_Time_Life_Building,_Ave._of_the_Americas._LOC_gsc.5a27425.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Hemisphere_Club,_Time-Life_Building,_Rockefeller_Center._LOC_gsc.5a27661.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I still have to figure out when and where these images were first published. In any case, I have added c:Template:PD-US-no notice to both images, and I'll figure out the original source of these images when I get back from my vacation. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I've left my initial replies above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, thanks again for the review. On further examination, it appears that these images were both published on April 12, 1960, and released into the Gottscho-Schleisner collection. There don't appear to be any copyright notices for either image. Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editDon't think that newspapers (The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) need an ISSN. Pei Cobb Freed and Partners is sometimes written with and and sometimes with &. Are Emporis, Progressive Architecture high-quality reliable sources? I don't know them very much. Same question about The Midtown Book (and is it now The City Review or not?), Wallpaper.com, Eater.com, Globest.com and Gothamist. More a question of due weight than reliability, but I wonder if "Herman Miller" is a good source to use, it seems like a sales website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the source review. Here are my initial comments:
- I won't be able to fix the ISSNs until I get back from vacation in a week or so.
- Emporis: I believe you asked about this before, but here is my response. This database is defunct, but there was a RSP discussion about this a few years ago, which seems to indicate that it is marginally reliable (with some content that was suggested by users and vetted by staff). I have removed it from this article, as it wasn't being used to cite anything.
- Progressive Architecture - You asked about this too. This was a reliable source in its field; while no longer published, it was an established magazine with editorial oversight.
- Wallpaper.com - ditto, it also has editorial oversight.
- Eater - this also has editorial oversight and is part of the Vox website group, which is reliable per WP:RSPVOX.
- GlobeSt - this has editorial oversight too.
- Gothamist - This is a news outlet owned by radio station WNYC. It also has editorial oversight.
- Midtown Book - The author, Carter Horsley, was an architecture critic for the New York Times for a while. I can try to find a separate source if you want, though.
- I have removed the Herman Miller website.
- Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, that sounds like sufficient credentials for Midtown Book. I must have forgotten that I already reviewed these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks again for the review. I've removed the ISSNs now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, that sounds like sufficient credentials for Midtown Book. I must have forgotten that I already reviewed these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and Gah4 (talk)
This article is about Lise Meitner, the Austrian physicist who was the co-discover of the element protactinium and nuclear fission. She spent much of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. She fled to Sweden after Austria was absorbed into Germany in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
edit- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Lise_Meitner_(1878-1968),_lecturing_at_Catholic_University,_Washington,_D.C.,_1946.jpg: is a more specific tag available? Ditto File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg
- The originals are at [24] and [25]. Donated to the Smithsonian by Otto Hahn's biographer. No known copyright restrictions. We could use Template:PD-USGov-SI? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we can - those links indicate usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this one File:Lise Meitner (1878–1968) 1953 OeNB USIS 2955727.jpg can be used as a lead photo? It's of better resolution, and the copyright looks ok. Artem.G (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- just noticed that it's Hawkeye who uploaded high res version :) Artem.G (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this one File:Lise Meitner (1878–1968) 1953 OeNB USIS 2955727.jpg can be used as a lead photo? It's of better resolution, and the copyright looks ok. Artem.G (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we can - those links indicate usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The originals are at [24] and [25]. Donated to the Smithsonian by Otto Hahn's biographer. No known copyright restrictions. We could use Template:PD-USGov-SI? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg
- Author is unknown. Image was created in 1906. A copy is in Churchill College, England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so retagging needed. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know when they were first published, but they are in Hahn's 1962 biography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so retagging needed. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Author is unknown. Image was created in 1906. A copy is in Churchill College, England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is any info provided there on previous publication? If no, the current tag is lacking evidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
- Added URAA tag. Author unknown. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know first publication but it is in Hahn's 1962 book. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added URAA tag. Author unknown. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Hahn_and_Meitner_in_1912.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- In a commemorative brochure for the opening of the KWI in 1912. A copy was in Otto Hahn's papers, and is now in the Smithsonian. The Max Planck also has a copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Chemist_Lise_Meitner_with_students.jpg: the source seems to indicate this is not a NRC work?
- Source says "Courtesy of Bryn Mawr College" via the NRC. Has a CC 2.0 licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have switched the lead image to a new one I found in the Library of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding: The liquid drop model image is causing layout issues on my screen. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria, is there still work to do here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like queries on File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg are still pending, as well as the layout issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Wolverine
editI'll drop some comments pretty soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- On 13-14 July 1938, she fled to Holland with the help of Dirk En dash
- her sisters Gisela and Lola converted to Catholic Christianity that same year Replace Catholic Christianity with Catholicism
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- She also adopted a shortened name "Lise". "A" should be "the", since we are specific here.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- and first studied colours of an oil slick, thin films, and reflected light. "The" before colours
- In July 1901, the girls sat an external examination at the Akademisches Gymnasium. Grammar
- Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann, and was said to often speak with contagious enthusiasm of his lectures. I'm not sure about "contagious" here, and it should be "about" rather than "of"
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- who was on the record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, "The" is not needed
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner and Hahn in their laboratory, in 1913. When a colleague she did not recognise said that they had met before, Meitner replied: "You probably mistake me for Professor Hahn. Image caption is confusing
- Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner was more concerned with understanding their radiations. Should radiations be singular?
- Might as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- In 1912, Hahn and Meitner moved to the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) for Chemistry. Why is chemistry capitalized?
- It is the proper name of the institute. There were several of them, including a KWI for Physical Chemistry. See Kaiser Wilhelm Society for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- of which he gave ten per cent to Meitner. Is this %?
- MOS:PERCENT: "The body of non-scientific/non-technical articles may use either the % symbol or the word(s) percent (American English) or per cent (British English)"
- In 1945 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry in Sweden that selected the Nobel Prize in Chemistry decided to award that prize solely to Hahn: Colon should be a full stop
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hahn only found out from a newspaper while interned in Farm Hall Cambridgeshire England. Should be "at"
- I think "in" is correct. He was incarcerated there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Support -- My comments are so minor that you already have my support. Well done! When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Prose review by Generalissima
edit- You bold Elise Meitner in the Early years section, but you already mention this name in the lede - it should probably just be bolded there.
- Yes. Emboldened as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm slightly unclear what "advanced education" means in this context. Merely attending college, or becoming academics in their own right?
- Tertiary education. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
- Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some context on what either her masters or doctoral theses were about could be interesting.
- The title translations are mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
- Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
- I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Betty Logan showed me how, so added currency conversions to euros. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "fortuitous" is somewhat vague, since it can either mean "by chance" or "fortunately". Just using fortunately would be a lot clearer in this context.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Might be good to wikilink Radium.
- This isn't really a prose thing, but I notice a paucity of images in the middle sections. The diagram of the Auger effect might be good at the beginning of the Beta Radiation section. More importantly, there's gotta be something that fits for the Nazi Germany, Transmutation, and Nobel Prize for nuclear fission sections, right?
- Added Auger effect diagram. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would love to be able to use this image Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added Auger effect diagram. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The exhibition table being left-aligned creates a weird break in the text in combination with the massive Frisch quote. Might be better to right-align it.
- Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
- Pared it down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
- The bust of Meitner image is a bit low-res and hard to make out. What about "file:Lise Meitner Denkmal vor dem Lise-Meitner-Wohnheim in Kaiserslautern2.jpg"? Bit more photogenic.
- Switched images as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That's all for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: These changes look great! Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
editThis looks interesting. I'll try to find the time to review it in the next few days. As an initial comment, "what was now Nazi Germany" in the WP:LEAD would make more sense to me as "what was by then Nazi Germany". TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- General comments
- There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
- Lead
"the development of atomic bombs during World War II, and subsequently other nuclear weapons" – atomic bomb is a redirect to nuclear weapon, so this is in effect the same link twice in close succession.- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Early years
"Meitner was born Elise Meitner [...]" – any particular reason to not just write "Elise Meitner was born [...]"? That's the usual approach."Her father was a confirmed freethinker" – "confirmed"?- Deleted "confirmed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Education
"Meitner's earliest research began at age eight, when she kept a notebook of her records underneath her pillow." – I can't say I quite understand what this is saying.- That she was interested in science at an early age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but what is meant by "a notebook of her records" (and how it relates to research) is not clear to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re-worded to make the point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but what is meant by "a notebook of her records" (and how it relates to research) is not clear to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- That she was interested in science at an early age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"She completed her final year of school in 1892 [...] In 1899, Meitner began taking private lessons with two other young women, cramming the missing eight years of secondary education into just two." – eight missing years?- Yes, it was not that much. Deleted "eight". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"an article on optics by Lord Rayleigh that detailed an experiment that produced results that Rayleigh had been unable to explain" – a bit choppy with three instances of "that" so close together, but this is really a nitpick.- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Friedrich Wilhelm University
Max Planck and Beta particle are both linked twice in this section, and both isotope and isotopes (the latter a redirect to the former) appear.- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner went to the Friedrich Wilhelm University" – here we should probably state where this was located geographically. She moved to a different country, after all.- Added "in Berlin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Planck invited her to his home, and allowed her to attend his lectures, which was an unusual gesture by Planck, who was on record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, but he was willing to admit that there was the occasional exception; apparently he recognised Meitner as one of the exceptions." – this sentence does not "flow" particularly well and could probably be improved by copyediting (possibly by splitting the sentence).- Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"She became friends with Planck's twin daughters Emma and Grete" – I might indicate something about their age here. Easiest would probably be to state the year they were born.- In 1889. Added this. Both died in childbirth, Grete in 1917 and Emma in 1919. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"(In fact, they were isotopes of known elements, but the concept of an isotope, along with the term, was only propounded by Frederick Soddy in 1913.)" – entire sentences in parentheses is rarely the best approach, and I don't think this is one of the exceptions.- Moved to a footnote Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "propounded" is a conspicuously unusual word. Plainer language such as "put forth" would be better.
- I think "propounded" works better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "she noted his informal and approachable manner" – is "noted" the right/best word to use here?
- I think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists, including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." – this is really minor tinkering, but I think this would be better if the second comma were replaced with "stronger" stronger punctuation (I would suggest an em dash).- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists—including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists—including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Women were not yet admitted to universities in Prussia." – Germany (or the German Empire) has not yet been mentioned. Considering that, I would gloss this as "the German state of Prussia".- Prussia didn't become a state until 1918. At the time it was the Kingdom of Prussia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but whether the states of the German Empire were called Kingdoms, Duchies, or something else, the salient point is that they were constituent parts of the overarching German polity, which was what I was going for here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, my German gets in the way here. Made this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is now "the German state of Kingdom of Prussia", which should probably either be "[...] of Prussia" of "[...] of the Kingdom of Prussia". TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added missing adjective. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is now "the German state of Kingdom of Prussia", which should probably either be "[...] of Prussia" of "[...] of the Kingdom of Prussia". TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, my German gets in the way here. Made this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but whether the states of the German Empire were called Kingdoms, Duchies, or something else, the salient point is that they were constituent parts of the overarching German polity, which was what I was going for here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Prussia didn't become a state until 1918. At the time it was the Kingdom of Prussia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"radioactive recoil, in which a daughter nucleus is forcefully ejected from its matrix as it recoils at the moment of decay" – this is rather technical. In order to make it more accessible, I would link daughter nucleus and provide either an appropriate link for "matrix" or explain it in some other way.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Meitner was particularly interested in beta radiation. By this time, they were known to be electrons." – I'm guessing "they" here is a result of the preceding sentence previously using "beta particles", but it doesn't work with "beta radiation", and using "radiation" rather than "particles" is the right call.
- Changed to "beta particles" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry
"the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) for Chemistry" – again, it would probably be a good idea to indicate the geographical location for this.- Added "in Berlin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner received an attractive offer of an academic position in Prague" – I would try to find some way to note that Prague was then part of Austria-Hungary (the significance being that she would have left Germany for her home country if she had accepted the offer).- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Fischer arranged for her salary to be doubled to 3,000 marks" – is there any particular reason her previous salary did not get a mention prior to this point? The paragraph does note that she held "the same rank as Hahn (although her salary was still less)".- It was raised over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was raised over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- World War I and the discovery of protactinium
Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.- "the search for the mother isotope of actinium. According to the radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
- Presumably they detected alpha radiation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
"In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the tantalum group from pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.- As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is, from what I can gather, rather common in sports. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter polonium-210) and thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place?
I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were. "the mother isotope, uranium-235" – technically uranium-235 is the grandmother isotope of protactinium(-231), no?- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"uranium-235, was discovered in 1929" – according to the linked article, it was discovered in 1935. Which is wrong?- The source says it was in 1929. The linked article has no sources, but I found Dempster's 1935 Nature article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Beta radiation
- "At a conference in 1937, Meitner shares the front row with (left to right) Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Otto Stern and Rudolf Ladenburg; Hilde Levi is the only other woman in the room." – there are seven people in the front row, so one name is missing. Who is sitting closest to the camera? I would also add indicate Levi's position in the room in the caption.
- The image does not identify him. Tweaked caption. I would have thought Levi stood out, but she is at the back next to Mark Oliphant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...] Otto Stern, an unidentified man and Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...] Otto Stern, Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen some cases where Meitner is described as the only woman in the room. And [26], for example, deliberately crops the image so she is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you have identified the man as "J. C. G. Jacobsen". I'm guessing that is the physicist Jacob Christian Georg Jacobsen (1895–1965; Wikidata Q95348157)? If so, I might add a WP:REDLINK as the entry in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon seems to indicate that he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 ("The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."). TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Identified him from the Niels Bohr Archive. I believe he meets WP:ANYBIO but he doesn't have an entry even on the Danish language Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you have identified the man as "J. C. G. Jacobsen". I'm guessing that is the physicist Jacob Christian Georg Jacobsen (1895–1965; Wikidata Q95348157)? If so, I might add a WP:REDLINK as the entry in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon seems to indicate that he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 ("The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."). TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen some cases where Meitner is described as the only woman in the room. And [26], for example, deliberately crops the image so she is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...] Otto Stern, an unidentified man and Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...] Otto Stern, Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The image does not identify him. Tweaked caption. I would have thought Levi stood out, but she is at the back next to Mark Oliphant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner was so stunned by this result" – it is not clear from this whether she was stunned that it appeared to match or that it didn't quite match.- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"It appeared that the law of conservation of energy did not hold for beta decay" – it is not obvious how this conclusion follows from what was stated before.- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right? TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is the implication of this that bothered the physicists. Quantum theory hold that the electrons can only have discrete energy states. How then can they not have when ejected? (As an aside: Chadwick conducted this experiment while in an internment camp with a home-made Geiger counter and a tube of toothpaste.) Here, Meitner shows her tenacity as a physicist. This has important results later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right? TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nazi Germany
"the largest party in the Reichstag (Weimar Republic)" – stray parenthetical disambiguator.- Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner published exclusively in Naturwissenschaften" – should probably clarify that this is a journal.- Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Transmutation
"Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive isotope of phosphorus. They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).- You are correct. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Escape from Germany
"On 1 August she took the train to Stockholm, where she was met at Göteborg station by Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.- The former. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"on 9 November" – WP:EASTEREGG.- removed link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.- More details in the main article. Alluded to above in the final paragraph on transmutation. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nuclear fission
- "Hahn and Strassmann isolated the three radium isotopes" – as above: which? Also, is "isotopes" here and "isomers" in the preceding section correct, or should they match?
- Isotopes is correct here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"the liquid-drop model of the nucleus" – at present, this is a WP:REDLINK. That's not necessarily a problem, but I note that liquid-drop model redirects to semi-empirical mass formula, so you want to tweak the link or create a redirect (or not—redlinks are fine).- Corrected the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Hahn had mistakenly believed that the atomic masses had to add up to 239 rather than the atomic numbers adding up to 92, and thought it was masurium (technetium), and so did not check for it: 235
92U + n →
56Ba +
36Kr + some n" – surely that should be uranium-238 on the left-hand side rather than uranium-235, if the atomic mass should add up to be 239?- Tweaked the formula by removing "235". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nobel Prize for nuclear fission
- I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
- Changed to "Nobel Prize"
"On 15 November 1945, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay."The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.- Added sme-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
- It is the first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well, receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.- Tightened text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
- Changed as suggested. (But it was never intended to be later in the article.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Later life
"Jutz's boss, Gottfried Bermann had escaped to Sweden" – zero or two commas would work. One does not.- Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Her sister Gisela and brother-in-law Karl Lion moved to England, Meitner also considered moving to Britain." – a comma is not the right punctuation here.- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Siegbahn's obstruction of Meitner's Nobel Prize" – the description of this turn of events earlier in the article does not really seem to fit the term "obstruction".- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The intention was that Meitner would have the salary and title of a "research professor"—one without teaching duties." – does the source say anything about whether having or not having teaching duties would be seen as preferable here?
- I thought all professors aspired to not teach. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"The professorship fell through when the Minister for Education, Tage Erlander, unexpectedly became the Prime Minister of Sweden" – I would state the year.- "she applied magic numbers to nuclear fission" – I daresay both the meaning and significance of this will be unclear to most readers.
- They can read the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Awards and honours
Marie Curie, German Physical Society, and Free University of Berlin are all linked twice in this section.- Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Four years later she was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society." – something of an WP:EASTEREGG.- Altered link Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"In 2000, the European Physical Society established the biannual "Lise Meitner Prize"" – there exists a Lise Meitner Prize article, and going by that article it should be "biennial" rather than "biannual".- Changed as suggested, linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The list of items named after Meitner appears to largely be cited to sources on the items themselves, rather than sources on Meitner or sources on items named after Meitner. This is not ideal from a WP:PROPORTION perspective. How is the relative importance of the different items (compared to each other) assessed to make sure the weight is due? Likewise, how is the relative importance of this aspect of the overall topic (Lise Meitner) compared to other aspects assessed to make sure the weight is due? From a WP:PROPORTION perspective, this is the equivalent of the much-maligned (and now deprecated) practice of sourcing "In popular culture" sections to primary sources.
- Each source is authoritative, and details that the item was named after Lise Meitner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Were my point about whether the information is correct/verifiable, that would be sufficient. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about whether the information is WP:DUE, or more specifically WP:PROPORTIONAL. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Such sections are customary in biographical articles, and multiple editors assert that is WP:DUE, given Meitner's fame. In some articles there has been an effort to construct exhaustive lists of honours and awards but this one makes no such claim. The relative importance of particular items is not so important; the chosen items illustrate the paths of commeration. Obviously, getting an element named after her is a big deal, but the simple renaming of a building illustrates the trajectory of commeration of women in science over the last half century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not find that satisfactory. Editors do not determine what is due, sources do. TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Such sections are customary in biographical articles, and multiple editors assert that is WP:DUE, given Meitner's fame. In some articles there has been an effort to construct exhaustive lists of honours and awards but this one makes no such claim. The relative importance of particular items is not so important; the chosen items illustrate the paths of commeration. Obviously, getting an element named after her is a big deal, but the simple renaming of a building illustrates the trajectory of commeration of women in science over the last half century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Were my point about whether the information is correct/verifiable, that would be sufficient. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about whether the information is WP:DUE, or more specifically WP:PROPORTIONAL. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Each source is authoritative, and details that the item was named after Lise Meitner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Ping Hawkeye7. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
editHi Hawkeye7, my comments:
- Provide a translation from German for her thesis in the infobox, as done in the body?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could we add Phillip Meitner in the infobox?
- Link to freethinker (freethought)?
- Isn't the 1906 portrait of Meitner creating a WP:SANDWICH with the infobox? Consider moving it down a little?
- Moved image down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gloss Matura in one or two words per NOFORCELINK?
- Link to Maxwell Formula (probably Maxwell's equations)?
- Is the link to Montreal necessary?
- deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and settled as radioactive dust": "had settled"?
- Don't see the need, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Austrian Army (Imperial-Royal Landwehr)?
- That would be incorrect. Hahn served in the Prussian Landwehr. He was German; Meitner was Austrian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to tantalum?
- Link to radium-226?
- "proposed of the nucleus": remove the "proposed"?
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to technetium?
- Link to Geiger counter?
- Link to George de Hevesy?
- Link to American Physical Society and Physics Today?
- Link to Oskar Klein?
- Link to Erwin Schrödinger?
- Link to Max Perutz?
- Provide translated titles and journal names for refs #16, #18, #42, #55, #146, Stolz 1989?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provide an archive url for ref #168?
- Not possible, I'm afraid. Substituted a new reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provide a link for ref #136?
- Don't have one. switched to another source.
- In the biblio, link to Nicholas Dawidoff, Willy Ley?
- Provide publication locations for Sexl and Hardy 2002, Stolz 1989?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why have we not used the sources in the Further Reading section in the article? If they don't have anything unique, I would suggest removing them; if they do, then you can always include them in the biblio and cite them.
- I will incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
A fine article overall, only the source formatting seems to be a bit off. Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4, just Matarisvan's last point still to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, I would like to suggest these last few changes: add a link or identifier for ref #17; add ISBN or OCLC for Frisch 1959, add an archive URL for the Hedqvist link and convert the underlying template from Citation to Cite encyclopedia. Also consider adding the location of publication for Rife 1999. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ref #17 is not available online.
- OCLC added to Frisch (1959); it is too old to have an ISBN
- The underlying template for Hedqvist is Template:SKBL, not cite encyclopaedia. It is generated from Wikidata P4963
- Added location for Rife
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now that this is done, a support from me for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7, I would like to suggest these last few changes: add a link or identifier for ref #17; add ISBN or OCLC for Frisch 1959, add an archive URL for the Hedqvist link and convert the underlying template from Citation to Cite encyclopedia. Also consider adding the location of publication for Rife 1999. Matarisvan (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4, just Matarisvan's last point still to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Edwininlondon
editI'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.
- The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
- There is a specific guideline. MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry there --> can we drop "there"?
- Another editor wanted it clarified that the KWI was in Berlin.
- to be with other family members --> to be with her family members, or, perhaps: to be with family members
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
- Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
- She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
- Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- the girls --> at age 23 she is not a girl. And the others were introduced as other young women. So "women" instead of girls
- She was 22, but point taken. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only four out of fourteen girls --> same thing
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann --> to avoid confusion, perhaps professor Boltzmann
- Changed to "Ludwig Boltzmann". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Examination of a Maxwell Formula" --> "Examination of a Maxwell equation"
- Sure. Pardon my MilHist German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Thermal Conduction in Inhomogeneous Bodies" --> "Thermal conduction in inhomogeneous bodies"
- Title, so used title case. German conventions are different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
- Sources do not say; I have the journal reference, but copies are not available online, or in hard copy outside Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner was introduced by Stefan Meyer--> is it known when?
- In 1906. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
- No; he read her paper. Revered the sentences to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- , and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
- Yes. Not sure what can be done here; changed to "Meitner's love of music". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- physical separation method known as radioactive recoil --> I assume that is the same as atomic recoil, and thus should be linked, right?
- Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- discovered two more new isotopes --> which ones specifically?
- Sigh. Bismuth-211 and Thalium-207. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- For this more pitchblende was required, and --> For this yet more pitchblende was required, but
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- who independently discovered it in 1923 --> when did Meitner discover it?
- In 1922. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
- I would prefer to keep it, so the reder knows that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- at Manne Siegbahn's new laboratory --> better link label would be at the Manne Siegbahn Laboratory
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- amiable --> not sure I would use this. I'm sure Sigvard was amiable, but we might need quite a few sources first before we can say this
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- reached a similar conclusion --> similar to what? + state when he said this
- Moved this paragraph back where it belonged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
- Ditto for Otto Hahn, who also made it to age 89. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That's all I have on prose. I will look at other aspects later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
More:
- Caption reads "Pressure from historians, scientists and feminists caused the museum" ... which museum?
- Deutsches Museum. Added. With link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes section:
- ref 4, 9, 25, 39, 73, 75, 78, 96, 98, 110, 111, 153 all need a specific page number or pp
- ref 39: the title is April 1915: Five ...
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent formatting: sometimes the journal article authors are of "Hahn, O." format, and sometimes "O., Hahn". Check all and make uniform
- Checked and corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent naming: Free University of Berlin vs Freie Universität Berlin
- http://www.amacad.org/publications/BookofMembers/ChapterM.pdf seems to be a dead link
- Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- ref 56 does a) not support the claim, and b) not seem to be a high quality source, since I seem to be able to edit the content just by signing in
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- perhaps it would be wise to archive some of the web pages used (Max Planck, Free University of Berlin
- A bot will come through. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
References section:
- Frisch, O. R. (1970): all the other authors have their first name spelled out, plus the source itself also has Otto Robert instead of O. R.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I did a few spotchecks and all checked out fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I believe this fine article meets the FA standard. Thanks again for all your work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
John
edit"On 1 August she took the train to Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it? John (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- From Copenhagen to Stockholm? In 1938? Sure. It became difficult after Denmark was invaded in April 1940. (example ticket) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say? John (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.
- There was a train ferry when I made the trip in 1998. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- According to the regional administrative board of Skåne train ferry service opened between Elsinore and Helsingborg in 1892, and between Copenhagen and Malmö in 1895. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, are you happy with my edits so far? John (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I note that another editor wanted it clarified that Berlin is in Germany and Stockholm in Sweden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about calling her "Jewish Austrian" in the lead. Could we say "Austrian Jewish"? John (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
- Sure. Meitner's problem was sexism, not racism, up until the Nazis came on the scene. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
Support. Thanks for your work on this fine article. John (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editWell, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed www.orlandoleibovitz.com. Changed #112. Added date to #118.
- More than one German biography was actually used, but WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
- Further reading: in the case of this article, the Further reading section dates back to 2005 and is actually older than the text of the article. It seems that readers proposed these sources but none of the works was ever used as a source. I do not remove material without a good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4 (talk) ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I could incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have cut the Further reading back and added a couple of them to the article. I do not have access to the remaining book. I do have access to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article, but since that is a book review of one of the major sources in the article, I have retained it in the Further reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I could incorporate some of them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, Gah4 (talk) ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, how's that? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.
This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck! Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some polite pings - @AirshipJungleman29 who took part in the first review, and @Reidgreg who did the very excellent job of copyediting the article! Turini2 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :) Turini2 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Reidgreg
editAs noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.
- I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
- I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.
If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.and not being hard enough for the professional peloton
Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator
multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.- As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the second and third editions of the race?
That's it for now. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA 2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications. Turini2 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, do you have any further comments or thoughts on this article. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
editRecusing to review.
- The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
- "French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
- Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
- "with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!
- The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
- Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.
- The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
- Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.
- Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
- Removed.
- Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
- Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g. La Route de France. It's complicated!
- That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
- Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.
- That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
- Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.
- I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
- Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.
- I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
- Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
- Piped to clarify
- "Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
- Fixed
- "We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
- I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA 2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.
- "Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
- Fixed
- Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
- Rephrased
- "with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
- Clarified
I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild hi - as per above, I've made those edits and redrafted the lead substantially - now 267 words in length (3 paragraphs) rather than 369 words. Turini2 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a fix loop. For example
- 'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event." ' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
- There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
- "chasing back after a mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "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 are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)
- Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC. Turini2 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, would you consider these points to be resolved? Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
editThe article uses the following main images:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022_Tour_de_France_Femmes.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019-10-26_14-54-37_planche-des-belles-filles.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jumbo_tour_de_france_reims_1408748.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-36-56_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_17-20-13_TDFF-Plancher-les-Mines.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_-_TDF_Femmes_-_Lure_-_302_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-38-12_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg
They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour also needs to end with a period. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Amended and fixed, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good, the article passes the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
editAt four weeks in, the article has failed to progress towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- How do I encourage more people to engage with this article? I've been pretty on the ball here and responded to changes requested? Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- SC
A marker for now. I'll be along shortly for a review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a decent article - nothing here that would stop it being an FA as far as I am concerned. I think you've done well in explaining the technical side in most places (I know nothing about cycling except that it's a damned uncomfortable for of transportation, but I still managed to understand it).Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
editHello! Some initial comments after a read-through (disclaimer: I have no real knowledge of cycling)!
The early breakaway was caught in the closing kilometres, with the stage win determined by a bunch sprint.
- I agree with Gog the Mild above in that there are several cases where I can guess at the meanings of terms but am not certain of them. Both "breakaway" and "bunch sprint" are not perfectly clear to me. "Bunch sprint" could use a link to the glossary and both could use a very brief explanation.On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton
- Suggest changing to (and linking) Col du Petit Ballon, or Petit Ballon if the sentence is referring to the mountain itself instead of the pass.A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel
- Suggest linking to Col du Platzerwasel.Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace.
- Suggest linking to Col du Ballon d'Alsace.van Vleuten suffered a mechanical
- Gog the Mild is correct above in that I wasn't quite sure what "a mechanical" referred to until I saw the link to it. I think this is worth instead calling "an issue with her bike", or even specifying what the issue was if there's coverage of it....Women's WorldTour races have a maximum stage length of 160 kilometres ... the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar...
- Are these two instances of "WorldTour" referring to the UCI Women's World Tour? If so, is there a reason they are spelled differently?
Overall, I think my impressions are very close to that of Gog. It's a very good article and it's close to fulfilling FAC criteria! But it does read like an aficionado of the sport wrote it and so it suffers from a little bit of jargon. — Penitentes (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much – I've made most of these amendments.
- Clarified wording in a few spots and rephrased.
- Added links to climbs. Sources refer to them as Ballon d'Alsace and Petit Ballon (not Col), so I've left that wording w while linking them. Interestingly, I had considered adding links to them previously – but considered it to be MOS:OVERLINK !
- Mechanical – sources usually specify what the issue is (i.e. a broken part of the bike, a puncture etc) but in this case, I can't find what the issue was – even in a specific article about the incident! I've amended to "an issue with her bike" as suggested.
- Sources (and the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale) have WorldTour without a space, so I've followed their example. Unsure why the wikipedia article name differs!
- Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, good changes all! Assuming the source concerns below (incl. spotchecks) get addressed I will be a support. — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- CyclingWeekly is a work title and should be italicized, and be consistent in whether it's presented as CyclingWeekly or cyclingweekly.com. Ditto letourfemmes.fr vs Tour de France Femmes, Cycling News vs cyclingnews.com... check throughout
- Fixed
- Check wikilinking as well - eg you've got a wikilink on Tour de France Femmes in FN82 but not FN1. Why is there a publisher included in FN1 and not FN2? On 80 and not 81? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Be consistent in whether "The" is included for publication titles that use it, and if so whether it is capitalized
- Fixed
- Why The New York Times but just Washington Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Be consistent in whether you include ISSN - for example FNs 60 and 75 are to the same publication but only one includes it
- Fixed.
- FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN16, check throughout
- Fixed and checked.
- FN6 is dead
- No thanks to the Washington Post not allowing archiving of their old posts! Found a fixed link, and changed citation to News.
- Be consistent in whether author names are presented first or last name first
- One author name replaced with first/last.
- FNs 12 and 13 are the same work. Dittos FNs 31 and 32 - check throughout
- In both cases, one citation is supporting a quote, and the other citation is supporting a wider sentence/paragraph. Believe this is correct approach?
- Not sure I follow what you're saying here - why do you need different citations to the same source, rather than calling the same citation multiple times as you do elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because I specifically want to include a quote in the citation? The quote then does not support the wider sentence/paragraph, so I've used the same source for a different citation. Another example would be FN71 and FN77 - same source, two separate quotes to support two separate bits. Turini2 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fn14: title doesn't match current source and archive link is non-functional
- Fixed
- FN16 title also doesn't match source - check throughout
- I blame the autofill visual editor citations! Also fixed.
- If that's the problem, it looks to be a broader one - eg FN46 has the same issue. Suggest checking the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- These have all been checked and fixed. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Stopping there and oppose for the moment - lots of cleaning up needed for consistency and functionality of citations. Happy to revisit once that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Edits and fixes made - I believe that's everything checked and resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Resolved! Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quote marks nested within quote marks should use single quotes
- Wikilinking is still inconsistent - eg you've got Cycling Weekly linked in FN 33 but not 5 or 34. You can do all, none, or first, but not random.
- Fn71 has reversed author too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have referenced the first of all references (unless they have no article about said publication), and removed all other wikilinks. Reversed author fixed. Did not know about MOS:QWQ, also resolved! Turini2 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Edwininlondon
editAs today the 2024 race kicks off, I will try to find time to review. My comments for the lead:
- avec Zwift --> this only appears in the lead. Should also be in the body somewhere. With source.
- took place from 24 to 31 July 2022 --> that 2022 is redundant. Already used at the start of the sentence
- the first sentence should say that it was a cycling race for female professionals
- I don't get what footnote a adds. Is this somehow controversial?
- media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders --> why an Oxford comma after coverage, but not after teams?
- polka-dot jersey or polka dot jersey?
- so we have yellow jersey and GC link to the same place, which I think is fine, but then we should link polka dot and green and white jerseys as well. But then we end up with a sea of blue links. This would argue for not linking the yellow jersey.
- which brings me to the jerseys: the white one is explained well, but the others not very well. Queen of the mountain needs to be explained, points classification needs to be explained, and the general classification is such a misleading name (suggests some sort of average) that it needs to mention fastests time.
More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Majority have been resolved.
- in terms of the footnote, there were previous "women's Tour de France" races - called things like Tour de France Féminin. The footnote clarifies that the race is the first of the Tour de France Femmes races, as well as responding to a talk page comment. The first women's Tour de France took place in 1955, for example!
- In terms of the jerseys, it's already substantially more detailed than featured article 2012 Tour de France - and I don't want the lead to become longer, given previous feedback. Expanded a little in the race overview.
- Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that FA 2012 Tour de France as a reference. That helps.
- I don't think a footnote is the right mechanism for explaining previous versions. This should be more prominent. I would take the first paragraph from Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, condense it a bit, and place it as the 2nd sentence. And then reposition the "followed years of campaigning" to connect it.
- Rewritten
- held primarily in France, first held --> that duplication of held is not particularly elegant
- Fixed
- Since the mid-1980s --> I don't get why the ones prior to the 1980s are not mentioned
- using the Tour de France Féminin name from 1984 to 1989 --> other names should be listed as well
- Section rewritten
- sexism and trademark issues --> sexism, and trademark issues
- Fixed
- pushing for a women's Tour de France --> pushing for a revival of the women's Tour de France. Or a fully equivalent women's TdF. Or something distinguishable
- Fixed
- The one-day stage race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[12] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place in a variety of locations across France in conjunction with the men's race --> this confused me. The "would take place" suggests to me that that was the plan, but actually did not happen. Then the location: first it is Paris and then it's all over France. Then the timing: first it is prior to final stage, then it is in conjunction.
- Fixed
- 'sharing the stage' --> why the ' and not "? Or no quotes at all?
- Fixed
- welcoming the live TV coverage and visibility of taking place alongside the men's race --> not sure about visibility of taking place. Let's assume it was held in January. It would still be visible.
- Disagree - backed up by FN13, moved to clarify
- However, La Course was criticised --> by whom? and when, given that initially there was praise
- Added, some criticism was straight away - but three sources in the article are 2018 and 2021
- Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve --> when?
- There are sources for this from 2015 onwards (the two in the article are 2018 and 2021)
- mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> but no one seemed to have argued for that, so that would not be pushing back
- That was the original push from Le Tour Entier, but I haven't included their detail of exactly what they wanted, too much detail.
- Dutch rider Anna van der Breggen stating --> that's 3 times the verb to state in short succession
- Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> sorry, 4
- I clearly am afraid of using synonyms! Have amended throughout. Some are still there because they work best!
- "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France" --> add comma: "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France",
- Fixed
- Zwift had signed a four-year agreement to sponsor the race --> what is missing here is the bit about the official name
- Fixed
- The 24 teams which participated in the race[25] were --> why put the ref 25 mid-sentence?
- Fixed
- selected by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organisers of the Tour --> we already knew that, so just selected by ASO
- Fixed
- selected by --> is anything known about the selection process? Highest bidder?
- nope, literally selected by the organisers!
- covering a total of 1,033 kilometres --> should this not also be mentioned in the lead? The FA 2012 Tour de France does have distance in the lead
- Added
- on the same day as the final stage of the men's tour --> before or after the men's finish? Ah I see that's mentioned later. I would put that here
- Disagree, I feel the wording works better
- Vosges mountains (including the longest, stage 5), and a summit finish on stage 8 at La Super Planche des Belles Filles in the Vosges --> this isn't working for me. That last Vosges thre me, because I thought "stages in the Vosges mountains" already had dealt with that
- Fixed
- including the longest --> repetition including
- Fixed
- as men's Tour de France --> as the men's Tour de France
- Fixed
- as the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men --> may I suggest to remove this bit and instead add something like "whereas the maxima for men are x km and y days" after the paragraph's 1st sentence
- It's really complicated to explain... the summary of "the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men" is the simplest way of doing it IMO.
- In the stage characteristics table it is odd to show the riders' nationality instead of their teams. This race is really about team tactics, not like the Olympics. I was surprised by this omission, as the lead rightfully listed the team name of the jersey winners rather than their nationality. But I see that 2012 Tour de France does the same. Was it discussed there? Or also overlooked?
- It's what all the cycling race articles do, so I'm following their practice!
- Paris: Tour Eiffel --> Paris: Eiffel Tower
- The official name of the stage was Tour Eiffel, so no change.
- tipped for the points classification --> tipped for winning the points classification
- Fixed
- The Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> not sure if the classification is the thing being awarded
- Tweaked
- The Queen --> perhaps add something like "similar to King of the Mountains in the men's race"
- Added
- referencing --> this word choice looks a bit odd to me
- Fixed
- was very positive --> given that there was criticism, I would drop the very
- Fixed
- outsprinted Marianne Vos --> link Marianne Vos
- Fixed
- In the final, Vos --> not sure if it is obvious to non-cycling fans what the final is. I would just avoid and simply use "at the finish"
- Fixed
- to take the yellow and green jerseys --> was this straight on time or was there any bonus time involved?
- yes time bonuses and also clarifies
- Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> remove (QoM) as this abbreviation was already given. One could question the need for QoM at all, if it is not used
- shortened
- her to lose a minute and a half --> just to be clear, I'd say finish a minute and a half after the winner. Or whatever the difference
- Have changed to "lose time" otherwise it's duplicate text
- was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar --> was the longest of the 2022 Women's WorldTour calendar
- fixed
- due to bonuses --> is there no place to link to, explaining this?
- Unfortunately not, but I've added a little bit above
- On the descent of the penultimate climb, a small group including Wiebes and Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx) crashed on the descent, --> that's descent twice
- Fixes
- with everyone involved finishing the stage --> but everyone involved ultimately finished the stage
- Fixed
- A group of fourteen riders that --> who instead of that?
- Fixed
- had gained time ahead of the peloton in a breakaway --> "who had been ahead of the peloton"
- Half fixed, leaving breakaway pipe
- by a large group of riders in a bunch sprint --> this makes me think earlier sprints were not bunch sprints. Is that true? If not, the term should be introduced earlier.
- Fixed
- for the stage win as the race headed towards the mountains --> by adding "as the race headed towards the mountains" a non-informed reader may wrongly infer that there are some bonuses given to the winner of the last race prior to the mountains
- Removed
- five category 1 climbs --> is 1 for easy or hard?
- Added wording to route
- eventual winner of the general classification (GC) --> GC was already introduced and used
- Fixed
- 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) of vertical climbing --> isn't climbing by definition vertical?
- Fair point!
- with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, --> for context it would be good to give the length of this stage somewhere
- Added
- ensuring that the yellow jersey --> not necessarily. She could have caught up
- Rephrased
- following her crash on stage 6 --> Given the position of this in the paragraph, I assume she started but then gave up. Perhaps better to provide some description of causality.
- rephrased
- achieved an impressive stage win --> better to use quotes here, otherwise find more neutral words
- rephrased
- Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM --> this is puzzling: how come van Vleuten did not become QoM, as she seemed to get to the tops first?
- while Katarzyna Niewiadoma --> while Niewiadoma
- Fixed
- rounded out the podium --> not sure the tone is right here, sounds more something a fanzine would write
- Fixed
- Vos continued to hold the green jersey --> a little help for the reader would be good, something like "as only x points were awarded in this stage"
- rephrased
- Stage 8 was the second mountain stage --> given that for stage 7 we got the number of meters of climbing, why not here as well?
- stage of the Tour, --> now we have Tour, but earlier we had tour
- Fixed
- The final climb to La Super Planche des Belles Filles was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long with an average gradient of 8.7 percent, with the final --> final duplication
- Fixed
- With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, --> again, for context, how long was this stage?
- Fixed
- Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace --> this tells the reader little about how long she was behind for, so some km reference would be good
- Fixed
- attacked from the peloton --> I have never heard this expression
- Rephrased
- She passed the remnants of the breakaway --> which breakaway? this was never mentioned
- have added
I'll check the last bit as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Edwininlondon - I'll take a look at this today, there are some great clarifying points in here thank you. I will note that some of this detail was previously cut from the article for being too much detail for summary style! Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here is the last batch.
- Why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? What that FA does well in Classification leadership and minor prizes is lots of explaining all the classifications and extra info about price money. That FA does nt have reception info, but here I would put that in its own section
- Have added this - thank goodness the relevant regulations are still available - there are no secondary source for this.
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> is there any kind of rule you're applying when you use GC and when general classification?
- Just that it's a conclusion - so I've just the full wording.
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> feels repetitive to keep saying which team she is in
- Again, it's because it's the overall conclusion of the race, so it could be a bit that people jump to reading
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) won the Tour de France Femmes --> can you really say it like that? How about: In the final general classification, van Vleuten came first
- advantage over Vollering (SD Worx) --> advantage over Vollering
- As above
- of almost four minutes while Niewiadoma was third at more than six and a half minutes down --> of almost four minutes, and of more than six and a half minutes over third-placed Niewiadoma
- Fixed
- Vollering won the mountains classification --> this seems to me the best place to use Queen of the Mountains phrase
- Fixed
- while Vos (Team Jumbo–Visma) won --> while Vos won
- As above
- and the super-combativity award --> should be explained on what basis
- Added
- won the young rider classification --> 2 issues here: 1) the lead explains how this works, so this should be explained here as well 2) the lead mentions the white jersey, so that should be mentioned here as well
- Added
- Her rival Vollering considered that they --> who is they referring to?
- They'd is better?
- fourth-place overall Juliette Labous --> fourth-placed Juliette Labous ?
- fixed
- Cycling Weekly stating --> stating repetition
- Fixed
- and L'Équipe stating --> and again
- Fixed
- Race director Marion Rousse stated
- I left this one :)
- with the 2024 edition of the race set to visit the Alps --> on Sunday this likely will have to go pas tense :)
- changed
- the column headers in the table Classification leadership by stage should all be links, just like the 2012 FA
- Added
- The 2012 FA has links for terms in the Legend table
- Added
- Final general classification (11–109) table width is different from 1-10. Looks broken
- It's because of the longer team names in the 11-109 table, have amended table size so this (and the below text wrapping is fixed)
- + 1 h 00 min 49" --> + 1 h 00 min 49 s
- Fixed
- + 1 h 01 min 01 s --> for me, from here on the text in each row starts wrapping. This could easily be fixed
- As above
- in the young rider table, number 8 has a slower time than number 9?
- Wrong way round! Fixed
- This is just under half the audience of the men's tour --> I would use past tense and give the 2022 year
- Fixed
- The 2012 FA has a section UCI World Tour rankings: does this not exist for the women?
- It does... but the data and sourcing on it is incredibly poor/hard to find. The best I've done in the past is reference who the new leader of the UCI Women's WorldTour is!
That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some comments and fixes made, will come back to this later Turini2 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Edwininlondon believe these are all resolved, or have explanations why I disagree! Turini2 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I had another look at the lead. Found the following:
- make a redirect for 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift
- (officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) --> (officially 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift)
- Various cycling races have been held as an equivalent to the Tour de France for women ... by the public, media, teams, and riders. --> May I suggest a bit tighter paragraph: Starting in 1955, various cycling races for women have been held similar to the Tour de France for men, under different names (for example, Tour de France Féminin, Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, La Course by Le Tour de France). Many of these were one-day races, unlike the three-weeks races for the men. The first edition of Tour de France Femmes followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France. The race drew large crowds, had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams, and riders. And then add the 3 week men's race to the Background section + source.
- (French: maillot jaune) --> I don't see the value of adding this. It is never used again. And no other term is given in French. I would remove it.
- who put in a consistent performance during the first six stages and finished in the top five on both mountain stages --> this is not menioned in the body of the article
- following consistent stage finishes --> Not quite right: if she had been consistently last, she would not have gained many points. Plus where is this mentioned in the body of the article?
- Canyon–SRAM won the team classification --> Canyon–SRAM should not be linked, was already linked
I will have a 2nd run through the body as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most changes made, with some tweaks to lead wording.
- I haven't redirected the race + sponsor name, I didn't think that was the done thing for sporting events - e.g. FA 2008 Japanese Grand Prix does not have a 2008 Formula 1 Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix redirect, FA 2017 EFL Trophy final isn't 2017 Checkatrade Trophy final etc. Turini2 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I read WP:REDIR correctly, there really should be a redirect for this more specific form of the name. Looks like an oversight at the other FAs to me. But I'm happy to let this go. No users will be hurt.
- and to shorter duration --> to does not look right to me
- position she'd maintained --> MOS:CONTRACTIONS
- she'd maintained throughout the race --> this is still not what the body says. Everything in the lead should come from the body. I don't think you need to say this; there is no info in the lead about how number 1 and 2 did throughout the race either.
- following consistent stage finishes --> this is still not what the body says: nothing about Vos in stage 3 or 4. I would rephrase
- and two stage wins in the early part of the race --> stage 6 is not the early part of the race. Plus I only now notice that the section Early stages goes all the way to 6 out of 8. That does not look right.
- first taking place in 1903.[2] It takes place --> repetition
- From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently --> is this really true? From the text it seems there was no race in 1990 and 1991. Nor in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
- took place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[13] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place --> repetition
- with sponsors welcoming --> the previous sentence has the same with ..ing construction, which feels repetitive. Please check the rest as well, as you really seem to favour this construction.
- ASO noted that logistical issues mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> ASO noted that they were unable to stage a men's and women's Tour de France simultaneously due to logistical issues
- The first edition was be held --> grammar
- Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig commenting --see MOS:SAY
- A group of fourteen riders --> above you have All 14, so as per MOS:NUM change one
- Stages 7 and 8 took place in the Vosges --> unlink Vosges
- of climbing including the Grand Ballon --> of climbing, including on the Grand Ballon
- ensuring that the yellow jersey would change hands at the end of the day --> still not right. It does not ensure this.
- the second climb of the day --> now I'm confused: There is the first climb, which is unnamed. Then there is the Petit Ballon, which is a mountain, so should be the 2nd. So isn't Col du Platzerwasel the 3rd climb?
- 3rd place --> MOS:ORDINAL
- remnants of the breakaway --> remnants of the breakaway group
- As I asked above, why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? It seems odd to have a section called Results and recption, and then another section called Classification leadership. The first paragraph of Results and reception and the content in Classification leadership really belong together. I would follow as much as possible what 2012 TdF is doing, and then add a separate Reception section
- Last bit I will check later, asap. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- after finishing in the top five on the first six stages --> the reader will infer that this is the reason to win the award, but that is a bit misleading. I would explain that a jury does it based on x y z, like you now have in the section below (which is why I think these 2 sections should merge). But if you do not want to do that, I would leave it out instead of repeating.
- Her rival Vollering considered that they'd performed --> 2 issues: MOS:CONTRACTION and it is unclear who they is referring to. Is it not simply "she had performed"? Isn't she just talking about herself?
- Worldwide media coverage praised the event,[74][75] with CNN calling the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented --> grammatical issue here, which I would fix this way: Worldwide media coverage praised the event.[74][75] CNN called the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented
- 2024 edition of the race visited the Alps --> 2024 edition visited the Alps
- The climbs were categorised as fourth-, third-, second- or first-category --> earlier you use a different notation: category 4. Consistency is better
- with the more difficult climbs rated lower. --> just be explicit: category 4 being the easiest and category 1 the hardest.
- I would also say something here about with hors catégorie, which was introduced already in the route section, even though there isn't one. This detailed section has all the rules, so might as well add.
- Fourth-category awarded 2 riders, the first with 2 points; with 1 point; third-category awarded 3 riders, the first with 3 points; second-category awarded 4 riders, the first with 5 points; and first-category awarded 6 riders, the first with 10 points. -->MOS:NUM defifintely change the numbers for the riders. Plus there is an error in first bit. I would leave the points numbers. So Category 4 awarded two riders, the first with 2 points, and the second with 1 point; category 3 awarded three riders, the first with 3 points; category 2 awarded four riders, the first with 5 points; and category 1 awarded six riders, the first with 10 points.
- was restricted to riders who under the age of 23 --> apart from the fact this is not grammatical, the source says nées depuis le 1er janvier 2000, and this is how the 2012 FA avoids ambiguity as well.
- The leader wore a white and violet jersey --> In the lead and elsewhere it is pure white.
- yellow number bibs on the back of their jerseys.[88] --> no yellow helmets?
- At the conclusion of the Tour, the jury awards--> why present tense? everything was past tense
- + 1 h 00 min 49 s --> the issue with s was fixed here but now there is a new formatting problem: it sticks out
- over the 8 stages --> MOS:NUM
- France 3, RTVE and SBS --> France 3, RTVE, and SBS
- In France, France 3 --> delink
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
editHi Peacemaker67, some comments:
- "the former Yugoslavia": just "Yugoslavia" would be fine, no?
- yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why is SFSU linked in the lead on second use and not first?
- Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps clarify that The Chetniks was part of the 3 volume series and not a standalone book? I thought so till I read the Biblio section.
- Is "so-called" really needed? We have to be neutral and we already say it was a puppet state. Consider removing in the lead and the body?
- Actually it is necessary in my opinion, as it was named that, but ironically far from independent. Tomasevich himself called it an Italo-German quasi-protectorate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Klaus Schimder, the RMAS lecturer": Use "a" instead of "the"? I'm assuming Schmider was not the only lecturer at the RMAS.
- Yep, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the Mihailović picture be better placed at the start of the World War II subsection?
- Good call, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
- Done. No, Google Books is often wrong about such things, Vucinich was the author of two chapters as well as the editor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to The American Historical Review and Nationalities Papers, as done for other journals?
- Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
- Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
- Excellent point, he was not a military person. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
- Not that I'm aware of. It would be wonderful if Vol 3 was published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for taking a look, Matarisvan. I reckon I might have addressed all your comments. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Matarisvan, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Gog the Mild, I just had one suggestion to add for @Peacemaker67. I think the following categories could be added here:
- Category:Stanford University staff, Category:Harvard University alumni, Category:Yugoslav historians; Category:Yugoslav officials of the United Nations or Category:American officials of the United Nations, whichever one is best suited; Category:Federal Reserve Bank people or Category:Federal Reserve economists, the latter one only if we're sure he was an economist at the Fed, we don't have any details on his role there in the article, if not then the first one works too. Matarisvan (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I forgot these two: Category:ACLS Fellows and Category:People from Palo Alto, California. The last one can be added here as his obituary says he lived in Palo Alto for 48 years. Matarisvan (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to now support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support by Pendright
edit
Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
- Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, [then] part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his [formal] schooling
,[he] earned a doctorate in economicsat[from] the University of Basel in Switzerland.
- Look these changes over
- His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
- after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
- In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
- Why is an not his?
- All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Early life
- Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.[1]
- today?
- Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know when the village became a part of the municipality, and now means at the present time. This is accurate at the present time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- today?
- Nado returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
- Suggest these changes
- In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
- "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
- Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Thank you! Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
- The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother who, by then, was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
- Could drop "other"
- I'm not sure I can. There were two brothers living in Košarni Do, and "other" indicates that this is not the one who received Jozo's share of the farm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could drop "other"
of World War II – and now known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California.
- and then known
- In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
- Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
- Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>He was married in 1937 and moved to the U.S. in 1938? In any case, it's your call.
- Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
- His widow Neda died on July 5, 2002, at 88.[8]
- Is where she died relative?
- I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've added it for completeness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is where she died relative?
Yugoslavia's economy
- The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
- during 1934
- The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
- Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
- which covered
- A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
- and it also
- These all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- and it also
International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants
- The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources
,[that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
- Suggest the above changes
- The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955,
was[and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
- Suggest the above changes
- These are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest the above changes
World War II
- In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
- Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
- The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
- In the context used, what does appeared mean?
- Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
- Replace the comma with "who was a
- The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
- and it
@Peacemaker67: This is it for now. Pendright (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Pendright, I may have addressed all your comments now. Let me know if anything needs tweaking or you see anything else. As always, thanks for your detailed review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker: Supporting - it's always a pleasure working with you. Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Hurricanehink
editI figured I'd review this considering I have an FAC of my own.
- Could you add a caption for the infobox image?
- Other than his name, there is really nothing to add. We don't know when it was taken, photos of him are quite rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Google says Jozo's birthday is March 16, 1908, but there's nothing in this article. Any reason for not including the birth date?
- lack of a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
- I went with "positively received" as "well-received" is used earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
- I think it is important for the lead. T's contribution in this area is key to his impact, and Goldstein is eminent. Given it is an opinion, I have attributed it to him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
- it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "remains unpublished despite being 75 per cent complete at his death." - is there a reason you don't write it as 75%?
- Per MOS:PERCENT, in non-scientific articles either is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You mention Jozo's father's name, but what about mother?
- An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I cannot find a RS for either of their given names, Nado is a nickname, I've clarified the latter and its meaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
- Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have been able to locate a bit more on this period of his life, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" - who said this?
- it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion? I would say it is WP:BLUE. Who would challenge the idea that Harvard has "rich resources"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You mention the siblings, but never by name. Any reason?
- They aren't provided in any RS I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
- I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And a bit more timeframe information from a newly-located source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
- The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've reworded this based on the dates of his Rockefeller fellowship documentation which indicate about when the name change occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- When did Jozo meet Neda Brelić? For a marriage of 57 years, there's very little on that.
- Not known. It appears he was quite reticent about this personal life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "He became an American citizen." - when?
- Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What did Jozo die from?
- Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've responded to a few of the above to clarify what I have been able to add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Joy
editSince the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at Jozo, while we do have one at Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was, but don't have any evidence for my opinion. I'll see if I can find some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, we can leave a note to this effect on the Talk page for later. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
editAs this nomination has been open for five weeks and has yet to garner support, it is liable to be archived in the next few days unless there's a pickup in activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks David. I've been out of town, but have now addressed the first two reviews and have a crack at HH's shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just working through the remaining comments over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Tomobe03
edit- I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
- No, that's a fair call. Have added a better explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife.Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.- Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
- Doh, well spotted, not sure what I did there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958). "Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1). University of Dubrovnik: 52. ISSN 0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Happy to support.Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
editReview to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are two ellipses that should have non-breaking spaces before the ..., per WP:ELLIPSES
- Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead
- "a master of scholarly skills": as this is a quote it should be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE
- Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to your judgement. I suspect that when this hits the front page people may make waves about it, but it's your call. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Early life
- "He became an American citizen": any date on this?
- I wish. No, I had to find an oblique reference to it in a war crimes trial transcript after failing to find a direct source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It feels odd to have a section titled "early life" that ends with his death age 88. Maybe just call the section 'private life' or similar
- Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- That, I think, may be a bit of overkill. Again, I'll leave to to your best judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Legacy
- "a master of scholarly skills – needs a closing quote mark
- Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That's the lot: very minor stuff in a very readable article - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look, SchroCat and sorry about the delay in getting to your comments. See what you think of the above and my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog, I've been hunting a source to try to address a few comments, but will just get on with what I can do now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by RoySmith
editI took a look at some sources:
Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1]
probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
- I think it's a nit. I'm working on the basis of WP:BLUE here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1]
I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
- Yep, I have added citations to the Croatian post office website which details the local government status of these places within the county. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco
. The source says
so I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.
- I've changed wording here, hopefully enough. Also, I've found a ref for a year by which he was definitely using the anglicised name, the Rockefeller fellowship in 1950, and have added that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7]
Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
- Harv footnotes can be shortened for brevity. If you click on it, it takes you to the footnote list and if you click that it takes you to the full citation. There is no requirement for the footnote tag to be the full name of the organisation. I've tweaked the wording and added a citation to the UNRRA that says its HQ was in DC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1]
The source says
This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.
- I get what you are saying, but there are only so many ways to present the same factual information about his work. I have attempted to move it a bit more away from the source formulation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9]
This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
- Not sure what happened there, cited to Vucinich, the citizenship is the only bit that should be cited to the trial case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.
Here's some more:
Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10]
The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
- Fixed, also for his wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12]
This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
- Yes, added a citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1]
The cited source says 1949. WorldCat does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
- Replaced citation with Tomasevich 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16]
The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
- Added a citation from her obit in The Independent which shows her role there at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22]
Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
- This is rather difficult to cite, as I am trying to prove a negative. I'm going to leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Roy, I really must have been tired when I wrote some of this. I will get on to addressing these comments in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi RoySmith, I am assuming that this constitutes a source review? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would call it a source-to-text spot check. I was mostly looking for WP:V issues. If I spotted any copying problems along the way, I brought those up too, but they weren't my main focus. I believe what you're talking about as a "source review" is more about formatting, consistency, and style which you may have noticed by now aren't what excites me, so I'll leave that stuff to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in a quandry how to answer that. The important issues have all be resolved. Some of the items I noted above were nits. I recognize that I let my personal preferences show through in a few places and agree that WP:FACR has been satisfied in all of those instances.
- Where the quandry comes in is that if the spot-check is supposed to be a statistical sampling, I'd have to say that I found more problems in my sample that I should have, and since I restricted my sample to those sources that were available to me on line, it's reasonable to ask whether the sources that were not available to me would also have the same failure rate. I hesitate to speak for @Jo-Jo Eumerus, but it sounds like he agrees with me on that.
- So, let me propose that @Peacemaker67 take some time to review the sources on his own, and when he tells me he's satisfied they're in good shape, I'll pick 5 more at random, concentrating on those that are not available to me on-line and ask him to send me scans (or whatever) and I'll verify those. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is very reasonable. Give me a few days to check everything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's sound logic. When a sample of 10 out of e.g 100 sources shows that 7 sources have problems, that implies that of the 100 sources about 70 might have problems and thus all 100 need to be reviewed. That said, when evaluating offline sources I've found that asking the nominator to send screenshots or photos of the source by email or Google Drive usually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Status on this, Peacemaker67? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Working, nearly done. Give me 24-48 hours and I'll be ready for Roy to take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. My hope is that I don't find any problems, and if it takes a bit of extra time to get to that point, that's still a win as far as I'm concerned. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- G'day RoySmith. I reckon I might have got through it all now, sorry for the delay. I made a few changes where the wording might have been a bit close to the original, even to my German translations, so hopefully all will be well. I also added a few closer citations and deleted a sentence fragment that seemed superfluous. If you can't access any of the sources, please ping me and I'll email them to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll work on this in the next few days. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67 OK, partly done; no significant issues found so far. Could you send me Violich 1998 and Sanders 1956? RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll work on this in the next few days. RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- G'day RoySmith. I reckon I might have got through it all now, sorry for the delay. I made a few changes where the wording might have been a bit close to the original, even to my German translations, so hopefully all will be well. I also added a few closer citations and deleted a sentence fragment that seemed superfluous. If you can't access any of the sources, please ping me and I'll email them to you. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. My hope is that I don't find any problems, and if it takes a bit of extra time to get to that point, that's still a win as far as I'm concerned. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Working, nearly done. Give me 24-48 hours and I'll be ready for Roy to take another look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review with caveat
editI'll do the consistency-and-reliability check, but given what RoySmith found above, another spotcheck or general source-to-text integrity check is necessary IMO. Anyhow, #20 is throwing a harv error. I am not sure that academic publications need a retrieval date. It seems like we are mostly dealing with sound academic publications here, although I am not deeply familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- harv error fixed. Had left ref=no in the template when I copied to to the refs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a not-quite shield volcano in Argentina. It is not a particularly remarkable volcano, other than the fact that it was discovered from space imagery and that it is a large volcano in the wider Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Replaced link, although I don't remember which options I chose on the webpage to find the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
editNon-expert prose review.
- No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
- In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
- Infobox checked and no concerns.
Lede check:
- "Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
- Put "South America" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
- Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
MyCat
edit- Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- For some reason the coords of the highest point aren't showing for me- it's just blank next to "Coordinates"
- Mm, they do show for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weird then- guess my viewer is just being odd MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
- There is more than one elevation estimate - these mountains aren't frequently mapped and measured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
- Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
- That makes it more difficult to source a specific part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Efn c doesn't really make sense to me- clarify with some geology knowledge perhaps?
- Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- They run mostly to the east - I'd avoid using "they" since multiple objects are mentioned in the previous sentence
- Quebrada Cienago[d], - put efn outside of comma
- That makes it look like a citation, which this efn isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
- Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like a lot of the first three paras of "Geology" are about the CVZ, not specifically about the Cerro Panizos- how is Panizos relevant here?
- Aye, that's contextual information as Panizos is part of the APVC and CVZ so a lot of this is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
- I got the opposite impression - older date first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
- Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's all I got- I also split the sources list into two columns so it doesn't take up as much space (feel free to revert if you oppose). Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense then- happy to support! Also, I need a source review on an FAC nom of my own, and would appreciate one if you get any time. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy
edit- Introduction
- "it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
- "Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
- No, I don't think so? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Geography and geomorphology
- "The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
- "surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
- "Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
- "The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
- "The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
- Hydrology and human geography & history
- "Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
- Climate, flora and fauna
- "The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
- Geology
- "reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
- Used a different formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Neogene-Quaternary volcanic rocks". I'm not sure but I think the hyphen should be an en dash here.
- Not sure myself, so leaving this for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Lascar is the most active of them". Maybe swap "is" with "being"?
- "The largest assembly of volcanoes in the CVZ is the 70,000 square kilometres". 70,000-square-kilometre (27,000 sq mi).
- "Within the crust under the APVC is the Altiplano-Puna Magmat Body". Magmat → Magma.
- "At 9–31 kilometres (5.6–19.3 mi) depth". 9–31-kilometre (5.6–19.3 mi).
- "One northeast-southwest trending line". En dash.
- "Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
- Geochronology
- "Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
- "Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
- The Puna region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "With the bulk dating to the late Miocene to Pliocene". I think the first "to" should be changed to "from".
- "Tara and Puripicar Ignimbrites". I'm not sure if "ignimbrites" should be capitalized here.
- I think in these cases we do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
- "Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
- Composition
- "And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
- "Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
- Probably, but the sources don't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eruption history
- "12.4 million years old Cusi Cusi ignimbrite". 12.4-million-year-old.
- "It is the source of two major ignimbrites: The first". I'm not sure if there should be a capital letter after the colon.
- I think it should. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
- "The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
- "The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
- "The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
- "Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.
That's all I've got. Volcanoguy 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done save as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Going to note here for @FAC coordinators: that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. By the way, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is still in need of a source review. Volcanoguy 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
editComing up. —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nice consistent sfn formatting.
- Ahumada 2010: this is not "via ResearchGate" (no link is given), and has incomplete bibliographical data (missing volume/page numbers). Journal is here: [27], and our article is at Número 13 -> Articulos -> [28]. (Same as [29]). The ISSN leads to a non-working search, but I guess that is beyond our control here.
- It is from this webpage; in these cases I say "via ResearchGate". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then why don't you link this as URL if it is your actual source? You are basically saying "hey, you can find this on ResearchGate but you'll have to search for it yourself".
- It is from this webpage; in these cases I say "via ResearchGate". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Burgoa 2007: remove "1ed". Why OCLC instead of ISBN? Missing publisher and location.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I figure it's the bot who added it. The author is reliable and there is actually a publisher given. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad.
- Coira 1993 does not actually have a ResearchGate link given; is there a web link / ISBN / ISSN / OCLC?
- Here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still missing in the article.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still missing in the article.
- Here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Prettify bibliographic data for Coira et al. 2004
- Sorry, what does "prettify" mean here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
- No, that was a typo. Current version isn't pretty but it's accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
- Sorry, what does "prettify" mean here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- DeSilva 1991: Volume 220 of what? ISBN?
- Swapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Echevarria 1963: what do you mean by the page numbers in the sfn? Should probably reference the paper version?
- The PDF version, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (this journal).
- Yes, added this info. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (this journal).
- The PDF version, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gorustovich 2011: incomplete bibliographic data (editor, publisher, location?) From this book?
- Seems like, so added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Guzman 2017 needs a language tag.
- Jujuy: this is a bit muddled,
|trans-title=
translates the wrong thing?- Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You could fake it:
|series=Zona de seguridad de fronteras y áreas de desarrollo de frontera [Border security zone and development areas]
- You could fake it:
- Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which URLs have
|url-access=
parameters?- None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some have
|hdl-access=
though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.- This is another bot thing. I confess that in many cases I am not sure what the right parameter is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some have
- None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mazzoni 1989: This seems a better link than "via ResearchGate".
- It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
- Then link the page you used.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then link the page you used.
- It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
- Ort 1989 does not have a ResearchGate link, do you mean [30]?
- Ort 1993 is not "via ResearchGate", and neither is Salisbury 2011.
- Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how
|via=
is supposed to be used. - Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how
- Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
- Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You could get rid of
|format=pdf
to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.
- You could get rid of
- Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- A few answers above. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I won't hold it against the article that OAbot has randomly added some green unlock symbols. Other things are consistent now, so the source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs
editLook for comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
- Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
- Did that small rewrite, but I'll caution that I am not that great at spotting terms that need to be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
- Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
- No; would it make sense to only keep the elevation of the highest dome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- No; would it make sense to only keep the elevation of the highest dome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Cerro San Matias borders Panizos to the north" — I assume these are other volcanos or at least mountains, but it's never clarified.
- "The only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs. " consists, surely?
- "Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
- "During the 21st century, ongoing uplift was discovered at Uturuncu" - what does this mean? Is it indicative of something?
- It probably signals the entry of new magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Both rocks define a peraluminous potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." - don't know what rocks "define".
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not particularly. Jo-Jo and I disagree on the crit1 stuff and outside additional feedback on that point I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
editSome comments from a brief non-expert pass through this.
a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano
- But not a shield volcano, I assume? It trips me up a little bit. I'm sure there are only so many ways to describe a broad and sloping volcanic complex, though.Incapillo is one of several ignimbrite or caldera systems that, along with 44 active stratovolcanoes, are part of the CVZ.
- When I read this I struggled to understand the relevance. Is "Incapillo" supposed to be "Cerro Panizos"? Or is Incapillo related to Cerro Panizos beyond them both being part of the CVZ? If so, that could use more explanation + a link to Incapillo.- Throughout the article
Panizos ignimbrite
andPanizos Ignimbrite
are used interchangeably. I would pick one version of the capitalization and run with it if I'm not misinterpreting those as referring to the same thing.
— Penitentes (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, not a shield volcano as these are defined as flat volcanoes formed by lava flows. Incapillo seems like a copypaste error. Standardized the spelling, save for the image as it's more descriptive there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: is it OK if I ping some participants in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1? This is rather slow-moving, and I think we need outside views on the disagreement between me and David above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see why not. FrB.TG (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
SC Coming here because I was pinged. Just looking at the discussion above first, my opinion is below, but I'll come back for a more complete review shortly.
Looking at it from the point of an ignorant reader (which I really am with these things), I do find some of the notes/bits of blue a little distracting. Partly it's because of where they are placed. Having them after Cerro Panizos and Cerro Panizos is part of the issue – maybe moving them to the end of the sentence may be more helpful. If you combine the refs using the {{sfnm}} template to slim down the number of blue digits at the end of the sentence to leave one number and the note, it would make it a bit more manageable. Thus:
Header text | Header text | Header text |
---|---|---|
Cerro Panizos[a] lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[5][6] | becomes | Cerro Panizos lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[7][b] |
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[9][10][11] | becomes | Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[12][d] |
Using a range conversion would also work, so the above | becomes | Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-to-5,494-metre (17,152–18,025 ft)-high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle. [12][e] |
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
|
It just makes the whole sentence easier to scan through without tripping over the note at the beginning and without losing any references. Having several sentences with big clusters of numbers at the end of them does stand out a lot - there are three with three citations in that section that stand out a bit. Just my opinion and others may see it all differently. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed some of these footnotes and also applied sfnm to the multiple cites; how does it look? Kind of a shame that sfnm needs the entire 1a1 thing, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from RoySmith
editJust a few random ideas to improve readability:
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) ...
Can you just say "approximately 5300-meter (xxx ft)" and then have a footnote which details the various values given by the three sources?(often ephemeral[20])
I think the style guide prefers the citation after the paren.- Bit concerned that then people will assume the reference applies to the content before the parenthese too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel your pain on that one. RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
most days of the year have frosts
I'd drop "of the year", and it probably makes more sense to say "most nights" rather than "most days".Animals include ... Birds include
Birds are animals. Also, I find the long multi-level list ("the large guanacos, llamas, tarucas and vicuñas,[33] the smaller chinchillas, vizcachas and numerous mice genera, and the carnivorous Andean mountain cats, cougars, culpeos, Pampas cats and South American gray foxes") difficult to read. It's partly that it's long and partly that some of the "and"s go with different levels. You've got a similar problem in the next sentence. One "and" joins "Andean fmaingos", "Chilean flamingos", with "James's flamingos. The other "and" joins "flamingos", "geese", "rheas", and "ducks". You have to read with care to parse it properly.- Did a recast, but I am not sure it solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
a giant pile of rock-magma mush
is "mush" a technical word?- Yes, but it means pretty much the same as colloquial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
9–31-kilometre
I suppose this is technically correct, but the juxtaposition of the en-dash and the hyphen looks funny.- Probably, but I confess that endash/hyphen are among the things I am less familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
up to a billion years old,[59] but it reached its present-day thickness only during the late Cenozoic
for those of us who are not geologists, it would help to give some context to "late Cenozoic". Is that not quite a billion years ago, or half a billion, or a tiny fraction of a billion?- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
one northeast-–southwest trending line
you've got a double-hyphen; I think you want some flavor of longer dash.- Is this where one uses an en dash? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
with several recognizable "flare-ups"
why the scare quotes?- Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's it; just a few things I spotted on a quick read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)