Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2019

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Featured log
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2019 [1].

London Beer Flood

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The London Beer Flood is something of a footnote to a footnote of history, even for London.one of the massive vats used to ferment porter burst sending a 15-ft tidal wave through the back wall of the brewery and into one of the London slums. It killed eight and hospitalised others. The brewery was situated in the centre of London, on the corner of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links, dablinks and redirects are fine.

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

How could I resist?

  • Do you fancy adding Alt text?
  • "rebate from HM Excise on the spilled beer" "spilled" seems inappropriate.
  • "The brewery moved away from the area in 1921" "away from the area" seems redundant.
  • "Why does note b convert to the nearest 10,000 units, and c and e to the nearest hundred? Especially as c is dealing with a larger base volume.
  • "Porter was left in the large tuns" Vat suddenly becomes tun for one mention only. An unusual word which may confuse readers, and led at least one, ahem, to think of the unit of volume, the tun of eight barrels.
  • "several hogsheads of porter" Any chance of a footnoted or inline (my preference) explanation of the volume of a hogshead?
  • "Crick said that hoops on the vats burst three or four times a year" This is the first mention of a hoop bursting; previously there has been a hoop slipping, and the vessel bursting. Is there any consensus, or even published lack of, as to what the point of structural failure was?
  • "As a result of the accident, large wooden tanks were phased out." It may be worth expanding this a little, as you do in the lead, to clarify that this was across the whole industry. Also, any idea of the timescale over which this happened?

That's all I have. Very good. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hot beer, rather than hot water... ——SerialNumber54129 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Gog. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

edit

An enjoyable read overall. I had so few comments beyond things already mentioned that I resolved half of them myself as simple copy edits (although as always you are free to take exception to those as well), so here's all that remain.

Lead:

  • "The resulting tidal wave" – The flood doesn't match any of the literal definitions of 'tidal wave', but using the term figuratively to describe something that was a literal wave seems confusing, so I'd just say "The resulting wave".
  • The direct quotation of "casually, accidentally and by misfortune" should be cited, even in the lead.

17 October 1814:

  • "The volume of liquid and its force destroyed the rear wall of the brewery" – I would think that it was purely the force of the liquid that destroyed the wall.

I look forward to (presumably) supporting this for FA. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks done
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: No issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources meet the requisite FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I am much obliged to you. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by caeciliusinhorto

edit

Support. Good work as ever by Schro, I reviewed this at PR and a second look through finds no further problems. Prose is all fine, images are clearly out-of-copyright, and sources are reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again Caeciliusinhorto - your thoughts at PR and here are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Sorry to have missed the PR; here are my comments.

  • If you mention in the second paragraph that the industry stopped using wooden vats, then you might want to mention in the first that the ruptured vats were wooden.
  • "The resulting wave of porter destroyed the back wall of the brewery and swept into the St Giles rookery, an area of slum-dwellings." I would reverse the ending "and swept into an area of slum-dwellings known as the St Giles rookery." The readers will likely not have heard of the area, and why distract them by puzzling them, if only briefly?
  • As you mention a 20th century move for the brewery, it might be worth mentioning whether the firm is still in business.
  • "Liquor-Pond Street (now Clerkenwell Road)" shame that.
I know- the original is so much better! -SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known what type of vats replaced the wooden ones? And were they widespread? You only mention those owned by father and son Meux.
That's about it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt: all duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I raise a glass of porter to ... er, never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I took part in the peer review, and my (few and minor) quibbles were dealt with then. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. I did momentarily wonder if the juxtaposition of brewers and liquidation was entirely felicitous, but it's the right word when all's said and done. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment from Reywas92
Excellent spot, Reywas92. It should have been in there originally, but now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2019 [2].

Rock parrot

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cute little parrot that has not been much-studied...meaning it is a shorter article than many bird articles. Still, I have scoured sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Comment away and I will address pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll have a look soon, but as usual I've looked for some additional images which might be considered. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image might show it feeding more clearly?[3]
  • This image shows the underparts more clearly, and the blue seems to be more popping:[4]
got 'em. the last is good as it is a photo of the other subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, didn't realise that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a bunch of duplinks.
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in whether you list scientific names or not.
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't give a date for the synonym.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Subspecies zietzi was described" What does that name mean?
no idea. presumably eponymous. will look more, nothing turned up yet Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Calliostoma zietzi from Australia, so I assume Zietz is some person? Amandus Heinrich Christian Zietz could fit the bill. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jobling names Amandus Heinrich Christian Zietz here on an open access part of the HBW site - but in bird articles we generally don't specify the etymology of subspecies names. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that any kind of standard, tough? In my experience, it's mainly just because subspecies etymologies usually can't be found when asked for, so in this case if we have it, and there are only two subspecies, it would seem like an oversight... But in something with like ten subspecies, where only a few have etymologies we can find, it would seem inconsistent to add only some. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OD by Mathews here - Aa77zz (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was genuinely intrigued by this so have added. thx for digging up! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has paler and more yellowish plumage overall, though is of a similar size. Its plumage darkens with wear, and may be indistinguishable from the nominate subspecies when old" I would expect this info under description?
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Euphema now? Doesn't seem to have an article.
deprecated - synonym for Neophema Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Immature males and females closely resemble adults" Why specify their sexes when you already mentioned the sexes are alike?
to make it clear? will change Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems unclear if the subspecies are found in different areas?
Tried to clarify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coloration" Colour? I guess Australian is like UK English in most regards?
just made it 'plumage' anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "maybe a more desirable specimen" May be?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the population worldwide is decreasing" Seems an odd way to put it,l as it doesn't have a worldwide distribution?
good point. Tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "historically reported that nests were found to contain" Reported that nests were historically found to contain"?
actually I just removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Cakile maritima). chenopod species include" Capitalise chenopod at start of new sentence?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two subspecies are recognised." I wonder if it would be good to name both here? It may not be obvious to most regular readers that one subspecies is obviously N. petrophila petrophila as the nominate, a name not mentioned anywhere in the article.
tweaked - see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

edit

Looks good with little to quibble about

  • range mentioned twice in lead. Consider mentioning that they mostly breed on islands.
rejigged and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvadori - first page is 569
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the nests sites in the difficultly accessed positions." grammar
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two subspecies are recognised." - perhaps cite ioc here as HBW and Forshaw 2006 Parrots of the World do not recognise zietzi.
reffed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "24 to 25 mm long by 19 to 20 mm (1.0 by 0.8 in) wide." - conversion is odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gilbert's Noongar guides" - Noongar would need a link - but Noongar guides are not mentioned in cited source.
now this is tricky. The indigenous people of the Perth area were/are the Noongar. But you are right in that it is not in the reference. I guess I could say "local", "local native", "indigenous", "local indigenous".....changed to the last. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do they have a second brood?
yes. mentioned near the end of para 4 in Breeding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would prefer the use of the definite article before "English ornithologist", "collector John Gilbert", "Italian ornithologist" and "Biologist Donald Brightsmith" but it's your choice. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added to three of them. Struck my as a bit laboured before "collector". Thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Chris857

edit

"The coloration of this Neophema species, is duller than others" - remove the comma? Chris857 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removed 07:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • more yellowish (x2) — yellower seems more natural
hmmm, it's more that they are a yellowish olive rather than proper yellow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • feral predators —feral mammals?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • common at cliff faces at offshore islands —I’d replace one or both "ats" with "on"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is one of four classified in the subgenus —missing "species"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The legs and feet are dark grey, with a pink tinge on the soles and rear of tarsus.[12] —the tarsus, or tarsi
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They then moult into adult plumage after twelve months of age.[13] — after… of age looks wrong
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Success rates in the wild are unknown —Breeding…
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daisy species seed consumed —Daisy species’ seeds consumed
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Differentiating the genders —sexes
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, now the alt text of the last three images shows up as the main caption? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Happy to pick up the SR on this one - not least because there aren't so many! Shall be done later today. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 2, Gould - a couple of things here. Any reason you don't link Gould, as you do Liddell etc. below? The date of the meeting is 1840, but the pub. date is given as 1841. Is this right?
no. linked and correct. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 3, 6 and 13 use 10-digit ISBNs while 12 and 26 use the 13-digit format. I think consistency is preferred.
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 4 - You list this as E. Gould, J. Gould and H. C. Richter, but the link gives only Gould, who is listed as the author (singular). Worldcat also appears to have it thus, [5]. What am I missing? Also, does it need a publication location - London, United Kingdom, to match Source 5?
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 5, Salvadori - the pages the link takes me to are pp. 574-575, and these appear to be those that cover the Neophema petrophila. Not sure why the cite is giving pp. 569, 575? Although 569 is the page on which the section on Neophema starts, in which case, should it be pp = 569-575?
569 has no real info so removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 10, Jobling, J. A., J. A. - is the repetition of "J. A." intended?
no. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 13 to 21 - could these be grouped more simply as Higgins (1999) pp=549-554?
the pages are large and the information extremely dense and difficult to navigate - the exact page makes it alot easier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 25, CITES - I appreciate CITES is the title used on Wiki, but it threw me, not least because I first thought it related to Cite. Perhaps in full for clarity, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora?
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have spot-checked all of the on-line sources, all of which check out.
  • Coverage - birds are by no means my area of expertise, but the coverage seems scholarly and comprehensive.
  • A query - nothing to do with the Sources, but I'm puzzled by why this cute parrot is classified as being of Least Concern in conservation terms. With only 16 recorded as recently as 2017, it would seem pretty concerning to me! KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ummm that would be the orange-bellied parrot not this one that has 17 individuals left.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - all good. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [6].

Fred Keenor

edit
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about footballer Fred Keenor. A Welsh International with more than 30 caps, he spent his entire club career with Cardiff City and was captain of the 1927 FA Cup final winning side, the only team from outside England to lift the trophy. I received some excellent points at a previous peer review but was unable to attract much attention when I nominated it the first time. Hopefully this time will prove more fruitful. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eric Corbett

edit

I remember Fred from the peer review I think it must have been. I look forward to reading about him again, and being able to support this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read through this article again I believe that it meets the FA criteria. One of the things I admire about Fred is that although he wasn't a terribly gifted footballer, he made up for his shortcomings with grit and determination. Thanks to Kosack for writing this. Eric Corbett 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

I read this at Peer Review, and it got a good going-over from Eric and TRM. Has been tightened nicely and I think we're there comprehensiveness and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

edit

While carrying out a sources review, I read the "Personal life" section and found it somewhat confusing. The second paragraph says: "Following his retirement from football, he found it difficult to find work due to his ill-health and it became increasingly hard to earn money", but this is contradicted later, by "After leaving football, Keenor worked as a builder's labourer for many years, waking up in the early hours ... " etc. Also, as few dates are provided, there is no indication as to when the various events described happened, e.g. the fundraising efforts, the long spell in hospital, the move to Lamberhurst, the corner shop, the work in the petrol refinery, joining and leaving the Territorials, etc. They can't, surely, all have happened in the short period between Keenor's retirement from football in February 1937 and the outbreak of war in September 1939? The next date we have is for the move to Cardiff, in 1958, so I imagine that at least some of these events relate to the postwar period. We need some chronological clarity covering the years between 1937 and 1958.

I will post a sources review shortly. Although I haven't been generally checking prose, I think "found it difficult to find" is perhaps a little clumsy. Also, I suggest the sentence "He returned to Cardiff with his wife in 1958, working as a store man in the building department of Cardiff Corporation" needs rephrasing: "where he worked as" rather than "working as", and "store man" is an odd description – perhaps one word, or use the term given in the link. Do we know how long this employment lasted, given that he was 64 in 1958? The next date we have is 1967. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He initially found it hard to work but, as the text states, he moved to Lamberhurst to recuperate so he eventually did return to some form of health. I've added a bit more info now, the shopkeeper spell coincided with his time at Tunbridge Wells who were an amateur side so this actually starts in 1935. The terrortorials would have been part-time I imagine so he would of been able to continue working alongside his role there and there is a leaving date from the terrortorials in June 1939. The petrol refinery may have been post-war as the source I have states in a sort of summary section that begins "While he lived in the area" and goes on to say "In later years he would also find work in a petrol refinery in nearby Hove". This is a bit ambigious but, given the close time frame you mention, perhaps this could be more likely post-war and could be moved further down? Kosack (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you've done, but still find parts of this section problematic. I think part of the problem lies with the phrase "Following his retirement from professional football", which I took to mean after his spells in non-league football as player-manager with Oswestry and Tunbridge Wells, but it seems that you mean after his retirement from league football; it might be as well to clarify this. There's also the question of what happened to him after the war until 1958, when he returned to Cardiff – are there no details covering this period? And, as I pointed out earlier, he was 64 in 1958, yet now we learn that after working as a storeman for Cardiff Corporation, he "worked as a builder's labourer for several years, waking up in the early hours each morning to catch a lift in a newspaper delivery van before walking the remaining five miles to the site". Blimey, how old was the poor chap to still be doing heavy work on a building site? Especially with his history of diabetes. Maybe the sources are muddled or unclear, but it would be nice if we could have a little more clarity on some of these points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed that the player-manager spells were causing some confusion which is why I added "professional" in after this to try and signify that. I've added in a further refinement to hopefully make it clearer. Unfortunately, details of his post-war life are rather scarce, other than basic job descriptions, there's not much information available. Even his biography only has a handful of pages between the war and his death. Kosack (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I've managed to dig out the source for the labourer's role and it seems I did get the information the wrong way round. It seems it was the space between wartime and his return to Cardiff, so I've amended the text there. Kosack (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it makes a lot more sense now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Verification: I carried out a number of spotchecks on the sources. Mostly, OK, just a few issues:
  • Ref 12a: "He joined Cardiff City as the club was looking to establish itself as a professional football team having joined the newly formed Second Division of the Southern Football League two years earlier". Where is this information given in the source?
"the club made the move to professionalism inevitable, and Cardiff City was admitted to the Second Division of the Southern League in 1910". I can add further sourcing if required. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50: this sources says "it is not known if Keenor himself asked for a move", which contradicts what you have in the article: "he handed in a transfer request"
Good spot, I'm not sure why they say that because I believe it's widely known he asked for it. I've added two sources that specifically support him asking for it. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 85: What in the source supports the statement in the article: "After returning from his war service, Keenor met Muriel Mary Griffiths"?
Ref 84 supports everything apart from her middle name, which ref 85 contains. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links:
  • Ref 41: link returns "page not found"
  • As does ref 42
Cardiff City moved their website to a new format last week and this appears to have wiped the links out. Recovered them by archiving now. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67 goes to a different page
Removed. The following ref covers the information anyway. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other links to sources are working correctly
  • Formats
  • Ref 10 requires page number
Done, I've added it in the bibliography now because I've used it in more than one location now. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19: something odd about the page range - Fixed
  • Ref 55 requires subscription template
The ref already uses the url-access parameter and returns an error message if I include subscription as well. Kosack (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: page references required
  • I don't actually possess this source, it was already included on the page before I started working on it. I think I could cover the information with my own sources if that would be preferable? Kosack (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 75: You should use the title given in the source - Done
  • Ref 81: you could add page no (174) which would help if the available preview changes - Done
  • Stick to one format for 13-digit ISBNs (compare e.g 35, 37 with 81). Likewise with the 10-digit version – compare in the bibliography Davis & Garland, Grandin, with Lloyd and Shepherd - Done
  • In the bibliography, for Johnes you should include volume and issue nos (17, 1 according to the item description) - Done
  • Be consistent in the inclusion or omission of publisher locations -Added
  • Quality/reliability
  • Ref 47: facupfinals.co.uk: what makes this a high quality reliable source? - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I'll hopefully get through all these over the weekend. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I've replied to all of the comments above and fixed most of them. One or two, including the comments section, have further comments. Kosack (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size -Removed
  • Not sure we need two images of the same statue
Happy to remove if you think it's necessary, although the article would be quite sparse image-wise without it. Kosack (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the uploader, hopefully @Beatpoet: can answer this one. Kosack (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

General point: there are eleven uses of "however" in the article, which is probably nine or ten too many. As a rule of thumb they shouldn't normally be at the start of sentence, much less a para, and these can be struck without any loss. Most of the others can also go without problem.

IB
  • The two refs for full name and DoB in the IB are not needed – the info is sourced in the body
1914–15 season
  • "at Ninian Park": I think you need to say this is Cardiff's home ground
  • "15 of the Bluebirds' next 18 matches": you've not said anywhere that Cardiff's nickname is the Bluebirds.
Return
  • "semifinal" -> semi-final
1926-27
  • "Keenor came close": "he" would be fine (and cut the 'however' too)
Personal
  • "Supporters of his former club Cardiff City": we don't need "his former club"

That's my lot: I hope it helps. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks very much for taking a look. I've fixed all of the issues you listed above. I also removed all but one of the howevers as well. Kosack (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [7].

Wittelsbach-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships; these were the first vessels built under the direction of Alfred von Tirpitz, though they were repeats in many respects of the earlier Kaiser Friedrich III class. They were outdated by the outbreak of World War I and saw limited duty in the North and Baltic Seas before being withdrawn from service in early 1916. This article passed a Milhist A-class review in April (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and with one exception, I believe it meets the FA criteria. The area I think is lacking is the structure/flow in the Design section. I suggest the following changes:

  • All good up to "... the chief constructor." Put a para break here.
    • Done
  • Delete the next sentence, as it is covered in the first sentence of the third para, which is the right place for the statement
    • I've reworked the whole section based in part on this, and some redundancy about the KCA-related changes - see how it reads to you now.
  • in the second para, talk only about the various things that were considered, not the things that actually were done, drop "Although" from the new first sentence of this para, and move the link to Kaiser Friedrich III class to the sentence beginning "Konteradmiral..."
    • See above
  • in the third para, cover all the actual "as-built" differences between the previous class and this, including the decision on the secondary guns proposal, additional TT, the Krupp cemented armor (talk about this in one sentence with the improved defensive capabilities and more extensive belt) and the resultant weight saving, the more powerful engines/increased power and speed, and the deck differences
    • As above
  • then a fourth para, along these lines "In summary, the Wittelsbach design represented incremental improvements over the Kaiser Friedrich III class. The incremental nature of the changes resulted in two classes of battleships that were in most important respects identical, providing the German fleet with a tactically homogeneous group of ten battleships.
    • Also reworked - I think this works better earlier, when discussing the incremental changes to the armament.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, significantly better than my suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit

Image review


Comments Support

edit
  • "The Wittelsbach design incorporated incremental improvements ... protected by a more extensive armored belt. ... received more powerful engines and were slightly faster" - isn't this the same thing as the para right above it? Or is this some additional change late in the design stage? Shouldn't this para start with "They also differed from..."
    • I've rewritten this section based on your and PM's comments - see how it reads now
  • "moderate seas. The ships..." para split here, two different topics.
    • Done
  • "were manually operated.[12][14] The ships' gun armament" and here.
    • Done
  • "The entire length of belt was backed by 100 mm of teak planking" as additional armor? or some other reason?
    • Good question - I've never seen an explanation for why teak was retained in the hulls of ships of the era - my assumption is that the early steels (up to the adoption of KC steel with these ships) were brittle and the teak was kept to add a measure of flexibility to contain spalling (which was the point of the KC process - face hardening the steel but retaining the greater flexibility of non-hardened steel to reduce spalling).
      • I've not seen a good reason either, but I'm fairly certain that it has something to do with helping to get the armor plates mounted as it's not used anywhere but behind the main armor belt. Maybe as a smooth backing for the plates to be installed against?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "launched in 1867. The other" - para break.
    • I don't think one is needed here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maury. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats:
  • Ref 31: it would be helpful to include in the citation that the two sections are within Part V of the Treaty as shown in the Wikisource link
  • Otherwise, no format issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • In the infobox "12,798 t (12,596 long tons)" Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • Link admiral.
    • Done
  • Is there a link for the Naval Law of 1898?
    • Added
  • the new ships' defensive capabilities.[5][6][2] Reorder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • to displace 11,774 metric tons (11,588 long tons) with Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • Pipe German Navy to the Imperial German Navy.
    • Done
  • that each produced 230 kilowatts (310 PS) at 74 volts Link PS.
    • This is already linked in the metric horsepower figure
  • These guns fired armor-piercing shells at a rate Link armor-piercing.
    • Done
  • making visits to mainland Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Add Portugal here.
    • Done
  • Pipe both German in the lead and Germany in the body to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • Link Treaty of Versailles.
    • Done
  • used as a training ship in an effort to modernize Remove "in an effort".
    • Done
  • The other ships' peacetime careers generally consisted of routine fleet Add a "the" before "routine"
    • Done
  • the joint Army–Navy attack on I think we're using the wrong hyphen here. I believe we should not use a dash here.
    • Removed
  • the ships were reduced to training ships with the exception of Mecklenburg Remove "with the exception of" and replace it with "except for".
    • Done
  • Zähringen was initially used as a storage I think we can remove the "a" here.
    • No, that work work here - "used as storage hulk" doesn't make grammatical sense.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Don't forget to change your header to support if you're satisfied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [8].

Megabat

edit
Nominator(s): Enwebb (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a superfamily of bats containing one family, Pteropodidae. I believe this should be a featured article having undergone extensive scrutiny at the GA level as well as a recent copy-edit from the GOCE. This is my first FAC and I look forward to participating in this process. Enwebb (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
Lead
  • I know this about the megabat, but we repeat the word five times in the first para. Is there some synonym that can be used ("They" or "the species" (if that's not right taxonomically speaking, "family" or whatever is correct))?
Taxonomy
  • "they proposed": who is "they"? You've referred to a 2001 study, so technically it should be "it proposed", but "The study's authors" or their names would be better
  • "Two superfamilies": piped link to Superfamily (taxonomy)?
  • "undergone changes recently": I'm not sure we need "recently" – this will age fairly quickly

Done to the start of Biology and ecology: more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the henipavirus map
    • scaled up
  • File:Macroglosus_minimus_3.jpg: don't see this at the given source, and those images that do appear at that source have a different license to this image
    • I looked at the wayback machine and it has a file Macroglossus minimus on the page in 2016. [9] Unfortunately the image itself has not been archived. I'm not sure what the best course of action is in this scenario. What are your thoughts? Enwebb (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That actually presents more of a problem. The licensing on the present-day page would be allowed here; the licensing on that archive link would not. It appears that the government copyright exemption applies only at the level of the federal government and agencies, not at the municipality level, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Melanesia-kart.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
    • I'm not sure, but is that necessary? If it a map with Africa shaded in and said it was a map of Africa, would that need a source? Not trying to be facetious, I'm genuinely curious if a source is necessary in this instance. Enwebb (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you pulled a random world map off of Google Images and put a circle around the continent of Africa, I don't need a source for the identification of Africa - but I would want to see one for where the map came from. That is absent here. Additionally, most people know where Africa is, but not so for Melanesia, particularly not for the specific shape of the region. Compare for example our article on the subject, where the region is mapped in two different ways based on different criteria/sources. Actually unless there's a reason to use this specific map I'd suggest using the UN Geoscheme one from the Melanesia article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Pteropus_subniger.png: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • Hi, god to see it here, will read soon. Some initial stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[12]
    • Some intentional overlinking consistent with MOS:DUPLINK, which permits duplinks in image captions and stand-alone/embedded lists. Many of the duplinks highlighted by the script are a result of the embedded list, #List of genera. I'll go through again and make sure that there aren't duplinks outside of these circumstances, though.
Yes, as far as I know that script ignores image captions entirely, and ignores repetition form the intro to the article body? But yes, the only concern was duplinks in the main text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to ignore captions. It's saying that "straw-colored fruit bat" and "Wahlberg's epauletted fruit bat" are duplinked in the text, for example, but the only other time they're linked is in the captions. Enwebb (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually don't see those links highlighted, sure you're using the script I linked and not the older version (which does not discriminate as well)? FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be inconsistent in whether you place the scientific names after common names parentheses or not.
    • Fixed
  • "within the now-defunct order Fructivorae" What else did the oprder contain?
    • A defunct family containing one defunct genus, but I added it
  • "and was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"" I think this should be immediately followed by who did this change, as in moving the following up: "French biologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte was the first to use the corrected spelling Pteropodidae in 1838".
    • rearranged
  • Alternate names should only be bolded in the intro, not the article body.
    • It is my understanding of MOS:BOLD that that is acceptable ("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.")
  • "As of 2011, there were 186 described species of megabat,[6] around a third of which are flying foxes of the genus Pteropus.[7]" Not sure why current view should be stated that early in the taxonomy section, which should probably get the historical taxonomy out of the way before getting into the current views.
    • Thanks, rearranged
  • One article states "As an alternative to the subordinal names Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera, some researchers use the terms Pteropodiformes and Vespertilioniformes, basing the names on the oldest valid genus description in each group, Pteropus and Vespertilio.[2][6] Under this new proposed nomenclature, Pteropodiformes is the suborder that would replace Yinpterochiroptera." I wonder if this should be mentioned here too, otherwise it would seem we are taking one view as fact.
    • Added a sentence including the alternate name
  • "Internal relationships of African Pteropodidae" Why only African? Are there no more inclusive cladograms to show?
    • I do not believe so. The phylogenetic information I'm presenting is largely from two publications: Almeida 2011 and Almeida 2016. In Almeida 2016 ("The Evolutionary History of the African Fruit Bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)"), the biogeographic reconstruction was my primary source for building the cladogram. From the "Methods" section on page 3,

      Although determining the phylogenetic position of Eidolon within Pteropodidae as a whole was not a focus of this study (as that would require very broad sampling of Pteropodidae as a whole and more nuclear markers than employed in the current study; Almeida et al., 2011) inclusion of this genus completes our matrix with sampling all megabat genera that occur in continental Africa. For each genus, we included all species for which sequences of at least one of the eight chosen loci were available, totaling 31 species (but possibly 32 — see Discussion and Appendix).

    • Three other non-African megabat taxa were included as outgroups (Pteropus medius, Cynopterus sphinx, and Nyctimene albiventer), so I'm putting those outgroups in the cladogram as the respective subfamilies. Almeida 2016 builds on 2011. 2016 is where the subfamily Rousettinae is revised and Eidolinae is erected. I don't think it would be best practice to retroactively ascribe these revised/new names on the 2011 publication. I don't want to combine the two cladograms in any form either, as I think this would be SYNTH. Maybe the caption could be revised to reflect that non-African taxa are represented on the cladogram as outgroups. Happy to hear any advice you may have.
I think including and mentioning the outgroups is a good way to show context. FunkMonk (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revised
  • "Propotto leakeyi Simpson, 1967" Why give authority here like this when you don't seem to do that for any other taxon mentioned in the article?
    • removed
  • I wonder why you need two seperate lists for subfamilies and genera. Why not have just one list that shows it all instead of long repetition?
    • thanks, done
  • It seems puzzling that for an article about a flying group, you show not a single photo of a flying individual. I think you could show at least a couple. For example, some of them are notable for flying in huge groups, so you could show both this and a close up of a single flying individual.
    • Added a picture of a bat in flight.
  • "was paraphyletic, meaning that the subfamily did not group all the descendants of a common ancestor." makes the following explanation redundant if you just use the term paraphyletic again: "A 2011 DNA study concluded that not all of these subfamilies were clades, or consisted of all the descendants of a common ancestor".
    • revised
  • "Flying fox skeleton" The species is listed on the file page, so why not state it outright as you do in all other image captions?
    • revised
  • "Flying fox with offspring" Same problem.
    • revised
  • "The nostrils of a tube-nosed bat" The exact species is listed on the file page, so should be stated and linked.
    • revised
  • "A group of roosting megabats" Perhaps better to show a roosting group that can be identified to species?
    • there really aren't any. I would argue that it's more important to have a picture showing the colonial roosting behavior than a picture that doesn't but the identification is to species level. Based on uploader's caption of "flying foxes", however, I added the genus name Pteropus to the caption, so it's at least narrowed down a bit more.
  • "have fur that is a uniform color, other pelage (fur) patterns are seen in this family" Why use a different word that you then just gloss with a word you have just used? Actually, the bolded part could be removed entirely and the sentence would mean the same but be more concise.
    • revised
  • "The number of teeth a megabat has depends on the species; teeth totals for various species" Why not just "totals" instead of "teeth totals"? We know you are talking about teeth.
    • revised
  • "The number of teeth a megabat has depends on the species" A bit awkwardly worded, how about "The number of teeth varies between megabat species"?
    • revised
  • Everything from genome size down to taste does not seem to have much to do with description. Most of it makes more sense under biology/behaviour.
    • moved
  • "The scapulae (shoulderblades) of megabats are described as the most primitive" Have been described would make more sense.
    • revised
  • You have detailed description of the dentition and postcrania, so why not the skull? Seems like an oversight. If there isn't enough info for a section, you could just rename the postcrania section into just skeleton.
    • added paragraph
  • There seem to be more units that need conversion, at least under Internal systems.
    • added some
  • "The authors of the 2009 genome study" Why "the"? You haven't mentioned it before.
    • revised
  • " that the common blossom bat had the smallest eyes at a diameter of 5.03 mm (0.198 in), while the largest eyes were those of large flying fox at 12.34 mm (0.486 in) in diamete" You link the species, but don't give scientific names as elsewhere.
    • added
  • The evolution section seems oddly placed, since it overlaps with and is an extension of much of the info under taxonomy. Usually it would be placed right after that section.
    • moved
  • Likewise, Conservation would logically come after Relationship to people, as it is also about human interference.
    • moved
  • "he Melanesian Islands, including New Guinea, are a plausible candidate for the origin of most megabat subfamilies" Why?
    • added
  • "the cynopterines likely originated on the Sunda Shelf" Why?
    • added
  • Could anything be said about their manner of flight? This rather important aspect seems to be hardly covered in the article. How does it differ from that of other bats, for example?
    • added
  • comments addressed thanks for taking the time to leave feedback, FunkMonk. I think I've addressed everything you've listed thus far. Starting to realize I'm a damn fool for making a taxonomic group this large my first FAC... Enwebb (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, easiest would probably have been a species or a genus, but I think you have pulled it off. I'll continue the rest of the review soon (from reproduction and below). FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
round 2
edit
  • "The litter size of all megabats is usually one" Any exceptions?
    • twins rare across the family but have been recorded in some species; a few sentences added
  • "Very unusually, male individuals of several megabat species have been observed producing milk, though there has never been an observation of a male nursing young.[72] Male production of milk has been observed in the Bismarck masked flying fox (Pteropus capistratus) as well as the Dayak fruit bat (Dyacopterus spadiceus); it is unclear if the lactation is functional and males actually nurse pups or if it is a result of stress or malnutrition.[73]" These two sentences seem to be saying the same thing, the latter just in greater detail. Maybe they could be merged?
    • revised
  • "or a loud, bleat-like calls" You go from singular to plural.
    • fixed
  • When mentioning Pteropus species, you are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate to P. or spell out the genus name. If you want to abbreviate, do it throughout after first full mention.
    • Now only used in one instance to refer to a subspecies directly after using species name (...a subpecies of Pteropus pelagicus (P. p. insularis).)
  • "hypothesized as a response to a lack of predators" I'd specify in these habitats/islands for clarity.
    • Not stated in ref (pg 9) "Most Pteropus are primarily nocturnal, and most plants relying on bats for pollination are night flowering. Nevertheless, in the relatively predator-free environment of oceanic islands, some species have become partially or entirely diurnal..." and then going on to list the species and subspecies
  • "the Mauritian flying fox, the Caroline flying fox, P. p. insularis, and the Seychelles fruit bat." Some missing scientific names as elsewhere.
    • fixed
  • Where do they mate? In roosting areas or elsewhere?
    • at roosts; added
  • "some plants have evolved characteristics compatible with bat senses, including fruits that are strongly scented, brightly colored, and prominently exposed away from foliage" How is it known this is not also to attract birds or insects?
    • added some more detail about how the fruit of most fig species is consumed by either birds or megabats, but very rarely both
  • "as a non-native predator in Guam, the snake consumes so many offspring that it reduced the recruitment of the population of the Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus) to essentially zero" I think you need to give a date here, it can't be always like this, or it would die out?
    • Source didn't say when the snakes got to the island, but I added some detail that the population is able to persist due to recruitment from a neighboring island.
  • I wonder if it's appropriate to show a parasite of a microbat here? Maybe another image could be found that shows a megabat parasite (a quick search gave me this[13]), or maybe a photo of a typical predator?
    • image swapped
  • Anything on significance to human cultures? I found this image of an Australian cave painting:[14]
    • added
  • " include Franquet's epauletted fruit bat, the hammer-headed fruit bat, and the little collared fruit bat. Additionally, antibodies against EBOV have been found in the straw-coloured fruit bat, Gambian epauletted fruit bat, Peters's dwarf epauletted fruit bat, Veldkamp's dwarf epauletted fruit bat, Leschenault's rousette" Missing scientific names for linked species.
    • added
  • "where 31 people became ill and seven died" Where was this?
    • Germany and Serbia from monkey research. More detail addded
  • "The premaxilla are well-developed and usually free." What does "free" mean here?
    • added; not fused to maxilla
  • The in culture section looks good, you link some species names without giving them their scientific names too, though, and currency is only linked at third mention instead of first. Cultural currency could be linked?
    • I don't think that's the term you're thinking of--moved the link to currency, though
  • This is more of a subjective, aesthetic point, but I'm not sure that volcano image last is worth the huge white space it creates before the references. The image isn't essential anyhow, seems decorative.
    • removed
  • You link typhoon at second instead of first mention.
    • moved
  • "Flying foxes have been nearly exterminated from the island of Anatahan following a series of eruptions beginning in 2003." Of what species?
    • not stated in source, p415 For example, in the Northern Marianas, recurring volcanic activity since 2003 has eliminated nearly all forest and flying foxes on the island of Anatahan (C. C. Kessler, pers. comm.), but I added a source that identifies one of the species
  • Rodrigues flying fox is linked but no scientific name is given.
    • added
  • "Many of their lineages likely originated in Melanesia, then dispersed over time to mainland Asia, the Mediterranean, and Africa." Doesn't seem to be stated specifically outside the intro.
    • That sentence isn't listed word for word but I believe the content is adequately summarized, especially now that I have a range and habitat section. I'm summarizing parts of biogeography (where they originated) and range and habitat (where they are now)
  • It seems there could be a section on distribution and habitat?
    • added
Nice video! FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only members of one genera" Genera is plural, should be genus.
    • ah, thanks
  • "This low reproductive output means that after a population loss their numbers are slow to rebound" Can't find this mentioned outside the intro.
    • Added a sentence to reproduction to make this more explicit

Comments addressed FunkMonk. Enwebb (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Verification:
  • Spotchecks: with first FAC nominations I normally carry out a sample of spotchecks on citations, but this is proving nearly impossible, due to the very wide page ranges on most of the sources to which you provide links. In many cases, page ranges run to 30+ pages (for ref 20 the range is 81 pages). To assist verification, citations need to be related to specific pages within these ranges.
Can you link the policy to how wide a page range should be? That way I can specifically target the references that are non-compliant.
  • There's something odd about ref 19. The source is in fact the same article as in ref 18, but you have introduced an author "Cunhaalmeida" who I don't believe exists – check this out.
thanks, fixed
  • Links:
  • Link in ref 112 does not go to the required page
Ref redundant/holdover from before revamp; removed
  • Otherwise, links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 25 requires page no.
added
  • Ref 58 requires retrieval date
Ref redundant/holdover from before revamp; removed
  • Ref 114: "World Health Organisation" should not be italicised
The references looks like this <ref name="who">{{cite web|url=https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/marburg-haemorrhagic-fever| title=Marburg Haemorrhagic Fever| website=World Health Organization| access-date=30 May 2019}}</ref>; <ref name="WHO">{{cite web| url=http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/nipah-virus| title=Nipah virus| website=World Health Organization| publisher=WHO| date=30 May 2018| access-date=14 June 2018}}</ref> I'm not adding text formatting, I just accurately listed it as the title of the website and it's adding that formatting.
  • Ref 115 requires retrieval date
Found the date I added that reference with wikiblame; access date added
  • Be consistent in the inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations in book sources
fixed
  • Be consistent in the style of p. range formats – see e.g. refs 56, 57, 59 etc
thanks, fixed
  • Quality/reliability. The sources are comprehensive, a large proportion being from academic journals. They appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton thanks for the feedback. I think your points have largely been addressed, excepting your point about more specific page ranges. I'd be happy to narrow that down for some refs, but would like some more clarification on what an acceptable page range is. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mainly a question of defining an acceptable range; the issue is how to assist source verification of the information given in the article. Take, for example, ref 2, Almeida et al. There are 16 citations to this source, within the page range 73–90. Surely it is possible to cite most or all of these to specific pages within this range? Or take ref 16, Giannini & Simmons, which supports the sinple statement "In 1917, Danish mammalogist Knud Andersen divided Pteropodidae into three subfamilies: Macroglossinae, Pteropinae (corrected to Pteropodinae), and Harpyionycterinae". This surely doesn't need a 15-page range? Or take ref 61, which supports the half-statement "The larger average body size of megabats compared to echolocating bats..." but refers me to 21 pages of source text! I could go on with further examples. The general principle to follow is to be as specific as you can in defining your source pages; I'd say, personally, that ranges should not exceed 5 pages except in special circumstances, e.g. if you are referring to the whole content of an article rather than to specific information within it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. For the scientific, peer-reviewed papers I used to write this article, it is highly common for "Works cited" sections to not include any information about page numbers at all. I understand what you're saying about assisting in citation spot-checks, but narrowing page ranges down to 5 pages or less for 150 references seems a bit excessive. I'll see what I can do to make the page ranges narrower, though. It just may take a while. Enwebb (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many page ranges have been made narrower now. Enwebb (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

Thanks for bringing such a broad topic to FAC. Feel free to revert my copyediting if I change the meaning unintentionally.

  • "making them more susceptible to threats" In the lead, I don't think this fragment adds much; I'd just tweak the previous to "slow to recover after a decline", or equivalent; that's sufficient.
    • removed
  • Generally, the second paragraph of the lead doesn't flow very well for me; but I will return to this later.
    • lead lengthened/revised
  • (The continual creation of categories outside the K-P-C-O-F-G-S scheme drives me bonkers) Can "suborder" be linked?
    • linked at first occurrence
  • You anchor the phylogeny within Pteropodidae on a 1995 study, but then switch to using the present tense when discussing material sourced to 2011...In general, you could afford to use more "according to a study in YYYY", I think.
  • I wonder if the current internal classifications would be better presented as a table? Apologies, it means more work for you; but it might provide a very compact way to convey information that isn't applicable to the entire clade. See Viperidae for the first example I could find.
    • I'm wondering if this thought still applies now that I've condensed the two lists into a single list, which cannot be replaced with a table in my opinion
  • Can "simple ears" be linked and/or explained?
It is explained in the sentence directly after it's mentioned: The simple appearance of the ear is due in part to the lack of tragi (cartilage flaps projecting in front of the ear canal), which are found in many microbat species
  • "The maximum number of breaths per minute also varied" If you're referring to a specific measurement, then you should mention that; otherwise, this should be "varies"
    • Rephrased this to frame that these were the results recovered in one specific study
  • "The ancestor of the crown group of Pteropodidae, or all living species" The "all living species" is ambiguous here; species of what?
That was my attempt to gloss the explanation of crown group where all living species refers to Pteropodidae
  • If island hopping is unlikely for all smaller megabats, then how did those smaller megabats get to Africa? If this isn't known, then surely it's a paradox worth mentioning?
That content is in the preceding several sentences: How megabats reached Africa is also unknown. It has been proposed that they could have arrived via the Middle East before it became more arid at the end of the Miocene. Conversely, they could have reached the continent via the Gomphotherium land bridge, which connected Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to Eurasia.
  • "Different species of megabats have reproductive adaptation" Something grammatically off
    • fixed
  • Species aren't inherently invasive or native; they are so in specific locations, which are helpful to include immediately after you describe them as invasive or native.
    • revised
  • "agricultural conflict" is an odd term; the bats aren't practicing agriculture.
    • rephrased
  • In general, the prose in this article strikes me as being good, but not quite at FAC levels. I'm not going to oppose over this yet, because I may be able to do more copyediting later; essentially, I think it could be tightened without loss of information in several places.

That's all I have for now. Essentially this is a very comprehensive and well-researched article; but I do think the prose could use tightening. I will try to find the time to copy edit it some more. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

round 2
edit

Okay, going to focus on prose concerns here, but there's a few other points too. I think this article is good, within striking distance of being an FA, but the prose is still wordy and/or unclear in places. I'll also try to do some copy-editing myself.

  • In general, for such a long article, the lead is quite short; I think you could flesh it out.
    • lengthened
  • "Gray's spelling ... was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"... Bonaparte was the first to use the corrected spelling Pteropodidae". Quite confusing; if Bonaparte was the first, who changed Gray's spelling? I would take a guess that you could drop " and was subsequently changed to "Pteropodidae"" and be better off.
    • removed
  • I missed the fact earlier that the phylogeny was only that of African megabats; is a complete phylogeny unavailable? Isn't it potentially misleading to have only an African phylogeny here, as the clades this shows as sister may not actually be?
    • I have an explanation above to FunkMonk about how I created this phylogeny and my concerns about cobbling together papers to create a complete phylogeny. Let me know what advice you have.
  • If the patterning numbers are based on a specific study, and might change based on taxonomic revision, it might need in text attribution.
    • revised
  • I think for technical anatomical terms, a link or an explanation is good. Both is overkill. I'd prefer to stick with just the link.
    • I was following MOS:LINKSTYLE which says The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.
      • Okay, fair; but I think that applies only to links that a general reader would be completely flummoxed by. I'll check back to see if there are specific ones that could use trimming.
  • "The digestive system is ... and is shorter than ..." This is confusing; is the digestive system shorter? Or is this the transit time? Same for the next sentence.
    • rephrased
  • I don't think picograms is an appropriate measure to use for size, as it's not a measure of size, but of weight/mass. When biologists discuss genome size, they are usually referring to number of base pairs. I'd also retitle that subsection just "genome" for this reason.
    • Weight is size, though (and I'm echoing the exact terminology used in the RS). The article I'm using as a reference there is entitled The genome sizes of megabats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) are remarkably constrained with the authors saying The present study provides genome size estimates for 43 species of megabats in an effort to fill this gap and to test the hypothesis that all bats, and not just microbats, possess small genomes. Enwebb (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's still only a proxy, though. It's not size by definition. I've made two minor changes to reflect this; if you're unhappy even with those, we can look at other alternatives.
        • I am fine with your revision, but weight is indeed an aspect of size, as is length, volume, width... What's used in the RS is what's verifiable.
  • "but only the Pteropus species had S-cones, which detect the shortest wavelengths of light (blue and/or ultraviolet)" This is confusing, as in humans, S-cones detect blue but not ultraviolet. Can you clarify? Perhaps you need "blue and/or ultraviolet, depending on the species"?
    • It is likely but not confirmed that some megabats can see UV light. From the referenced study:

      Hence, we cannot say whether the fruit bat S-cones are blue or UV sensitive...It appears that the Chiroptera represent a second eutherian order besides Rodentia in which some species have UV-tuned rather than blue-tuned S-opsins [recent review: Peichl, 2005]. Our observation of colorless lenses in the fruit bats is compatible with a presence of UV-sensitive cones, as UV-absorbing lenses often have a yellowish coloration. However, to firmly establish whether UV light reaches the retina, and whether fruit bats are UV sensitive, one will have to measure the spec-tral transmission of the lens and cornea, and the spectral absorption of the S-opsin in vivo or in vitro.

    • anyway, rephrased
  • I'm not certain about the use of the term "color blind" here, as in humans, it's used to refer to individuals that have two types of cones. I think you could stick to saying "unable to detect color", or something like that.
    • rephrased
  • Link/explain "crepuscular" at first use, rather than later.
    • link moved
  • "Megabats, like all bats, are long-lived relative to their size" Again, somewhat confusing; if all bats are long-lived, then what are they long-lived relative to? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Also, this sentence could be used as the first in the section, eliminating the one-line paragraph.
    • moved and added "for mammals"
  • When you're listing species that have a certain characteristic, it really jars to have some be listed with their common name and some with their scientific name. I think some piped links in those situations would help (You could go either way, it just needs to be consistent).
    • I think I addressed the instances you're referring to in the section #Internal systems
  • "Young Egyptian fruit bats acquire "dialect"" Why not "a dialect", and why does dialect have to be in quotes?
    • changed
  • "nearly 188" Either give the exact number, or use a more round figure after "nearly".
    • From the RS: Marshall reported that nearly 188 kinds of plant genera are the food source of megabats
  • "Notably, flying foxes can transmit lyssaviruses, which cause rabies. In Australia the rabies virus is not naturally present; Australian bat lyssavirus is the only lyssavirus present." This is confusing; if lyssaviruses cause rabies, what is the rabies virus? I suspect it should be "some of which cause rabies".
    • rephrased
  • "Culling" is just a fancy way of saying "planned killing". Is there anything to show that the culling is different from the crop-related hunting described earlier? If so, some rephrasing may be necessary. If not, why were they culled?
    • Stated "Additionally, they are culled for actual or perceived damage to agriculture, especially to fruit production." I think the difference is as you stated. Culled implies planning. Preemptive killing. Other killing is reactive. Rephrased.
  • That paragraph also starts with a sentence about intentional killing, and then moves to material about accidental killing. I think they need to be segregated in different paragraphs (or you need to rework the first sentence so it covers the whole paragraph).
    • first sentence rewritten

Coordinator notes

edit

@Enwebb: What is the status of addressing outstanding remarks from FunkMonk and Vanamonde93? Unsigned inline replies are making it difficult to follow updates. This is dropping near the bottom of the list so I'd like to see some substantial progress on wrapping up those reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain I've been out of town at a conference all week. Didn't realize there was a time limit. I should be able to work on this more this weekend. Enwebb (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a time limit per se, but we like to see forward progress while the nomination is active in the queue. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain, I believe the outstanding concerns have been addressed. What are the next steps for the FAC? Enwebb (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Enwebb: Thanks for the heads-up! The next time I or Ian gets a chance to run through the list, we will review the activity here and determine whether there is sufficient review and consensus for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [15].

Distributed element circuit

edit
Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is intended as the top-level article for electrical devices of this kind. Several sub-topics have previously been featured, most recently Planar transmission line. The article has been through GA, GOCE and Peer Review. Two sections have been added since peer review; "Taper" and "Fractals", the former to address a Peer Review comment, and both for issues of "broad coverage". SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

edit

A few comments:

  • "After the war their use was limited to military, space, and broadcasting infrastructure, but improvements in materials science in the field soon led to broader applications." The end of this sentence reads like a teaser, could you be more specific as to what broader applications it led to?
  • Perhaps some greater contrast to conventional circuits in the lead would improve a layman's understanding.

I'll see if I can come up with some more later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After my concerns have been dealt with, and looking through the article again, I believe I can now support the promotion of this article. However, if you don't mind me asking, why are some of the images kept locally rather than on Commons? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from catslash

edit
  • The new Tapers section nicely rectifiers its former omission.
  • The new Fractals section is good - though (discounting log-periodic antennas), these structures seem quite rare in practice.
    • Yes, I wasn't sure how much these have found there way into manufacturing, hence the description "emerging field". They weren't around at all in my day, but they certainly seem to be "flavour of the month" now, with many publications on them in recent years. I may have written a little too much on them for this article, sailing close to WP:UNDUE, but I think that is forgivable given that we don't have information on them anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). SpinningSpark 08:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a dielectric puck resonator in the local oscillator in the lede picture, and these components are mentioned in the History and Filters and impedance matching sections - and described as common. We also have an article about them. Perhaps they merit a section Circuit components section.
  • Possibly there should be some mention of devices with distributed loss, such as attenuators and matched terminations.

catslash (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok, I've put something in, but I've kept it minimal – I'm not terribly convinced that they are used much as part of a DE circuit. No argument that they are distributed elements, but they are mostly a thing apart from DE circuit designs. SpinningSpark 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you always save this stuff for the FA rather than Peer Review? Seriously, I'll take a look. SpinningSpark 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am aware that I repeatedly come up with more stuff for you to do. catslash (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always grateful that anybody reviews these articles at all, so thanks. I think I've covered everything you raised now. SpinningSpark 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. However, it should be checked that the text is clear to a reader not already familiar with the subject. catslash (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

I have made an edit to the history section to explain the history of radar and its application to this topic. I'll return for a read over. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the contribution. I've hacked that about quite substantially. I've changed the source format to be compatible with the established style and fixed the loss of text-source integrity caused by you moving a sentence to another paragraph. I've changed the source from the BBC website page to a book source (which I think is preferable here) and it also provides a source for a key fact you missed – that the move to a smaller size allowed the fitting of radar to aircraft. I've removed a couple of facts that failed verification; the Harford source does not give the operation wavelength/frequency of the magnetron. I think all numerical data must have a source and the exact frequency is not essential to have in this article anyway. The Levy & Cohen source does not discuss, or even mention, magnetrons anywhere so we can't really use that source to say directly that the magnetron led to DE filter development. SpinningSpark 18:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark viking

edit

The article looks like it is in great shape. As a physicist who does not work in this area, the prose was easy to read and the jargon seems in general to be about as simplified as it can get. I have just a few minor comments/issues:

  • The article should have a short description for the mobile viewers.
  • In the first para of the circuit modeling section, "the quantities are considered to be distributed in space" seems vague--it isn't some generic quantity that is distributed, it is an electrical element that is distributed.
    • The Electrical element article says "Electrical elements are conceptual abstractions representing idealized electrical components, such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors" -- in which case distributed element seems like an oxymoron, akin to distributed point-mass. This leaves me unsure as to whether element in this context is a mass noun or a count noun. Therefore, I would prefer quantities, properties, attributes or simply capacitance and inductance to elements. catslash (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If distributed element is an oxymoron, then the whole Distributed element circuit article is in trouble :-) More seriously, one of the tasks of this article is to explain what is meant by a distributed element. Hopefully by the time the reader gets to the modeling section, they at least have an informal idea of what a distributed element is. If elements is unacceptable, however, properties is better than quantities--resistance, capacitance, etc., are properties of the element, not quantities of the element. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree we don't have an oxymoron problem here. We certainly don't want to be writing ...distributed elements are elements that are distributed in space... I've changed "the quantities" to "these properties" which I think addresses the comments. SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minkowski island" doesn't need to be a red link--it is illustrated in Fractal_antenna#Fractal_element_antennas_and_performance.
  • It is a matter of taste, but in an article that is pretty much math-free, the S-matrix in the Circulators section, without much explanation of its meaning, sticks out as unnecessary. You might ditch the matrix and simply assert that the circulator is non-symmetric and leave the details to the main Circulator article.
    • The lack of maths is entirely deliberate, which I think is right for a subject top-level article. The exception for the circulator is also entirely deliberate. The matrix plainly illustrates the lack of symmetry (and hence, reciprocity) in a way that words cannot. It is being used as an illustration more than some actual formal maths. In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate here, although I wouldn't fight anyone trying to remove it. SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wholly agree the lack of maths is a real strength of the article. Yes, a mathematician will recognize this as a permutation matrix and a physicist will recognize this as a sort of conceptual S-matrix that describes transitions among classes of states. But for those readers not familiar with these topics--scattering theory, matrices, matrix symmetry, etc., I suspect this array of 0's and 1's will be virtually meaningless. Nonetheless, this is a a suggestion for improvement, not a showstopper problem. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. My first three points were well addressed. The last point is an unresolved difference of opinion on the expected pedagogical level of the reader; however, less mathematically sophisticated readers are free to ignore the matrix and the qualitative reasoning in the prose surrounding it is clear enough. I am thus happy to support promotion of this article to FA status. Well done! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

edit

I reviewed this article at GAN, and thought at the time that it was well-constructed, informative on a topic that I barely knew existed, interesting, well-illustrated, well-cited, and just sufficiently mathematical to show that it was well-founded. The remarkable bibliography demonstrates the depth of knowledge of the subject, and the history, going back to Heaviside, is both informative and fascinating. As I'd expected, the FA reviewers have applied the usual polish, and I'd say this was now an exceptionally fine article, indeed exactly the kind of thing we should be advertising on our front page. I'm delighted to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 8: add pp.
  • Ref 18: why "pages" not pp.?
  • Ref 24: requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 32: Bakshi & Bakshi page range is not clear
  • Ref 34: requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 53: add pp.
  • Ref 55: Heaviside 1887 requires page reference
  • Ref 62: gives chapter no. but not page ref
  • Ref 69: Matthaei et al. 1964 requires page ref
  • Ref 71: likewise Barrett & Barnes
  • ISBN formats: these should be consistent, in either their 10-digit or 13-digit forms. In general you avoid the insertion of dashes, but see Ishi 1995
  • Alphabetic sequence of Bibliography: Bahl should precede Bakshi; Natarajan should precede Nguyen
  • Be consistent in inclusion of publisher locations for book sources. You generally omit these, but see Heaviside 1925
  • Cohen 2015: check the ISBN. No matches found at WorldCat, Google books etc.
  • Heaviside 1887: OCLC links to this, rather than to the source article
  • Quality and reliability: the list of sources is very extensive and seems to my inexpert eye to have the appropriate range and weight. Someone with subject expertise could perhaps judge better whether the list meets the appropriate criteria for quality and reliability. I'd be surprised if it doesn't.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the Bakshi & Bakshi source (ref 32), the pages are numbered in that form (chapter hyphen page). The page range is thus 3-68 to 3-70. It makes sense if one takes note of the type of dash used. The confusion is unavoidable because of the pagination used in the source, but will be immediately clear to anyone actually reading the source.
  • On Fano & Lawson (ref 62). All the sources that form a chapter of a book where each chapter is by named authors are cited to the chapter rather than a page range. This makes sense to me as it is the chapter by that author that is being cited, not a page range of the entire book.
  • On Matthaei at al. (ref 69), the entire book is being cited. It is just a courtesy ref; "The group's work was published[69] in a landmark 1964 book..." The ref at the end of the sentence verifies the significance of the book, this ref just gives the details of the book itself.
  • ditto on Barrett and Barnes (ref 71)
  • ISBNs, I've changed these all to 10-digit, I hope that's ok. The inconsitency came about because a previous FA commented on my use of 10-digit ISBNs. I ran away with the idea (probably incorrectly) that 10-digit was deprecated so started using 13-digit from that point, but this article was already well underway at that time so ended up with a mix.
  • Cohen ISBN. Gbooks does return that ISBN, but it doesn't match the ISBN printed on the book's imprint page so I've changed it anyway.
  • Heaviside 1887, yes, the OCLC link is to the entire collection of The Electrician journal. I have never seen a library index of any kind that links the individual articles for this journal. It would be useful if there was one because Heaviside's writings in The Electrician are referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles. However, I have added a convenience link to a site with free-to-view copies of the journal where the article can be read.
Evreything else in your comments is fixed I think. SpinningSpark 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [16].

Normandie-class battleship

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Normandie-class dreadnoughts were part of an ambitious French naval expansion program begun in 1912 to replace most of the older battleships in the French Navy that had been rendered obsolete with the British completed HMS Dreadnought in 1906. All five ships were still under construction when WWI began and were suspended for the duration. After the war, the navy considered finishing them or modifying them to incorporate the experiences learned during the war, but the government's perilous financial state prevented any such major expenditures. The least advanced ship, Béarn, was converted into an aircraft carrier during the 1920s and later became an aircraft transport before she was scrapped in 1967. The article passed a MilHist A-class review several months ago and we believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual we'd like for reviewers to look for any stray bits of BrEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

First here. ;p

  • turret and preferred an armament of twelve guns I don't think we need an "an" between preferred and armament.
    • I think that it reads very oddly without it
  • Council (Conseil supérieur de la Marine) could not reach a decision
    • What do you mean here?
  • boilers and new, more-powerful turbines More-powerful needn't a hyphen.
  • the Aventurier-class destroyer purchased from Argentina in 1914 Current countries oughtn't to be linked.
    • I don't think that most Americans could point out Argentina on a map, so I link less well-known countries.
  • This is the relevant part of of MOS:OVERLINK: This generally includes major examples of: geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America), locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Japan, Brazil, Southeast Asia), languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish), nationalities and ethnicities (e.g., English, British, Chinese, Turkish, African-American, Hispanic), and religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)
  • I interpret that as not to link major European and Asian countries as I generally think that this overestimates the general geographic knowledge of readers based on my experience and news reports.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One point still to be resolved, but otherwise all done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

This article is in good shape. I have some comments:

  • for the lead sentence suggest "The Normandie class consisted of five dreadnought battleships ordered for the French Navy in 1912–1913."
  • suggest "It comprised the lead ship Normandie, Flandre..."
  • suggest "Named after provinces of France, the ships were never completed"
  • "were instead"
  • move the link to Displacement (ship) to the first mention of displacement
  • suggest "all with a secondary armament of twenty 138 mm (5.4 in) guns in a new twin-gun casemate mounting."
  • 340 mm versus 34 cm, suggest consistency in giving calibres in either mm or cm throughout
  • state how many 340 mm guns the Bretagnes had
  • suggest "in two quadruple-gun turrets fore and aft"
  • the proposed turbine/engine arrangements are unclear. Does a set = 2? If so, suggest using pair. Also suggest "a hybrid system that used a direct-drive turbine on each of the two inner propeller shafts, and a vertical triple-expansion steam engine (VTE) on each of the two outer shafts for low-speed cruising" if that is correct?
    • Problem is that turbines of this period used the same system of high-, medium- and low-pressure steam as did the multiple-expansion steam engines, only with turbines replacing cylinders. So a single turbine set would consist of three turbines, of which two would actually drive the propeller shafts. Don't recall off the top of my head how the French worked it, but the British usually had the high- and low-pressure turbines (in separate casings) driving the shafts with the medium-pressure turbine combined with one or the other. 20+ years later, they were combining all three turbines into one casing, kinda like the stages of a jet engine, and calling the whole kit-and-kaboodle a single turbine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also "equipped with four turbines to allow her to operate with the Bretagne class" if that is right?
  • given we've established already that the designers had opted for the 20 × 138 mm guns on all three designs, you could probably drop "but wished to retain the twenty-two 138 mm guns of the Bretagnes"
  • with my ancient schoolboy French, I reckon Conseil supérieur de la Marine translates as Supreme Naval Council, not Naval Supreme Council, but you should go with what is in sources
  • suggest "rejected the twin-gun casemate mounting"
  • "the arrangement of five twin turrets" would this have meant a turret amidships? Perhaps state this explicitly, as the blast damage issue has been discussed earlier
  • I'm not following the accepted secondary gun arrangement. If there were originally going to be 18 × 138 mm and 12 × 100 mm guns, and the 100 mm guns were to be replaced by 138 mm guns because the 100 mm guns weren't ready, then there should have been 30 × 138 mm guns, not 22 then 24? Or am I being thick?
  • suggest "one setpair of steam turbines" in general, set can mean any number of engines/turbines, pair means two
  • suggest link=on for the power conversion to link kW and shp
  • suggest using future tense ie "would have" or "were designed to" "was to have" consistently throughout the description except if they were actually fitted and/or operated, as they didn't actually do those speeds, achieve those ranges, have those guns etc, as they weren't actually built or operated as designed
    • This came up in the FAC for the Borodino-class battlecruisers which had a similar history of starting construction, but never being finished. Jordan & Caresse wrote entirely in past tense, so that's mostly what we've used, although some of the stuff has been phrased like "intended" to clarify that the true figures wouldn't have been known until the ships were completed.
  • no crew numbers as a private ship?
    • Not in any of the sources.
  • generally, once you've introduced millimeters, use mm, same with m for meters
  • "called to the colors" is a bit jargonish, "called up"?
  • under Construction and cancellation, perhaps mention that none of the guns were actually fitted?
  • "which could be obtained by building new turbines" does this mean better turbines, or additional turbines?
  • link plunging fire
  • suggest "primary naval rival" if that is what is meant?
  • "He suggested there were three options for the first four ships of the Normandie class"
  • "he had decided "? Do you mean Ronarc'h here?
  • perhaps state that Martinique is in the Caribbean

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your typically thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • There are minor discrepancies between infobox data and that recorded in the text. For example, Length: i/box 176.4m, text "limited to 172m"; Beam: i/box 27m, text 27.5m; Draft: i/box 8.84m, text 8.7m – and a few others. Ought these not to be consistent?
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues

Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "based on previous experiences with blast damage on battleships from the 1880s" - some color here might be useful? Is this blast the enemy shells or the blast of its own guns?
    • Clarified
  • "was instead equipped with two sets of turbines to allow her to operate with the Bretagne class" - why did this allow that? Speed?
    • Clarified
  • "138.6 mm" - this seems oddly specific. The linked article does not contain the ".6", so why has it been added here?
    • Normally I'd use nothing more than three significant digits, but the French used four for this gun for some reason, so I've followed their practice.

Wow, that's all I have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The ed17

edit

With a few comments.

  • Is the translation "Section technique" needed? Same with "Minister de la Marine."
  • "The next issue to be addressed was the main armament. The General Staff decided in March 1912 to retain the 340 mm gun of the Bretagne class and favored the all-turbine design." I get where you're going with this, but the opening sentence that defines what the paragraph will be about doesn't gel well with the turbine comment. I'm not sure if this needs to be addressed, but I wanted to point it out nonetheless.
  • These are minor points. Great work here! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [17].

Milorad Petrović

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the commander of the Royal Yugoslav Army's 1st Army Group during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. It forms part of a 10-article good topic I am slowly moving towards featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • northern borders of Yugoslavia with Italy, Germany and Hungary Pipe Italy and Hungary to the Kingdom of Italy and the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946).
  • he opted to return to the new communist-led Yugoslav state Pipe Yugoslav state to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
  • an army camp at Valona in Albania Pipe Albania to the Principality of Albania.
  • Albania to the Greek island of Corfu by 10 February 1916, and there they regroupedn Pipe Greek to the Kingdom of Greece.
  • structure for the German-led Axis invasion Pipe here German with Nazi Germany and unlink the next German in the next paragraph.
  • the Yugoslav-Hungarian border and deployed Pipe Hungary to the the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946).
  • was promoted to the rank of kapetan prve klase" (captain first class) Is prve a typo? First class should have a hyphen?

That's anything not much to say here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5, I think I got them all. As far as prv/prve is concerned, it is the difference between first class captain and captain first class, but they are not hyphenated in Serbo-Croat AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day CPA-5, anything else that strikes you as needing a tweak? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • "during the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia during World War II" 2 x "during". Not sure if anything can be done about it. (The second one to 'in' perhaps?)
  • ", and later that year, was promoted to" Either a comma after "and", or no comma after "year".
  • "It included members who fell into three groups" I am not sure which group, if any, Petrović fell into. I surmise the first, but it would be helpful if this could be made clearer.
  • "Petrović's Army Group reserve" Should A and G be lower case?
  • "there was a poor response to mobilisation" This could mean a number of things. Possibly "poor" → 'limited'?
  • "On the first day the Germans seized bridges" Perhaps 'On the first day of the invasion the Germans seized bridges'; or even 'On the first day of their invasion of Yugoslavia the Germans seized bridges'?
  • "in both sectors" 'in both armies' sectors' may make this clearer?
  • "The revolts within the 4th Army were of great concern to Trifunović" I don't doubt it, but it seems strange that it is deemed notable that an army commander is concerned about revolts in an army not his own, while the reaction of the commander of the revolting troops is not.
  • "and given the option of returning to the new communist-led Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia" Is it known what his other option(s) were?

Good even by your high standards. I could only find the fiddly points above to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog. I think I've addressed all your comments? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking my cavilling in good spirit. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Do we need countries in source locations?
    I routinely do, I know some don't. I find it useful, particularly where the country has changed, because it tells you something about the source, especially in the Balkans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair; but in that case, I think you should use them for the other sources, too. Italy isn't likely to be less known to our readers than the US; and the US was also a party to the conflict, albeit more distantly.
    I use states (or D.C.)/provinces for the US, Australia and Canada, as there can be more than one city of the same name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the web sources, the author is also the publisher; but does it really help to include his name in that field?
    It makes it clear it is self-published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also; I know sources are likely thin in this topic (kudos to you for working with sources in five languages, by the way; quite a feat) but why do the web sources qualify as reliable? Not a rhetorical question; they might, but you'd have to persuade me.
    Niehorster has a PhD in history and is a published author (several books via Military Press) on orders of battle, and I have used him extensively for orbat info on FAs\FLs. Where I've used multiple orbat sources on other articles, he is almost always consistent with other reliable sources where they overlap. BTW, Serbian, Croatian and Serbo-Croatian are all mutually intelligible and essentially dialects of the same language with minor differences, so I only score one point for them... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.
  • The one-line-per-parameter makes my head hurt, but that's just me :)
    I find the same when they are all following each other, to each their own I suppose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecked Iaremko and Krzak; they check out.
  • Spotchecked ref 23; content is supported, but perhaps the page range should be extended to 60, to avoid all doubt?
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I get the chance to review prose, too; that's all I have on sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great, Vanamonde93. Thanks for looking at the sources! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Just one reply for you; also, I've boldly refactored your indents. I used to use the same format you just did; but I was informed, not too long ago, that a series of asterisks, or an asterisk followed by a series of colons, is accessible to visually impaired readers, but that a series of colons followed by an asterisk is not. Just so you know. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the indents, I'll try to remember that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

That's about all I have; mostly minor; nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review, Vanamonde93, all addressed I think, but I have a couple of queries. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One reply up above, but it's an easy fix. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, added per your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure PM, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [18].

Horizon Guyot

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another submarine mountain in the Pacific Ocean, one of the major Mid-Pacific Mountains and one of the few whose present-day conditions have been explored and researched in (some) detail. For comparison, Allison Guyot and Resolution Guyot has been principally the subject of research in their Mesozoic apparel, as were the other two (FA) Wōdejebato and Limalok, with little known about their present-day life and processes. But like these other seamounts, it formed as a volcano in the early Cretaceous and after persisting as an island or a shallow shoal finally sank below the sea where sediments accumulated on it and animals got established; its geologic history is not well known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Main_Line_Islands,_NOAA_bathymetric_map_with_lineations_(Horizon_Guyot).png: suggest using the NOAA-specific tag

SC

edit
General
  • I'm trying to work out the variant of English used. We have metre, etc, but also "characterizes" and a "spreading center". These need to be consistent throughout.
    It's a mix between both, probably because I am ESL. I've changed some of these to the BrEng version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Local setting
  • "Horizon Guyot ... is part of the Mid-Pacific Mountains": this was mentioned in the last sentence of the previous section. I'm not sure there is an elegant way round it, but I'll leave you to mull over if it's possible to avoid the repetition.
    To be honest, I am a little at a loss as well on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a 35 kilometres (22 mi)[20]-70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi) long ridge". This reads slightly oddly. I would expect it to be a "70-kilometre wide" and 300-kilometre long ridge" (singular on the measurements and hyphenated as it's a compound modifier). The plurals may be an EngVar thing – I'm reading it from a BrEng view.
    I think it makes sense to standardize to BrEng, so if singular is correct it should be in singular. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sediment layers cover almost the entire summit of Horizon Guyot[22] and consist": "which consist"?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
Drowning
Present state
  • "Chert[1]": Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have a citation supporting one word but nothing else. I'd move this to the end of the sentence.
    Yeah, this is a bit of a bad habit I've picked up. Moved it to sentence end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes

That's it from me. All very nit-picky, as the article is in excellent order overall. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks, and got the issues. Once the page looked like this so I was a bit less certain on the quality than in other FACses I've submitted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX

edit

Will be reviewing soon. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  • Sometimes you've cites inside parentheses and sometimes outside: (251.902 ± 0.3 – 66 million years ago[41]) and (4,734 ft)[19] etc. Why not make them all outside?
    The cites inside the parentheses are meant to support only the parenthetical content, not the sentence outside of the parens that comes before it. 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Some citations are in sfn (eg. [1], [2], [3]) and others in ref tags (eg. [4], [12], [13]).
    That is a deliberate choice to make it easier to format these sources for which I only used one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you need to be consistent with formats. Also, with current formatting, at places you've page numbers as "p. X"/"pp. X–Y", at others just as "X"/"X–Y".
I am pretty certain that such a consistency in the citation formats isn't actually a requirement anywhere. Regarding the last issue, I am not seeing it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compare [14] with [13] or [15].
A, that issue. I don't know how to fix it, assuming that it can. It's a template problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Is it okay to leave it as it is? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said it the wrong way. I mean, journal citations don't include full date or even month. Year is enough.
OK; removed non-year information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you are using et al. after three authors? Eg. Davis et al. 2002, has four. In [15] you've listed five, in [49] and [93] four.
    Yes, but only in the sfn citations where it is automatically applied. The full cites in the reference list spell out all the names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some full cites contain page ranges (eg. [20]), some have specific cited page (eg. [29]), some don't contain page info at all (eg. [24]).
No sir, I meant that in full cites, page range of the cited article should be given (so full citation of [20] (Davis, A. S.; Gray, L. B.; Clague, D. A.; Hein, J. R. (2002)) is correct) since specific page is given in the short inline citation. Full citation of [29] (Lonsdale, Peter; Normark, William R.; Newman, W. A. (1972).) should have page range of the article (289–316) and not the cited page (289). Similarly full citation of [24] (Winterer, E.L. (1976)) should have page range of the chapter (731–747). Same with Bass, M.N. (1976). Bukry, D. (1973). Douglas, R.G. (1973) etc.
​Ah, that. Added these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full citation of [48] should mention the chapter name and the authors of that chapter. Something like "Robert J. Van Waasbergen Edward L. Winterer (1993). "Summit Geomorphology of Western Pacific Guyots". In Pringle, Malcolm S.; Sager, William W.; Sliter, William V.; Stein, Seth, eds. The Mesozoic ..."
    I don't think that's really necessary, even if it's not harmful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really is ;) Right now, the author info is missing. Citations of edited books include chapter name and its authors in addition to editors and book name.
I still don't think so, especially since I am not convinced it's actually possible to assign chapter-specific names to a sfn cite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
35 is still there ;)
Yeah, but it meant whole pacific floor contains these.
"These are submarine mountains which are characterised by a flat top and usually the presence of carbonate platforms that rose above the sea surface..." ends with [44].
Eventually found a solution of the problem. Seems like a mistake I made when transferring material from Resolution Guyot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine.
  • "an origin as a carbonate platform[81][was considered unlikely]". Couldn't find that in [81]. It says that they are probably volcanic deposits. Also, "carbonate deposits" is confusing; why not something like "deposition of debris from organisms"? It sounds clearer.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seamount was close to the sea surface for at least 6 million years.[88]" The source is more explicit, saying it was above the sea surface.
    Rewrote this; if memory serves when I wrote this sentence I had not gone through all the sources and some of them did not say that Horizon was an island. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

  • "During the Deep Sea Drilling Project, the drill cores called Site 171 and Site 44 were taken on Horizon Guyot in 1971 and 1969, respectively;" Why not order the other way around, i.e. Site 44 and Site 171 in 1969 and 1971?
    Reversed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year for Site 313?
    ​ Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other guyots in the Mid-Pacific Mountains are Sio South, Darwin, Thomas, Heezen, Allen, Caprina, Jacqueline and Allison.[16]" Sources also mention Resolution Guyot. Also [16] lists others that you haven't mentioned (eg. Huevo). If only notable ones were intended, it should be indicated in the sentence. Anyway, Resolution guyot seems notable, you've created an article for that.
    The omission of Huevo and Resolution is because it's not entirely clear from that source whether they are one and the same. I'be noticed that sometimes the same name is applied to more than one feature or that a name changes (as Resolution Guyot itself is an example of this). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay if the guyot is same, still it is certain that there is one more notable guyot in the region, i.e. Resolution Guyot.
OK; added Resolution then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean is that material from rock surface of the guyot or from the later deposits?
That list encompasses all layers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry, I got a bit slow on this. I still need a couple days to finish reading and source checking. I hope to finish it by Monday. Apologies for the delay. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX:Addressed the outstanding problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes estimates are two but the age is one. For example, I wouldn't say "Jo-jo Eumerus' ages have been reported by Wikipedia to be either 25 years or 100 years" ;)

That's all I could find. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 09:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did these and pinged you on one point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, age issue is up to you. I am Supporting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I'm going to add this to the Urgents list, but it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some additional reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Solicited comments a bit on this; I am also thinking to write a more general note (that is also including the other FACses on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents) on WT:FAC as that did work in one past instance at getting two out of three past the finishing line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
Then go with the singular then. (Or rephrase it yourself without "time".)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deposited on the exposed rocks of Horizon Guyot" IMO this may read better as 'deposited on exposed rocks.' I think that we can trust the reader to understand where these rocks are.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is a 35 kilometres (22 mi)–70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi) long ridge" Optional: 'and is a ridge 35 kilometres (22 mi)–70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi).'
Awaiting a comment.
Enacted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
I understand that. If it can be dated to the nearest thousand years then fine, let's give it. To date to the nearest thousand years and then give an error bar covering 600,000 years seems silly to me, regardless of whether the source is equally silly. Possibly you could put a footnote next to 251.902 explaining its significance and how the date of the start of the Mesozoic is dated?
OK, first off I see that the 0.3 was a typo; the actual precision is 0.024. Second, I did find a source for a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist" This comes across a little oddly - "were formally"; "which today still exist". Could it be rephrased?
    Struck out the second part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Fringing reefs may have developed on the volcanoes, which then became barrier reefs as the volcano subsided and turned into an atoll,[47] and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat" Could this be rephrased to be a little clearer? Possibly by being broken into two (or more) sentences?
    Rewrote this a bit, is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's better.
"small part"?
That reads rather oddly, like it emphasizes the subdivision of the area at the expense of its nature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which describes the formation of chains of volcanoes which get progressively older along the length of the chain, with an active volcano only at one end of the system. This volcano lies on a spot of the lithosphere heated from below; as the plate moves the volcano is moved away from the heat source and volcanic activity ceases, producing a chain of volcanoes that get progressively older away from the currently active one" To me this seems to say the same thing twice. Could it be contracted to a single explanation?
    I am not sure about this part. There are some competing theories on how progressively older chains form so I was thinking that spelling out the mechanism was important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with that. Let's park it for now and get the trivia redolved.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Thanks for the review; responded and processed some points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff.
Yes.
  • "The seamount was close to the sea surface for at least 6 million years; prior to 1973 there was no evidence that Horizon Guyot had ever formed an island." Could the second part of this be phrased positively? Eg something like 'in 19xx evidence was first discovered that Horizon Guyot had at one time formed an island, overturning earlier theories that it had never risen above sea level'?
    Rewrote this, is it clearer now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nicely nuanced.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:This second batch also replied to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Apologies. My PC froze and I saved in a hurry. You're not supposed to be following up so promptly ;-) . Continued below. I shall start going through your responses tomorrow.
  • "cold bottom waters and strong bottom currents which trigger erosion" Optional: I would use 'sea-bottom' in both cases.
  • "cold bottom waters and strong bottom currents which trigger erosion" Is it the waters or the currents which trigger the erosion; and in either case, what is the mechanism?
    Redid this as the source isn't clear on the mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
It was a rhetorical question :-) . Virtually no reader will know that. So it needs replacing with plain English, or explaining in line, or explaining in a footnote.
Reworded to be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. (But outcrop is a perfectly good active verb.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nice work. A few remaining comments above for you to think about. Sort them and I will have another read through. And think if there is a better way to explain the conveyor belt mechanism. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:Thanks, replied to these comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hotspot theory
edit
OK. Rereading I am less unhappy with your wording than I was first time around. And I have isolated what I am unhappy with. So, how about something like

The formation of many such seamounts has been explained by the hotspot theory.[54] According to this theory, an active volcano lies on a spot of the lithosphere heated from below; as the plate above this hotspot moves, the volcano is moved away from the heat source and volcanic activity ceases. The hotspot will then heat the area of the plate now above it, producing another active volcano. In this way, a chain of volcanoes that get progressively older away from the currently active one is generated.[55] With some exceptions, radiometric dating of the Mid-Pacific Mountains has yielded evidence of an eastward movement of volcanism which is consistent with the hotspot theory

I certainly don't insist on these words, but hopefully you can see where I am going. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:I've applied that text; it seems like it resolves the duplication issue nicely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • "100.5 – 89.8 million years ago and another stage has been dated to have occurred 88-82 million years ago" Inconsistent use of dashes. The MoS suggests that en dashes are used "in ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through" and that "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." See MOS:ENTO.
    Added spaces on the 88-82. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. On a reread, that's all I can find. It's a grand explanation of the feature, and barring images and sourcing, which I haven't looked at, meets the FA criteria. So I shall support and leave you to look at that dash. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

edit

Apologies in advance as I am not a particularly good reviewer, but I am trying to improve. I am completely unfamiliar with this subject area, but I hope my comments below provide some assistance:

  • I have a question about this sentence: "at first it was believed that they had sunk below the water in the Precambrian (over 541 ± 1 million years ago)". Should there be a comma after the phrase "at first"? I have the same question for this part: "At first the formation of the terraces was also attributed to volcanic activity".
    I don't think it's strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a comma is needed after the word "Oligocene" in this part: "During the Eocene and Oligocene older foraminifera were redeposited".
    Added, although I am not sure if it's strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only commented on it as other sentences with similar phrases have a comma, like "During the Second World War, it was discovered that the seafloor of the Western Pacific Ocean was dotted with numerous flat-topped seamounts." and "During the Cretaceous, carbonates accumulated on Horizon Guyot". Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikilink for "landsliding" is currently in this part: "this also results in sediments accumulating to form steep slopes that undergo landsliding.". However, the word "landsliding" was mentioned in this earlier part: "Landsliding is probably triggered by earthquakes". I believe the wikilink should be moved up to the earlier instance of the word.
    Moved the link up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question for this image caption: "Location in the North Pacific". Would it not be better to use the full phrase "North Pacific Ocean"? If the literature/sources use "North Pacific", then it is fine, but I was just curious about why the word "ocean" was omitted here.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: "In certain areas boulders and cobbles cover the seafloor". Should there be a comma after "areas"? From my understanding, this article is written in British English, and as an American editor, I am unfamiliar with how comma use may differ so apologies if a comma is not necessary. That is why I ask about commas, because it could a British English convention to not use commas in these instances.
    I am not really certain myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question for this part: "the former forms seismically reflective layers within the sediment cap". Would it not be better to just say "chert" rather than "the former"? I generally avoid using the former/the latter so it could be a personal preference on my part. I just do not see a real reason for "the former" as there is not a lot of repetition of the word "chert" in that part, and it would be a little more clear to the reader (at least in my opinion).
    Yeah, it probably reads better with "chert" spelled out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: "In the saddle between the summit platforms it is about 500 metres (1,600 ft) thick". Should there be a comma after the word "platforms"? Apologies for all the comma questions.
    No, I am pretty sure that here a comma would be inappropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think there is anything in the MOS on this, but I am curious on why the citations in the final paragraph of the "Composition" section are not in numeric order.
    Changed them around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope my comments are helpful. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba47, replied to the arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all good if you do not have the time. It was an interesting article to read, and it was nice to read something outside of normal comfort zone. Have a good time traveling! Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20 August 2019 [19].

Second Fitna

edit
Nominator(s): AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early inter-Muslim civil war that ensued after the death of the first Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I in 680 CE. It was a highly complicated and multi-faceted affair, that left a lasting impact on later Muslim governments and deepened sectarian divide. The core issue of the dispute was "who should rule the caliphate". The article is comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, and is thoroughly referenced with high-quality sources. An informal peer-review resulted in great improvement in the structure and accuracy of the article, while prose was improved recently by a GOCE contributor. All comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for two maps, where alt wouldn't add anything unique. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll have a look soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Fitna heavily influenced the later development of Islamic history in a variety of ways." Needs source.
This is just, sort of, a summary of what follows in the section, which is referenced. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Syria remained under Umayyad control." Likewise. All paragraphs should end in citations.
As above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it would still be encouraged in both cases, though. The average reader can't know whether it is just a summary or not by just reading the sentences. And if there is any doubt, the default should be to add a source. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the one above, as it may sound like synthesis. This one is plain fact in view of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this[20] image have a large white border? Should be cropped out.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quraysh (a powerful grouping of Meccan clans, to which Muhammad and all caliphs belonged)" All caliphs? The Ottoman caliphs were hardly of that clan, for example? Or do you mean until that point?
Until then. Although Qurayshi caliphs ruled at-least until the fall of the Abbasids, here first three are meant. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All the above killed in action Umayyad leaders killed by the pro-Alid leader Mukhtar al-Thaqafi during his reign in Iraq" Is this supposed to be one sentence? Reads odd.
Removed, is discussed in the article body anyway. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bernard Lewis notes" You present other writers, should be consistent.
Sorry I don't understand this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce the writers; in other cases, you say "Historian Fred Donner", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muawiyah moved to settle the issue in his lifetime by designating his son Yazid as his successor.[6] With no precedence in Islamic history, hereditary succession aroused opposition." and " `In 676, Muawiyah announced his plans to nominate Yazid.[8] This was met with some resistance from different quarters as the nomination was considered the corruption of the caliphate into monarchy." seem repetitive, could the sentences perhaps be merged?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battles fought during the civil war" Which of them? Perhaps best to just specify first or second fitna.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More terms and names could be linked in image captions.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alid, Hejaz, Messiah, and Kufa are not linked in the article body. Also, the term Alid could be explained.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Syrian army headed for Mecca" Might be confusing for most readers, why not just be consistent and call them or similar? If not, you might want to explain the Syrian angle further, because the rulers weren't Syrian as such after all.
Changed to Yazid's army .AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had fought the Umayyads and the Syrians during the First Fitna" Similar to above, you haven't explained who "the Syrians" were.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Iraq and Egypt came under his fold" The and and reads awkwardly. How about "which brought Iraq and Egypt under his fold", "with Iraq and Egypt subsequently coming under his fold", or similar, to avoid repetition?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pro-Zubayrd" Missing i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allied with the Kharijites" Duplinked.
Duplink removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—a rebel faction opposed to the Umayyads and the Alids who had emerged during the First Fitna—" They should be presented at first mention, which is much earlier in the article.
There they are mentioned in the due context. Further elaboration that they were opposed to Umayyads isn't necessary at that point, as the focus is upon their desertion of Ali. Here (i.e. at this second mention) it serves to recall who they were and to add that they were also opposed to Umayyads. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia. They began destabilizing his rule." Why two fragmentary sentences? Could make more sense as "A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia, and began destabilizing his rule."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tawwabin now came out in the open and called on the people to revenge Husayn's death" Explain what Tawwabin is.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a significant of number of whom" Of is not needed here.
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether ibn is capitalised or not. You seem to only capitalise it when not spelling out a full name, but shouldn't it be consistent? What do the sources do?
I used to write it as "ibn", but a reviewer pointed out (correctly) in my previous FAC that sources capaitalize Ibn when giving short name. See for example here. Same is for the rest of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rabi'a's opponents Mudar" Which are what? The article linked gives little explanation.
The linked articles are really bad and need to be improved. Added some context here. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while situation in Hadharamaut" The situation.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under Sufyanids" The?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Zubayrdis" Misplaced i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Qaysis proved invincible again" A bit too hyperbolic.
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Karijites" Missing h.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fall of Mukhtar meant there were now only two belligerents in the war—the Umayyads and the Zubayrids" But seems the Kharijites were still active too? In fact, it is unclear in the article what they wanted from their continued fight. And shouldn't they have a column in the infobox?
They weren't a faction for the control of the state like the other three factions. They would control sparesely populated areas and then and raid and harass cities and towns. They had no workable framework on how the state should be governed and run, and they often would fight among themselves, depose and kill their leaders on a regular basis and disintegrate into further factions. That's why historians don't consider them a real party in the quest for leadership. I will add a footnote on this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll support once the footnote is added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk: Footnote added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Abbasid Revolution in 750" Link them a first mention.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arabic coinage replaced that of the Byzantine and Persia" Persian?
Sorry, don't get this one. Why Persian? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so shouldn't it be "Byzantines"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Mahdi who was to appear in future" The Mahdi and the future?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hen he defeated Zubayrids" The.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Battle_of_Karbala_-_Abbas_Al-Musavi_-_cropped.jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Don't know, but I think Brooklyn Museum description can be trusted. Their page says "No known copyright restrictions". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image currently has a tag stating the author died at least 70 years ago. If we can't confirm that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It stated "and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal." Anyway, changed to pd-us-no notice.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Weird thing is that pd-art-3d didn't generate the text that is displayed on template page. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From HaEr48

edit

Started looking at this. So far, the article seems well-researched, well-written and with neutrality carefully preserved. Thank you for your work on this significant topic. Now, my feedback:

Thanks for reviewing. I was afraid this will be archived ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali was subsequently assassinated by one of the Kharijites in January 661, after having killed most of them at the Battle of Nahrawan": Did the Khajrites only fight Ali at this point? Or Muawiya as well?
At that stage only Ali, Muawiya was out of their reach. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • invaded Iraq: Was Iraq Hasan's base on power? This wasn't mentioned before.
Mentioned that Ali had transferred capital to Kufa, Iraq. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capital was transferred to Damascus: But where was it before? Medina or Iraq? Both seems plausible based on the previous text.
Done by the one above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election through consultation had been problematic in the past: could we briefly explain why? And why was it "unworkable" for Muawiya?
This was added to make room for Lewis quote. Its elaboration-that it caused first civil war-will be OR. "Unworkable" is Leiws' assertion and is probably based on the consideration that most of the 1st generation of Muslims and people of Muhammad's inner circle were all dead by now, and Muwiyah didn't command respect and authority as Umar did while formulating his Shura which included only 6 people. Again, elaborating that in the article will be OR. So, I think it should be left as is. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I agree that elaborating it using your own reasoning would be OR. If Lewis didn't explain his, please consider looking at other sources that might offer an explanation. Not only this is assertion is non-obvious, it is open to different explanations as well, e.g. is it unworkable in the technical sense? or "unworkable" because Muawiyah wanted his descendants to have the caliphate?. By the way, thanks for your excellent responses to my feedback. I think this is my last suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thanks. I think I have addressed all your points. As to whether he wanted to avoid further disputes in future or he wanted to establish a dynasty, it is both. Sources say he wanted to arrange a smooth transition, and wanted to see his son on the throne. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a sequence of events resulting in another civil war. : Suggest removing this sentence, because it's already obvious given that it's in the background section of that very civil war.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Husayn was killed along with 72 of his male companions on 10 October 680: Maybe there's more in the main article of the Battle of Karbala, but can we say how they died? E.g. was it a "battle" or simply an execution (given that it's 72 vs 4000), and who started the fight?
The number of people in his army is uncertain. But 70-72 dead are reported based on body count. Changed to less precise 70. Most of them were killed in single combats. Modified so it doesn't look like execution. Umayyad army started it. Do you mean it should be mentioned, or? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking to mention it, but after your change I don't think further addition is needed. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a son of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam: Would his status as Abu Bakr's grandson also relevant here? The previous section hinted to his claim from being a caliph's descendant.
Added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Ibn al-Zubayr's refusal: Refusal of what? Of negotiation or of submitting to Yazid?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition in the Hejaz: I'm worried that a layman reading this section will miss the fact that the Hejaz is the region containing Mecca and Medina. I suggest either renaming the section to "Opposition in Mecca and Medina" or describing Hejaz very early
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syria remained under Umayyad control.: Add citation for the sake of consistency? Pretty sure the following section has the ref.
I wanted to leave it without ref to prove a point ;) The point is that citations are required for claims that are controversial or are likely to be challenged. This one is none of that as it is a historical fact and the matter is further discussed in the section below it. This makes it similar to lead section where we don't normally add citations. But you are second reviewer to ask this, so I think that makes this claim "challengeable" to some extent. So added ref. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology of "Counter-caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr": IAZ gaining Iraq and sending governor there was mentioned before the Umayyads losing it and the Iraqis throwing out the Umayyad governor. Seems wrong chronologically.
Modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muawiyah II died after a few months with no suitable Sufyanid .. candidate to succeed him: Later in the paragraph we discover that he had a brother Khalid. Could we explain why he was not considered suitable?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue commenting soon. Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Khurasan and Sijistan: Because these names don't correspond to modern-day nations, can you add their rough location, e.g. which modern day country or region?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia: where was their base at this point?
In Mecca, defending the city against Syrian attack. Do you mean before assisting Ibn al-Zubayr? Yamama. But they were dormant back then, only the death of Yazid and collapse of government caused their resurgence. It has been mentioned in a footnote. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until now he had been supported by Kufan nobleman Mukhtar al-Thaqafi : Was he part of the khajirite as well, or not? It appears not, so I suggest adding "Additionally, " or similar to mark the paragraph's shift.
Added "pro-Alid". If it's not enough, "Additionally" can be added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro-Alid movements: Was the pro-Alid faction called "Shia" at this point? Would it be appropriate to note that, or that they were the predecessor of the Shia subdivision in Islam? It will help the reader's understanding if they could relate it to modern day concepts.
Yes it was called "Shia" from the time of 1st civil war, but it was in the sense of the original meaning of the word: "Party". Supporters of Muawiya were also called "Shia of Muawiya" during the 1st war. Doctrinal developments took place during the 2nd war (although some after the murder of Ali as well) and later. RS call them Shia at this stage but without missing to note that "Shia" at this stage does not refer to religious sect. Here, "pro-Alids" is used for "Party" and "Shia" for "religious sect" to keep things separate. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I still suggest adding a gloss like "(precursor of today's Shia)" or similar. To casual reader, "Pro-Alid" sound like a random faction, while mentioning Shia gave them something more concrete to associate from. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were struck by a sense of guilt for abandoning Husayn : Is "abandoning" the right word here? Husayn did not even get to Kufa, correct?
Yes, he couldn't enter Kufa, but it was largely because Kufans deserted his emissary Muslim ibn Aqil. "Not helping" or something similar can be added if you are not happy with abandoning.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Failing to help" or similar is better, IMHO. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mukhtar was killed along with some 6,000 of his supporters: battle, execution, or?
He was killed fighting, his supporters were then executed. Clarified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibn al-Zubayr's forces surrendered and he was killed in September/October 692: same here
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of commanders getting killed in this article. It's worth clarifying whether they were killed in battle or executed.
All the executed now described as such. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath - Ashraf: can we provide some names of Ashraf here? (especially those that feature in the preceding section) I think will help make the aftermath discussion more relatable to the rest of the content.
Sorry, which ones feature in the preceding section? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article body about the course of the civil war mentioned tribal chiefs that switched sides. For example, I assumed Dahhak ibn Qays was one of the ashraf that we're talking about in #Aftermath. HaEr48 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not only him but also Ashraf of Iraq and Syria and Khurasan. Some examples are Zufar ibn al-Harith, Abd Allah ibn Khazim, Abd Allah ibn Harith, Amir ibn Masud etc. Dahaq and Ibn Khazim added.can be added as examples if you like. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to some historians, Ibn al-Zubayr's role as the anti-caliph shaped the later development of the concept of Mahdi: Name the historians.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some aspects of his career were already formulated into hadiths ascribed to Muhammad during Ibn al-Zubayr's lifetime: This rather vague explanation could benefit from some example of those "aspects".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the conditions of the Hasan-Muawiyah Treaty, Hasan ibn Ali surrendered power to Muawiya on the conditions that he be just to the people and protect them and, second, Muawiyah could not appoint a successor and would let the Islamic world choose the caliph after him. The lead generally summarizes the article body, but this info is not in the body. Any reason why?
Somebody else added it recently. Removed it because numerous conflicting terms of the treaty have been reported. They are better suited in the article on the treaty. This is in line with the (modern) sources, which generally omit them. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a note to explain what "Fitna" means and why Islamic civil wars are called that.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work in this often neglected area. HaEr48 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support this article. It is well written, well-researched, written carefully to be neutral, has an appropriate structure and an appropriate lead section, and stays focused on the main topic. I can't say I'm 100% happy with the explanation for "unworkable" above, but it's a minor point in this excellent work. Thank you for your work and your responses, I hope my review was useful. HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HaEr48 for detailed review and support. I have kept "unworkable" quote as is to avoid my personal analysis, and also to keep the narrative balanced. "Corruption of caliphate into kingdom" narrative of early histories written in the Abbasid era, has to be balanced with modern views. But to avoid asserting things in Wikipedia's voice, I kept the thing in quote so it is clear that it is an opinion of a historian. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment from Mimihitam

edit

Hi, great job on the expansion. I only have one short comment. Would it be apt if you could also provide a discussion of the primary sources used by the scholars cited in this article? Because some might suspect that the article is based on Al-Tabari, and some might ask if it could be enriched with scholarly works that are engaging with Ibn Atsir, Ibn Katsir, or Ibn Asakir. This is just a suggestion. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mimihitam: The secondary sources cited here don not only use Tabari but also others including Madaini, Baladhuri, Ibn Sa'd, Yaqubi etc. But I have rarely seen Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir being cited. Could you please provide some examples where secondary works have based on these? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX that was just an observation brought by a user in the Indonesian Wikipedia (as the article has been fully translated): id:Pembicaraan_Pengguna:HaEr48#Pandangan_sedikit_utk_bung_HaEr. So there is no problem then. Thank you for your help. Mimihitam (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

edit

I am unfamiliar with the subject matter. I think you have done a good job in attempting to clearly describe a complex internecine struggle for the reader. I can't see how it can be improved so am tentatively supporting on prose. I just don't have a clue about comprehensiveness (though it looks pretty comprehensive) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Casliber. Should I take "tentatively" to mean that you have some objections? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No no, it means that I read it, I followed it, you did a good job of explaining a complex situation. It came across as cohesive and comprehensive. I just say "tentative" as I have no idea if it is slanted in its POV (though it is written neutrally) or leaving out some important facts. It is good to have a FA candidate read by people both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter as the former are better judges of comprehensiveness and balance and the latter for accessibility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son

edit

I reviewed this article earlier (see "informal peer review" mentioned above), but will take a deeper look at the article over these next couple of days. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Second Islamic Civil War" should be bolded as it's the common alternative name.
  • The word "afflicted", which is better suited for a disease, should be removed or replaced. Perhaps just: "in the Islamic community"
  • As a general rule of thumb explained to me during the Abd al-Malik FAC, "caliphate" should be capitalized when referring to the state i.e. "Umayyad Caliphate" or "ruled the Caliphate", and lower-cased when referring to the institution, i.e. "Mu'awiya's caliphate" or "claimed the caliphate"
  • "Umayyad dynasty" should be wikilinked as it refers to the ruling family specifically as opposed to the already linked Umayyad Caliphate.
  • Remove "some" before opposition, it's too vague.
  • Replace "company" with "retinue", better wording
  • Remove the sentence which starts as "Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr based ..."
  • Instead of "attacked Medina", write "assaulted anti-Umayyad rebels in Medina in August 683 and subsequently besieged Mecca, where Ibn al-Zubayr established his headquarters." ...
  • Then modify the following sentences that begin with "With Yazid's death" to: "After Yazid died in November, the siege was abandoned and Umayyad authority collapsed throughout the Caliphate except in certain parts of Syria; most provinces recognized Ibn al-Zubayr as caliph. A series of pro-Alid movements demanding revenge for Husayn's death emerged in Kufa beginning with Sulayman's Penitents movement, which was crushed by the Umayyads at the Battle of Ayn al-Warda in January 685. Kufa was then taken over by al-Mukhtar in October. Though his forces routed a large Umayyad army at the Battle of Khazir in August 686, al-Mukhtar and his supporters were slain by the Zubayrids in April 687 following a series of confrontations. Under the leadership of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyads reasserted control over the Caliphate after defeating the Zubayrids at the Battle of Maskin in Iraq and killing Ibn al-Zubayr in the Siege of Mecca in 692."
  • Change "modifications" to "reforms", change "increased" to "increasing", change "restructuring of the army" to "restructuring the army". "Changes in the bureaucracy" should also be rephrased, it's too vague. Perhaps "Arabizing and Islamizing the bureaucracy"?
  • Change "factions" to "sects".
Done all, with slight modifications, except "caliphate" thing. Sources don't capitalize it anywhere. See for example "Khalifa" in EI2, Kennedy's "Caliphate, History of an Idea", Hawting's "First Dynasty of Islam": its always "caliphate", "Sunni caliphate", "Abbasid caliphate", "Umayyad caliphate" etc. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a stylistic point to distinguish the Caliphate (as in the Arab/Islamic Empire) from the office, but no serious objection. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yazid's succession

  • The first two sentences in the second passage about Mu'awiya's specific warnings and remedies to Yazid about Husayn and Ibn al-Zubayr should be removed. They seem suspect and are hard to prove, probably a foreboding in the Muslim tradition. This is just a suggestion, but I think we're better off without it even if it's mildly interesting.
  • Mention that Walid ibn Utba was Yazid's cousin, so "charged the governor of Medina, his cousin Walid ibn Utbah ibn Abu Sufyan"
  • Change the second instance of Abd Allah ibn Umar to just "Ibn Umar" for consistency.
  • Was Marwan a "close relative"? Replace with "kinsman".
  • The sentence quoting Fred Donner should be relocated to the beginning of the second passage.
Done all, except removing Muawiyah's warnings. It is part of the will that he left to Yazid and, AFAIK, no source has questioned its authenticity. Also, it included Ibn Umar's name, but I've skipped it, because he did nothing whatsoever. See, for example, Lammens, Le Califat. He reproduces the whole testament. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this to me. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of Husayn ibn Ali

  • Remove "which had been the capital during the reigns of his father and brother", it's already noted above that Ali had his capital there and is implied that Hasan had been based there as well.
  • After making preceding change, replace "Kufans had fought" with "its inhabitants had fought".
  • The Battle of Karbala should be linked in the section (other than the hatnote).
  • Hejaz should always be preceded with "the".
Done all. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr

  • No need for "of the Muslim world".
  • Remove "Syria remained under Umayyad control", it's a bit redundant as the situation is explained below and it's not a totally accurate picture since most of Syria (Palestine, Homs, Qinnasrin/Jazira, even Damascus) recognized Ibn al-Zubayr.
  • Ashraf should be lower-cased throughout.
  • I copyedited the "Struggle for Syria" section a bit and did some minor c/e elsewhere. Will continue this review later today or tomorrow. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dissensions

  • Please introduce some dating to the events describe in the section.
Added for Mukhtar. I couldn't find exact date for Kharijites, but it is stated it happened after he became caliph, so is fairly clear I think. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon the usage of "now" as in the present tense. Replace "Until now" with "Until then"; Remove "Now" from "Now Ibn al-Zubayr".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Feeling abandoned, Mukhtar left him and returned to Kufa to incite pro-Alid sentiment among the people in his favor..." with "As a result, Mukhtar defected and incited pro-Alid sentiment in Kufa." Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Alid movements I did some copyediting here, but there are a few points that should be addressed:

  • Don't the sources prefer "Penitents" rather than "Repentants" as the translation of "Tawwabin"? The article on the Tawwabin uprising uses "Penitents".
Just for variety ;) Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find that the Tawwabin attracted large-scale support in pages 71–74 of Wellhausen. Maybe I missed it. Could you check this and specify the exact page number(s)?
"Sie hatten die Sympathien der Menge für sich, wenn auch die Aschräf nichts von ihnen wissen wollten." : "They had the sympathies of the masses, although the Ashraf wanted to keep aloof from them." Oppositionsparteien, p. 72. --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battle of Ayn al-Warda in northern Syria". It should either be clarified that we're speaking about present-day Syria or "Syria" should be replaced with "the Jazira" or "Upper Mesopotamia".
  • "Mukhtar had been active in Kufa once his alliance with Ibn al-Zubayr fell apart" is redundant. We already know he was active in Kufa from the preceding passage and the "Dissensions" section. Should be removed.
  • Replace "He had advocated" with "Mukhtar called for"
  • Revise "left the leadership of the Kufan pro-Alids in his hands" to "left him as the leader of the Kufan pro-Alids."
  • Revise "within the city" to "in the city".
  • Replace "thousands of people fled to Basra" with "thousands of Kufans fled to Basra". Actually, if the fleeing Kufans in question were Arab tribesmen or ashraf this should be specified.
Done, but I don't think 10,000+ people all would have been Ashraf. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the ashraf and their families and associates. But in any case, you can drop "thousands" and just write ashraf as they are the main factor here. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "to fight" with "to confront" and "recapture" with "reconquer".
  • Take "August 686" out of parentheses, just write in "in August 686"
  • "Mukhtar's relations with Ibn al-Zubayr worsened." I think this is unnecessary, I'd remove it. We already know Mukhtar broke with Ibn al-Zubayr and seized Kufa and much of Iraq from him.
  • Revise "Kufan refugees in Basra persuaded Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, the governor of the city and younger brother of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, to attack Kufa" to "In Basra, the Kufan refugees persuaded its governor Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, the younger brother of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, to attack Kufa". It should also be clarified that these "Kufan refugees" were the disaffected tribesmen or ashraf, you can even link the senior nobleman Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath as he was their ringleader. And why did they want Mus'ab simply "to attack Kufa"? We should be more specific. They wanted Mus'ab to help them eliminate Mukhtar and restore their lost influence. These are important things that should be mentioned because it helps illustrate the other factors at play in Iraq during the Second Fitna other than vengeance for Husayn or opposition to the Umayyads.
Yes, you are right. done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "palace of Kufa" → "Kufa's palace"; "and were besieged by Mus'ab" → "where Mus'ab besieged them" or "where they were besieged by Mus'ab".
  • "The fall of Mukhtar meant there were now only two belligerents in the war—the Umayyads and the Zubayrids" → "Mukhtar's fall left the Umayyads and the Zubayrids as the remaining belligerents in the war".
Done the others as well. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victory of the Umayyads

  • I understand why some of the material in the first passage is repeated from above. Wherever you can reduce redundancy here without sacrificing necessary chronology, please do so.
This is complicated. Since various developments were happening simultaneously, it is really hard to present them in a concise chronological way without risking some repetition. Anyway, the only repetitions here are Tawwabin and Khazir. Former is already a short sentence, I've trimmed the latter further.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Qaysi stronghold in northern Iraq? I believe we're talking about al-Qarqisiya (Circesium)? If so, mention and link it. Also, "northern Iraq" would be inaccurate as Qarqisiya was part of the medieval "Jazira" and in any case, would be located in modern-day Syria, not Iraq.
Thanks for catching this. fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "against the government"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword "the Kharijite faction of Azariqa" to "the Kharijite Azariqa faction" or better (in my opinion) "a Kharijite faction, the Azariqa". In the same sentence, replace "who" with "which" (tongue twister), and "pro-Zubayrids" with "the Zubayrids". Also, no need for "had been active against him".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rmv "extreme". "Repression and slaughter" suffice.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it specifically "half his forces"?
Yes, but can't remember where it was. Changed a bit to avoid the tedious task of searching again;)AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword "was no match for"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "again"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify how much longer the Azariqa revolt continued. "For some time" is too vague when we have information as to when the Kharijite revolts (whether the Azariqa or others) broke out and were ultimately suppressed. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • Revise "set out to reshape the administrative nature of the caliphate" to "enacted significant administrative changes in the caliphate"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Muawiyah developed a professional army in Syria and that Abd al-Malik developed a professional army in Syria. Wasn't Muawiyah's army one of "tribal masses" or "citizens' army", i.e. not a professional one? This being one of the major changes implemented by Abd al-Malik and his successors?
Yes you are right. I had meant Syrian Army- Ahl al-Sham- which was characteristically different from tribal volunteers of other provinces and was trained more rigorously through regular attacks on Byzantines, but yes it was not standing army like that of Abd al-Malik. So modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within the caliphate" means the provinces or Syria and the provinces? If it's the former then write "In the provinces", if it's the latter then write "Domestically" or "Internally"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the ashraf are already define above, remove "tribal nobility" and take ashraf out of parentheses.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "governors of the provinces" → "provincial governors"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the first "Also,". Just start it as "The military units ..."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "Provinces could retain much of the revenue after sending a small portion to the capital" to "Provinces retained much of the tax revenue and forwarded a small portion to the caliph". It's clear the provinces kept the bulk of the surplus, but in principal most governors were supposed to forward it to the caliph. Also specify that it was tax revenue.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Persian" with "Sasanian Persian" at first instance then replace "Persian" with just "Sasanian" for the remainder of the section.
Sasanian Persian would seem as if there were other Persians around as well. I linked Persians to Sasanian Empire but kept it as "Persians". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree (after all, we use "Byzantine" instead of "Greek" or "Roman" even though we know there we no other Greek or Roman powers at this time), but it's not a huge point. If you prefer your way, then at least write out "Sasanian Persian" at the first instance for the reader to know which Persian empire we're referring to as there had been others prior. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to Sasanian, and removed Persian altogether. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I restored "Persian" at the first instance of "Sasanian" since many (if not most) interested readers would be totally unfamiliar with the word. Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byzantine and Persian coinage was used". Not sure, but I think this should be "were used".
  • Revise "decentralized system of governing with personal connections and diplomacy" simply as "decentralized government", we already mention the other details of connections and diplomacy at the beginning of the passage.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After you make the above change merge that sentence with "and he thus centralized power".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "to impose" to "and was used to impose"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a period instead of a comma after "... authority in the provinces". Start the next sentence as "Moreover, key government positions ..."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "also" from "Abd al-Malik also required"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "In addition" why not "Most consequentially" since the coinage and language reforms had the longest term effects on the Caliphate's history. You can find it in the EI2 entry on Abd al-Malik by Gibb.
Yes but it would require elaboration as to why was it "consequential" which I think better suits in Abd al-Malik's article.
That's fine, though we could afford some elaboration on this point in the article. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "Arabic coinage replaced that of the Byzantine and Persia" with "Islamic currency replaced Byzantine and Sasanian coinage".
What is the difference? They just removed Sasanian/Byzantine symbols and inscriptions with Arabic ones. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal was to improve the grammar. As for why "Islamic" and not simply "Arabic" for the coinage, it's because the significance stems from the Qur'anic and other Islamic religious formula that were inserted and the non-Islamic images that were removed rather than simply a change in the inscription's language. After all, Arabic was already being used (to some extent) in the coinage before this reform. This was the main strictly "Islamization" reform that Abd al-Malik/Hajjaj instituted. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Mudar–Rabi'a/Azd split also played out in Khurasan not just Iraq.
Iraq implied its eastern dependencies, but added specifically now. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it mainly played out in Khurasan and Iraq as opposed to Sistan, Fars, Kerman, Jibal, Bahrayn, etc. which would also be "eastern dependencies". Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did wherever there was a significant Arab population, including Iraq, Khurasan as well as Sistan. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "block" → "bloc"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "but this division, and the implacable rivalry between the two groups, became" to "but their implacable rivalry became"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The constant quest" → "Their constant struggle"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a widespread outcry" → "widespread outcry"; "helped to crystallize → helped crystallize" I believe I'm correct here.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Battle of Karbala "often cited as the definitive break between the Shia and Sunni sects". I thought this developed later. Additional reliable source(s) would be useful for this line.
Yes Sunni and Shia sects developed later, but there existed political factions. Husayn's killing catalyzed the transformation of political affiliations into religious sect. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then instead of "a source of definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects" it should be "contributed to the development of the Shi'a–Sunni sectarian division in Islam". If you have a source that says what century they truly developed into Sunni and Shia (I think the 9th century, no?) then please add this. It is important to clarify this point and it could be done succinctly. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made further adjustments to make this sentence clearer/cleaner. Still think we should add "in the 9th century" (if that's the right century) instead of "later". Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son It depends. Early Imami Shi'ism had developed many of its doctrines during 8th-9th centuries. Twelver Shi'ism (the most significant denomination today), which eventually emerged from the Iamami Shi'ism, did not fully develop until 9th-10th centuries.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This event" → "The battle" since it's not entirely clear if the event is the Day of Ashura or the Battle of Karbala (I assume it's the latter). If it's the former, then specify accordingly.
"This event" here means killing of Husayn. How is day of Ashura different from the battle of Karbala?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The battle of Karbala is the actual battle and killing of Husayn and his retinue; the Day of Ashura is the commemorative holy day that did not truly start until centuries later. It's not entirely clear which is being referred to here exactly (even though I know it's the battle itself) and should be clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what was causing confusion. I just moved the Ashura ritual sentence. It should be clear now. Also, Day of Ashura is the Day of the Battle, so it is fine to call the Day of Karbala as Ashura Day. Ashura Ritual/Mourning etc on the other hand comes in commemorative category. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Never before in Islamic history had non-Arab Muslims played any active role" I'm a bit surprised by this statement (but I could very well be wrong) because of the hard "Never before played any active role" No non-Arab Muslim played an active political role whatsoever prior to this revolt? Could we be more specific if possible?
Prior to this, it was only the Arabs who mattered politically and locals were in the background. Mukhtar's mawali came to the fore and at the latter stages he was mostly supported and defended by them. They then became main instrument of the Abassids, but before Mukhtar, they didn't have any significant political role.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My concern was about the comprehensive and absolute current phrasing "never before played any active role." Certainly, there had been non-Arab Muslim individuals or groups from the time of Muhammad until the revolt of Mukhtar who played some kind of role in Islam. It should be clarified that until then, the non-Arabs did not play any significant political role in Islamic history, as Hawting and Kennedy say/imply (can't read Wellhausen). Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here non-Arabs/locals is meant as a group, not as individuals, otherwise Salman the Perisna, for example, was of course a non-Arab. Anyway, modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adjustment, I copyedited this further. Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

  • Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra is listed as a commander in the infobox but not once in the article body. He should either be briefly introduced (probably in relation to Mus'ab's fight with the Kharijites or against Mukhtar or his remaining with the Basran troops when Mukhtar set out against Abd al-Malik.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath, as probably the most eminent sharif among the Kufan ashraf, should also be linked in the article body in the segment on Mukhtar and Mus'ab. His son would later be Abd al-Malik and al-Hajjaj's most serious opponent after the civil war.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copyedited the footnotes. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you address these last concerns, I'll read the article start to finish once more and see if I missed something. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why do we have "Umayyad caliphate" and then just "Zubayrids"? Shouldn't the latter be "Zubayrid caliphate"? After all, Ibn al-Zubayr was recognized by the most of the Islamic provinces for a good part of the civil war. A major (if not the major) aspect of the war was the struggle for legitimacy and leadership of the Islamic community. Alternatively, we can also remove "caliphate" and just list them as "Umayyads" in the combatants section of the infobox. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Zubayrid caliphate" emerged during this very conflict. I initially wanted to add note on Hodgson and Robbinson's characterization of Ibn al-Zubayr as legitimate caliph and Marwanids as anti-caliphs but then decided to leave it out to keep it simple and more accessible. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We could elaborate more on this when we have more sources. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For stylistic consistency, we should choose one type of transliteration for Arabic names and terms and stick with it throughout the article. For instance we use "Muawiyah" instead of "Mu'awiya", but then we use apostrophes and drop the "h" for others, i.e. "Nu'man", "Mus'ab", "Ash'ath", etc, or use both "Najda" and "Najdah". A wider discussion about which style we should use across the board in this subject area should be started at some point (I personally favor the "Mu'awiya" form), but for the purposes of this nomination either style would be fine if it's consistently applied. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following Donner and Hawting, I made it "Mu'awiya". Also, removed h from Najdah. This is in accordance with MOS:ISLAM, which says apostrophe for Ayn is to omitted in the first letter of a word (eg Ali instead of 'Ali) but is retained in the middle (Mus'ab instead of Musab). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I went and applied this on a few other names I could find (Talha, A'isha, al-Hanafiyya, etc.)

Thank you for making those changes; I tweaked them further in some instances. Just did a final mop up of the article to catch any missing spots and am now finished. Fantastic work overall—comprehensive, well-written, accurate and objective—on this extremely formative, wide-ranging conflict in Islamic history. Glad to lend my support. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer for useful suggestions, edits and support. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? I've requested one, unless one of the current reviewers can sign off that they've reviewed the source comprehensively for reliability, formatting, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Could you please add the original date in Arjomand's 2007 book?
Thanks for the review. This is not a book, but an encyclopedia article. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please tell why New York is one of the locations where the book of Crone is made?
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the URL of Dixon's book. Because it hasn't a preview via Google Books.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donner's book is from 2012 not from 2010 that's what OCLC and my Google Books told me.
Google books is wrong. Date is what is printed on the book itself, which is 2010. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the link, ISSN, ISBN, OCLC or any other code from Gardet's source? Same with Gibb's source?
This is EI2 template. Will see if I can add ISBNs to the template. ISBNs added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the second Gibb's source and just add the page numbers in the first source.
These are encyclopedia articles, volume is same but articles are different. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an apostrophe in Shia in Halm's book. Also, OCLC claims that the book is from 1999 but Google Books claims it is from 1997?
Book itself says it is from 1997. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should New York be added in the locations of Hawting's book?
Locations are reported as written on the book. There it says "Routledge: London and New York". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy his 2001 book shouldn't be linked to Google Books because it doesn't show a preview.
Added new link. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy's 2007 book doesn't show Boston in OCLC on my screen, it says instead London?
If there is no location on the book, publisher headquarter location is reported, which is Boston. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More later Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange ISBN of the 2016 Kennedy's book doesn't go to Google Books nor Open Library. Amazon does have the ISBN but it is a different title it says "The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (A History of the Near East)" instead of the current book?
Google books' (or Amazon etc) bibliographic info shouldn't be trusted too much. Most accurate source for such info is the book itself, and the best thing to do if one doesn't have the book is to open the book in google and see the book's own info page. In this case, ISBN does lead to google books; second result in google search of the ISBN. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Lammens' 1921 book, also where's the link or a book code?
URL and OCLC done. Citations include original titles, unless a translated work is cited. In this case no translation exists and the original French work is cited. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please standerise the usage of Brill and BRILL in the sources.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Rotter's book title from German to English.
Same as above (Lammens). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standerise the ISBNs. Some of them have hyphens other don't.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharon's book needs a vol. 1 in its cite.
Google books' characterization of it as Vol. 1 is wrong. Yes, there are two books on the subject by Sharon but they are not volumes of the same book. First one is "Black Banners from the East: The Establishment of the Abbasid State : Incubation of a Revolt", second is titled "Revolt: The social and military aspects of the Abbasid revolution : Black Banners from the East II". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add Scotland in Watt's book location. And doesn't the book have a book code?
ISBN added. The publisher is headquartered in Edinburgh and the same is given in the book, so is fine. State names are given when there are more than one famous cities with same name. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Wellhausen's title of his first book from German to English.
As above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wellhausen died in 1918, could you please explain me how he is the original author of the "The Arab Kingdom and its Fall"?
Das Arabische Reich was published in 1902. The Arab Kingdom is its 1927 translation. Also, many authors' books are published posthumously. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. All the sources look good and are academic. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CPA-5. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2019 [21].

Mary Bell (aviator)

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a follow-up -- or indeed a prequel -- to that of Clare Stevenson, the long-serving director of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF), the first and ultimately largest women's military service in wartime Australia. Mary Bell led the WAAAF for the first three months of its existence but, more importantly, had played a significant role agitating for its establishment. One can imagine her reaction upon being passed over for permanent command of her baby in favour of corporate executive Stevenson, but Bell was persuaded to put aside her disappointment and ended up serving in the WAAAF for most of the war, if in a minor capacity. This is one of my shorter bios but I think the detail is comprehensive considering the subject's career; the article passed a MilHist A-Class Review in January, since when I've added some further detail. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

edit

I looked this over at Milhist ACR, and have reviewed changes since. I only have a couple of comments:

  • suggest "Returning to Australia, on 20 March 1928 she became the first female to gain a pilot's licence in Victoria, and the sixth in Australia."
    • Fair enough -- done.
  • Bective is Countess but also Lady, I thought they were different ranks?
    • I think "Lady" is generic and I've seen her referred to both ways in sources, but happy to make consistent (to be fair, the source image caption uses "Countess").

That's all I could find, great job with this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Easy support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. I couldn't find anything to do! - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done.

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

edit
  • "for a Grade A private pilot'" - I'm a pilot and have no idea what this is. Is there a link?
    • I've been asked this before and not found a link/explanation, even trawling through the Flight International archive. I think it means 'unlimited' but couldn't prove that.
@Ian Rose: OK, this is worthy of a EFN with exactly that text.
Linked per response to Cass. Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "herself as Australian Commandant" - meaning a higher level of the hierarchy, or the capital region? The preceding statement suggests the organization was regional but I suspect this statement implies there is a second level.
    • I always read this as it being a federated model, the Australian commandant in overall charge, with state commandants below -- do you think this could be expressed better?
You just did... but do the refs actually describe the structure at any point? It's all too easy to SYN here.
  • "free male staff for overseas postings.[9][11] In July 1940, the new " - para break here
    • New para starting with "In July 1940, the new..."? To me this followed naturally from the preceding "She continued to lobby...", or do you feel the para as it is is too long?
The following text represents a sea-change and I think it should stand alone. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for reviewing, Maury. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass

edit

Marking my place with comments to come. CassiantoTalk 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • "She and her husband later became farmers. Nicknamed "Paddy", Mary Bell died in 1979, aged seventy-five." -- Unless I've missed it, there is no mention of the nickname in the body. Also, blitz "Mary", no need for the first name here.
    • That's correct, hence the citation -- unless the source says when she acquired the nickname I think this sort of thing is best placed towards the end of the lead. I had "Mary" because we'd just mentioned her husband but that was probably being too careful...
Early life and WATC
  • We flip from Britain to England. Consistency is key. Britain is a big place, England is more concise, if indeed that is where he comes from? "Britain" also sounds awfully old fashioned.
    • "England" should be fine, will do.
  • From my emerging work on Amy Johnson, I've come to learn that a "Grade A private pilot's licence" is the same as this. Link?
    • Sure, tks.
World War II and WAAAF
  • "Australia having declared war on 3 September 1939" → "With Australia having declared war on 3 September 1939..."
    • I wonder if it's an AusEng thing because "With" at the beginning seems wrong, or at least redundant, to me...
  • "She continued to lobby, as did several women's groups seeking to support the war effort and free male staff for overseas postings." -- is there a comma missing from somewhere? Perhaps after "groups"?
    • The source is saying that she continued to lobby, and so did several women's groups that were seeking to support the war effort and free male staff for overseas postings -- perhaps I can express it better (or perhaps I just did)?
  • "In July 1940, the new Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Burnett..." -- deletion of "chief" and "air". Do we need both introductions? I would drop the one just before his name.
    • As anyone on the receiving end of one of my copyedits can tell you, I like to reduce repetition, but in this case I think it's justified -- the first bit is a position, the second a rank, and he's the first head of the RAAF to be an air chief marshal so I think it's worth mentioning.
  • "Despite Bell's recommendation in July 1940 that they be enlisted into the WAAAF as permanent staff..." -- they? Women? I'd replace they with women rather than leaving it to later in the sentence.
    • Fair enough.
  • "She also suggested a volunteer reserve or citizen force to augment the enlisted women, effectively the existing WATC, though this was seen as placing too much emphasis on her personal command." -- " effectively" suggests POV and is a tad conversational.
    • I'm not sure it's that controversial or POV, I believe the wording reflects the source. Happy to discuss alternate wording but I think to be accurate it'd have to effectively be the same as "effectively"... ;-)
Later life
  • "Ranked flight officer, Mary Bell..." -- why the comma? Why the introduction?
    • Her rank at discharge is in the cited source, and I mentioned it by way of confirming that she did in fact leave the WAAAF at the highest rank to which she agreed to be promoted after she changed her mind about resigning in 1942.
  • "The WAAAF, first and largest of Australia's wartime women's services..." any need for the factoid this late on? If so, "the first" would be better.
    • I think it's important to mention these facts about the WAAAF. Admittedly I earlier said under World War II and WAAAF that "the WAAAF was the first uniformed women's branch of an armed service in Australia", so would it make sense to make the bit under Later life read "The WAAAF, Australia's largest wartime women's service..."?
  • "It was succeeded in 1950 by a new organisation with a separate charter to the RAAF, the Women's Royal Australian Air Force (WRAAF)" -- "It was succeeded in 1950 by the Women's Royal Australian Air Force (WRAAF) that held a separate charter to the RAAF"
    • Okay.
  • "Survived by her daughter, Mary Bell died in Ulverstone, Tasmania, on 6 February 1979. She was buried at Mersey Vale Memorial Park cemetery in Spreyton, near Devonport, beside her husband, who had died in 1973." A few things here: Firstly, no need for "Mary". Secondly, two "died"'s in close succession. Thirdly, I don't feel a need to mention Bell's daughter outliving her mother, unlike I would if she had predeceased her. Fourthly, "near Drayton"? Surely, it's "near" a number of places, why Drayton? Suggest: "Bell died in Ulverstone, Tasmania, on 6 February 1979, and was buried beside her husband, who predeceased her in 1973, at Mersey Vale Memorial Park cemetery in Spreyton.

Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • In the lead, does "Director" need the upper case D?
    • Perhaps not -- "Director WAAAF" seems to be a proper name but I guess "director" (and "deputy director" for that matter) on its own isn't.
  • Can I echo Maury's comment re the Grade A licence. IMO it needs some sort of explanation in line or a footnote. Or removing.
    • Linked now per Cass.
  • "The Bells moved to Brisbane in 1939; John was employed as Queensland manager for Airlines of Australia Ltd, having left the RAAF in 1929" Does this mean that John was employed by AAL from 1929? And did he continue to be employed by them after the move to Brisbane? Or did the move mark the start of this employment - which is how I read it.
    • I believe the move marks the start of that employment but the source doesn't make it explicit.
  • "She continued to lobby, as did several women's groups seeking to support the war effort" Possibly 'other' after "several"?
    • Fair enough.
  • "this was seen as placing too much emphasis on her personal command" Do we know by whom it was so seen?
    • I don't have the source with me but I think if it was explicit I'd have said so -- the implication is that it's the RAAF hierarchy.
  • Is it known what Bell did between May 1941 and October 1942?
    • Secondary sources don't make it clear but a couple of newspaper articles from June 1941 state that she was again Australian Commandant of the WATC; I refrained from putting this in though as neither article dealt with the fact that Countess Bective, who had taken command of the WATC on Bell's appointment to the WAAAF in Feb 1941, must have handed back command to Bell when the latter left the WAAAF.
  • "all previously occupied by men" Possibly 'all previously occupied only by men'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. All good and I am supporting. Personally I would fill the May 1941 to October 1942 gap, even if it begs a question, but I will eave that one with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog, on further investigation of the newspaper archive, it looks like Bective continued to lead the WATC after Bell left the WAAAF the first time in 1941; one source, from June 1941, even states clearly that Bell "is, for the moment, returning to private life", but as this source is The Australasian, a picture magazine, I'm a bit dubious about using it in a potential FA. I think though that by the lack of any media mentions to the contrary, we can assume Bell did little of note in WP terms between June 1941 and October 1942. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit
  • "Her maternal great-great grandfather" - ADB says great-granddaughter of Jonathan Griffiths so only one "great"?
    • I read it as Mary's mother was the great-granddaughter and so Mary must be a great-great-granddaughter...?
      • Yes sorry, I had misread it.
  • "St Andrew's Anglican Church in Brighton" - wlink St Andrew's Church, Brighton?
    • Done, tks.
  • "auxiliary services" - wlink Auxiliaries?
    • Done.
  • "Burnett, invited her to produce a proposal for a women's auxiliary, supervised by her husband John" - ambiguous? ie was John to supervise the proposal or the auxiliary?
    • Tweaked, see what you think.
  • "on the condition that she received no promotion higher" - ambiguous? change to 'on her condition'?
    • Fair enough re. ambiguity but didn't really like "her condition" -- pls see what you think of my rewording.

Thanks Ian, JennyOz (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jenny! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last suggestion, "They had a daughter" - maybe add year 1926 ref
Thanks Ian, all good. My last suggestion not essential so I am happy to add my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added that, thanks again for reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

          • I'm quite happy to accept that it's PD in Australia - the issue is more the US status, whether The Age had the rights to provide for worldwide release. However, I think on reflection we'll take the gifting as sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CPA-5

edit
  • Air Vice-Marshal v. Air Vice Marshal

I only have this comment nice article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The former -- well-spotted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2019 [22].

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heir to the English throne leads his first independent command 600 miles through enemy territory; aforesaid enemy's stronger force cowers in its fortresses; leaving a trail of fire and pillage the English swagger back to base, allegedly so laden with loot that silver is discarded in favour of gold. Clearly a made-for-the-chronicles script. Strangely this episode has not previously had a Wikipedia article; it has now and I would be grateful for any thoughts regarding its quality, structure, level of detail and state of MoS compliance. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

Another absorbing read in this splendid series. A few minor drafting points:

  • Lead
  • Although we usually avoid citations in the lead if the same material is cited in the main text, an exception is made for direct quotations, which are supposed to be cited at both appearances. You could either add a duplicate citation in the lead or paraphrase the words into oratio obliqua.
Citation added.
  • Background
  • "well over 1,000 ships … over 200,000,000 imperial pints" – perhaps "more than 200,000,000" rather than the repeated "over"?
I specifically looked at this before nominating - I know that I overuse "over". I have no idea why I didn't change it then. Done.
  • "approximately 45%" – the MoS points us towards writing "per cent" rather than "%" in prose (though not tables etc) but does not insist on it. I just mention it.
I tried "per cent" and it looked ugly, so I went with "prose is engaging" rather than the non-binding MoS guidance.
  • Prelude
  • "reinforced his force" – rather a jingle. Perhaps something like "augmented his force"?
It does, doesn't it; not to be anti-jingoist. Issue evaded.
  • Heading east
  • "There new knights were dubbed" – not quite clear where "There" is.
That's me introducing the prior sentence and not proof reading adequately. Sorted.
  • "the army started devastating the countryside; it was divided…" – the army, not the countryside, was divided, but that isn't what this says.
est omnis divisa in partes tres. Reworded.
  • "As before they stormed" – perhaps a comma after "before" would help the eye along the line.
This style of putting a comma after initial time periods usually breaks up the flow of a sentence to me. It is not something I have much encountered outside Wikipedia, but as it seems common within these hallowed halls I shall alter things to suit your preference.
It isn't usually wanted (American schoolmasters and -mistresses have a lot to answer for) but sometimes, as here, it helps the eye along. I often give as an instance "After reading Joyce Beckett was inspired..." where without a comma people might wonder who Joyce Beckett was. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Returning west
  • "…moved out from Narbonne, with their rearguard and stragglers being harassed …" – This might flow better without the "with" – the absolute construction has the benefit of concision.
Well spotted. Done.
  • Each of the three paras of this section has a clutch of three citations at the end and none within. That means – or should mean – that everything in the paragraph is found in all three sources. If so, that's fine.
If one gets very picky with one's sentence structure, no. But when I went past 30 cites for a paragraoph and seven for a sentence - all the same three citations - I decided that things were getting silly and changed style. (It got much worse than the second paragraph of "Effect".) All three are giving detailed accounts of the same events and drawing on the same contemporary sources, although they stress different aspects. The alternative may stick to the letter of the law, but both makes the article look a mess and, IMO, makes it more difficult for a reader to check attribution. If you don't like this - which would be a perfectly reasonable view - perhaps I could send you a copy of the three cited works for one of the paragraphs and you could form your own view?
As long as anyone can verify your statements from the cited sources I'm happy with the method of citation you espouse. I'm happy to do a source review if no better volunteer comes forward. Ping me if wanted. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is extremely generous of you. No doubt being plunged into some of the more obscure aspects of mid-14th century warfare will be character forming. As this article is back in the south west the number of substantive sources is limited. I shall ping you if needed.
  • Effect
  • "in order to be able to all the gold" – a word missing between "to" and "all" (and there are those – not me particularly – who hate "in order to" and insist on just "to")
Oh dear. Thank you.
And I am so proud that I didn't mention Rees-Mogg at this point. Oops ...
  • "an additional 100,000 écu in tax each year" – I realise that giving modern equivalents is difficult, but we need some indication of how big a sum this was, either in terms of euros or other modern currency, or percentage of state income, or other measure.
I prefer to do that, but get grief when I do. I have converted into the total weight of 100,000 écu in its base metal and given a very rough - French record keeping was crap - idea of what it meant to the treasury.
That seems to me ideal. (Though we now have "per cent" here and "%" earlier on.) Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The numeral spelt out, likewise "per cent"; not, not. :-)
  • "Contemporaries, including the Black Prince considered" – I think you want two commas or none here.
Indeed.
  • "to have been as success in non-financial terms as in financial" – "successful"?
Sloppy, sloppy.
  • Aftermath
  • "went over to the English, the Black Prince received homage" – stronger stop than a comma needed.
A semi colon? If so, done.

Nothing to frighten the horses there. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support once you've have a chance to consider these few quibbles. – Tim riley talk 09:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ms Dolittle. Sound points, as usual. Given that I wrote this in less than a week only a month ago and didn't put it through ACR I am tolerably pleased that there wasn't more for you to find fault with. While being frustrated at some of the sloppiness which I did let through. How is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to add my support now. I am rather sorry to know this series is nearing completion. I have enjoyed each component article as it has come along. Wikipedia can be proud of this coverage. Tim riley talk 18:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: Thank you for the above and for your support through my personal exploration of the Hundred Years' War 1345–1347. If you glance at my target topics, you will see that while, barring an overarching title article, Hundred Years' War 1345–1347 is complete, there are others which I could move onto. Indeed, this article, from 1355, could be the start of the Hundred Years' War, 1355–1356 topic; I am tempted to expand Burnt Candlemas if only because of the name. However, I have been doing work on some aspects of the Seven Years' War - a much shorter conflict - that I would like to work up to FA; including what I consider the most decisive battle fought by an English or British fleet prior to the 20th century. Possibly you will enjoy that too. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • resources and had been hard pressed by the French Hard pressed needs a hyphen.
It may, or may not, be "allowed", but as Mr riley points out, so is the construction in the article, per the OED, so there is no need for it to be changed.
  • Yes Gog, but Lexico is made by Oxord so isn't it part of the OED? Also there are two kind of "large-scales" one hyphenate and other one as two words.
@CPA-5: I am not a fan of relying on any single dictionary, and the Qxford series is not my favourite. That said, on investigation there seems to be a noted lack of any support for "hard pressed", so you are correct: hard-pressed it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the French King's personal representative It sounds a little bit odd to men especially the "personal" part.
It is a normal usage. (Putting "personal representative of the king" into Google gives 85,000 results, the first from 2010.)
  • with the peace talks having failed Replace "having" with "have".
As Tim says, this would cause the sentence to no longer make sense. It is fine as it is. (Try Googling "having failed".)
  • Instead a chevauchée, a large scale mounted First add an "of" after "instead", second American large scale.
Per Tim re "of". Checking six dictionaries - two off-line, four on - I can find no evidence that either "large scale" or large-scale are preferred (or prohibited) in either usage.
  • @Gog the Mild: just found out there are two kind of "large-scales" here. large-scale v. large scale.
  • There new knights were dubbed, as You mean their?
No, but I have changed it anyway. You may wish to check the new version.
  • parallel to each other, so as to maximise --> "parallel to each other, to maximise".
Done.
  • A colourful fourteenth century depiction of a town being sacked in the File:Sack of the town.jpg the "fourteenth century needs a hyphen".
Oops. Done.
  • The whole of southern France was in uproar Add an "an" before "uproar".
"in uproar" is a perfectly normal usage. See the second example from the Cambridge dictionary, here.
  • to have been as success in non-financial You mean successful?
I do. Done.
  • and attempted no counter measures merge counter measures here.
Done.
  • Link Gascony.
I keep doing that. Done.
  • [Gascon lords] were much comforted,"[33][34][35][36] Try to avoid using more than three citations in one sentence or at the end of a paragraph.
I do, but in this case I feel that it is necessary. See discussion above with Tim for my reasons.
  • surprise that they had not even guarded the fords.[28][37][38][39][40] Same as above.
Likewise.
  • bombarding the English with artillery.[28] [37][38][41] Same as above and remove the space in the first citation.
And again. Space removed.
  • a total of 120,000 imperial gallons (550,000 l) No American gallons?
Added.
  • from them on 24 April 1356.[52][60][61][62] Same as above.
And the same response.
  • I see some seasons here. Is it posible to use months instead of seasons?
Given that the seasons are vital to understanding the tempos of the military operations, no. I understand why the use of seasons is normally discouraged, but it doesn't work in this context.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some comments on some of the above points, for clarification. Tim riley talk 13:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CPA-5 for your usual thorough analysis. All of your points addressed above. And thank you Tim, for your learned interjections. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Verification:
  • The system used in most of the article, of placing strings of citations at paragraph ends rather than relating individual ones to the statements they support, makes verification difficult – nigh impossible, I'd say. I strongly recommend that you revise this method in favour of individual citations.
I had hoped that the end of paragraph approach would make verification easier, but as neither you nor Tim riley or CPA-5 who have commented above feel that this is the case I have amended it as you suggest. Hopefully you will find it more satisfactory.
  • Ref 18 supports the statement: "...resulting in the death of approximately 45% of the population". The page range in the citation is 77–97; surely a simple statement like this can be cited to a single page, rather than 20?
A complete Horlicks by me - apologies. Sorted.
  • Ref 36, too, is problematic – cited to 7 widely dispersed pages with no clue as to what information in this paragraph these pages refer to (there are others similar, e.g. 30, 40, 41, 46)
I have slimmed down as much as I feel that I can; addressing your first point above helped in this respect. The nature of Madden and Sumption make it difficult. See what you think.
Well, the ref numbers have changed, so it's difficult for me to follow up, but you appear to have done what was asked, and I'm happy to accept things as they stand. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: no issues
  • Quality/reliability: sources appear to be comprehnsive and scholarly, and to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian and thanks for wading into this one. Your points above addressed and hopefully you will be happier with it now. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit

SC

edit

Dropping a marker to pick up on this shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Now I'm for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "fell to the English on 3 August 1347, after an eleven-month siege": comma really needed there?
No. (And I can only hope that it wasn't me who put it there.) Now expurgated.
Aftermath / Lead
  • The short lead finishes at the end of the Effect section, and nothing about the Aftermath is mentioned. I was a bit surprised when I read of the four months of fighting in 1356 when the lead wraps everything up in 1855. Just a line or so to say there was more fighting and then the approximate date they returned to England would suffice.
I get, reasonably, accused of over-long leads, so I probably over compensate. See what you think now.

That's it from me. One piffling point, one that should be looked a nit more closely. Aside from that, I'm happy to Support that this meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks for going through this one. Two good points, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That lead looks much better now, thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • A question about the flagicons: Did soldiers back then use these symbols?
They did. See the contemporary image in the infobox of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 - note the use of the English and French standards. Or ditto for Battle of Calais where the standards of Geoffroi de Charny and Sir Walter Manny are displayed.
OK. The reason I asked is because I recall that sometimes such flagicons are used for battles where no flags were used, so I want to make sure their use here was appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in - that isn't exactly a contemporary image - like most attractive 100YW images it is late 15th century - in fact from the Froissart of Louis of Gruuthuse (BnF Fr 2643-6) of the 1470s - I hope that gets a link sometimes! I'd also be a tad cautious in taking such luxury miniatures as showing how things appeared in reality - their emphasis is more on what things ought to have looked like. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All images look appropriately licensed to me and the use seems appropriate as well.
  • Not an image question, but what is a chevauchée? The term is used without any explanation.
Ah! Got me. It is "a large-scale mounted raid", as explained on the first line of the lead and again at the second mention in the main article, in the context of the abortive chevauchée from Calais. But, I have got so close that I forgot to link its first non-emboldened use. Now linked for both the lead and the main article.
If my understanding is correct, the ALT text should not simply describe the image but replicate the role it plays in the article structure.
Hmm. MOS:ALT says "Alternative text is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. ... On Wikipedia, alternative text is typically supplied through a combination of the image caption and the text supplied for the image alt parameter in the MediaWiki markup." So far as I can see I have met these criteria. That said, I frequently don't see as far as I should, and further am clearly having a slow day as I can't work out what "the role it plays in the article structure" means. Any chance of a one-syllable explanation for the slow one at the back of the class?
"the role it plays in the article structure" means "what information would the article lack if the image was removed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you. Relatively obvious now you have spelt it out. I can't find this in policy or guidelines; could you point it out for me?
I am assuming that you think that the combination of caption and alt text does not adequately "replicate the role [the image] plays in the article structure" in one or more of the four images? All? Or just some? If the latter, which? I ask as I am struggling to see that it doesn't and, leaving aside whether it is required by policy, it would help me if the issue could be narrowed down. I believe that I mentioned that I am not the fleetest of thought. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking the first and third ALT text. I think that it should simply say the name of the person, since AFAIK the image is there only to show the person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Surely that just redundantly repeats the same information? A sight-impaired reader will then hear the same information twice. However, notwithstanding, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Many thanks for picking this up, appreciated. Your points above addressed, although in one case partially with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi, does this address your concerns, or am I still struggling to understand? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like most is resolved, although you may want to move the chevauchée link up to the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: One is not supposed to Wikilink to the emboldened repetitions of titles in the lead, nor to words in quotes, so it is, I think, linked at first mention other than these in both the lead and the main article. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct it for me, as it would mean that I am being tediously slow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are two "chevaucée"s in the lead section and the link is currently under the second mention rather than the first.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Now moved to first mention. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like everything's sorted as far as my comments are concerned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: Hi all. Given Jo-Jo's comment above, I assume that this one is rolling towards a happy ending. If I am correct in this, I wonder if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2019 [23].

Operation PBFortune

edit
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an abortive attempt by the US government to overthrow the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz. It was a prelude to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, an episode of major importance to US-Latin America relations. I have dredged through virtually all of the substantive English secondary source material, and some of the Spanish material, too. It has undergone a GA review from Peacemaker67, and an A-class review from the Military history wikiproject. I welcome all critique. I will be occasionally offline over the next few weeks, but should be around enough to deal with comments within a reasonable timeframe. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this article at GAN then at Milhist ACR, so I have very little to add:

  • suggest dropping the citation in the lead, as the State Department decision is covered in the body
    While being fully aware of CITELEAD, I have developed a strong preference for keeping lead citations, because I spend far too much of my time reverting drive-by editors who remove info from the lead claiming it isn't cited. So, unless this would unduly upset you, I'd like to leave it in.
  • link military junta and Coup d'état
    Done.
  • CIA in full at first mention, and link
    Done.
  • suggest linking Director of Central Intelligence
    Done.
  • suggest just piping Colonel (United States) to "Colonel" rather than "US Colonel"
    Done.
  • say that Quezaltenango was/is the second largest city in Guatemala
    Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "did not explicitly tell Dulles" It isn't clear why Mann and Miller had the power to give directions to the CIA?
    It wasn't meant to suggest that they had authority over the CIA, but rather that Dulles was looking for their approval. I've added some text that hopefully clarifies this; let me know if it needs more work.
  • suggest mentioning Operation PBHISTORY in the body when mentioning Árbenz's resignation
    Added.
  • suggest providing a translation of the title of Moulton's article via a trans-title field
    Done.
  • the sources are all of high quality and reliable. I conducted a spotcheck of the Haines citation (fn 38) and also checked fn 31 × 4 from Hanhimäki & Westad. From that, perhaps add to the material cited to fn 31c that the 74 were to be imprisoned or exiled?
    Good spot, thank you. Fixed now.

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks as always; all points addressed, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Nice article. Only two points, both rather small, for you t consider:

Background
  • What is a "a widely successful literacy campaign"? A campaign that was generally successful, or one that was geographically wide in its implementation?
Planning
  • "grossly undervalued price": shades of POV in this, so it may be best to qualify with "what the company (or government) considered a g.u.p." or similar

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks. I have removed the terms "widely" and "grossly", respectively. In each case, they are an accurate summary of what the sources say, but when I reread those sentences, don't seem to add much to the article. "Grossly undervalued" is, in particular, something that many of the sources comment on; the UFC undervalued its land to reduce its taxes, and then cried fowl when it was compensated based on a ridiculously low value; but that episode is tangential to this article, so I think it's best kept simple. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

A sources review was carried out as part of the recent A-class review, and a number of issues were raised then and dealt with. I thus have little to add:

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 18 requires pp.
  • Likewise 21
  • Quality/reliability: sources appear comprehensive, and to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury

edit

I have made minor edits to the article throughout. I found the prose to be rather complicated considering the relative simplicity of the topic. I have broken up a number of run-on-paragraphs, including the enormous block of text that was the lede, and reworded a number of statements for clarity. However, I think this still needs another run-through or two to improve the prose before we can move this to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: I'm happy to receive commentary on my prose, but without specifics to work on, there isn't too much I can do...Thanks for the copy-edits. I was happy with most of your adjustments, but I made a couple of changes; for instance, following the sources and Spanish naming customs, Carlos Castillo Armas is referred to as "Castillo Armas" after the first mention; even if we abbreviated it (which we shouldn't, because the sources don't) it would be "Castillo", not "Armas". Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've fixed the issues I saw, but I'm sure I've missed some. The issue I have is that I found so many so easily, yet no one above seems to have noticed any of them. This concerns me and I think we need more eyeballs. I'm good as it is now. 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Casliber has taken a hack at the prose (see below); so I wonder if you could have another look at this, and if there's not anything you'd like me to change, if you'd consider supporting. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Not to be a bother, but this is approaching the bottom of the list, and if there's anything else I can do to satisfy you that this meets the criteria, I'd love to know about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, back. Not much left...

  • "details of the plan had become too widely known." - I think the "too" should be removed.
  • "intervention, and so terminated the operation" - Acheson had authority to do this? Was the CIA under State at that time?
  • "respectively, felt threatened by Arévalo's reforms" - why? I can guess some reasons, but that's SYNning.
  • "CIA's ability to move arms around Central America without the approval of the State Department" - this suggests the answer to the question above is "no".
  • finally, what does the "PB" signify? It's also part of following missions, so I think it's more than just something to throw off the scent.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments tentative support from Cas Liber

edit

At first read-through I thought it was fine, but noting Maury's comments I have found some things to simplify. Will note queries below:

I'm not seeing anything else Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I've responded; thanks for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked again. I think I support. It reads fine to me - I had to look a couple of times to see anything but did so due to Maury's concerns. Hence consider my support conditional on no-one else finding much to complain about.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

The ALT text for the mural should probably explain a bit better what role the image of the mural has here - is it meant to illustrate that Árbenz had popular appeal? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborated a little, but it's covered by the caption...@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you've been active: did you have any further licensing concerns, or are my responses sufficient? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed this one. Yes, it seems all OK now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • in a military coup led by Jacobo Árbenz in October 1944, an event known as the October Revolution Is there an article for the coup?
    Afraid not. Guatemalan Revolution is all we have at the present, and that's linked already.
  • The coup leaders called for open elections Maybe pipe the elections to the elections's article.
    Piped to "were won", because that seemed more logical to me.
  • governments in Central America and the Caribbean Link both Central America and the Caribbean here.
    Per MOS:OVERLINK, these shouldn't be linked; they are very large geographical units.
  • intensified its lobbying in Washington against Are we talking about D.C. or the state?
    D.C. I've added that.
  • four individuals from Santo Domingo who were at Maybe add the Dominican Republic here. Because there are more than one Santo Domingos.
    Yes, but it's linked; and the one in the DR is the primary topic, after all.
  • than Truman to support Árbenz's overthrow.[44][41] Reorder the refs here.
    Done.
  • Of these violations, 93% were committed Please use percent here the symbol should only be used in tables or infoboxes.
    Done.
  • of Arévalo and Árbenz as communist --> "of Arévalo and Árbenz as a communist".
    That's incorrect though; it's the policies of two presidents that are being referred to. "Policies ... as communist".
  • Guatemala's second largest city Second largest needs a hyphen.
    Done.
  • that Castillo Armas wanted killed --> "that Castillo Armas wanted to be killed".
    The previous is more succinct.
  • the US trained and funded an invasion You mean US-trained?
    No...the United States provided training and funding, is "The US trained and funded..."

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: I have responded to all your comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2019 [24].

HMS Bulwark (1899)

edit
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulwark was British pre-dreadnought battleship built during the 1890s. She served as a flagship for the first decade of her existence, first for the Mediterranean Fleet and then for the Channel Fleet. She was reduced to reserve in 1910, but continued to participate in the annual fleet manoeuvres. When the First World War began in 1914, she joined other pre-dreadnoughts in escorting the British Expeditionary Fleet as it sailed from Britain to France. Bulwark blew up in November with the loss of almost all of her crew, the subsequent investigation blamed the ignition of cordite charges that had been placed next to a boiler-room bulkhead. She exploded with such force that there was very little to be salvaged. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this month. I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining bits of AmEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and any infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

Having already reviewed this at Milhist ACR, I have only a few comments:

  • suggest dropping (BS) from the lead, and just introducing it in the body if it is used again
  • say where she exploded in the lead
  • the infobox gives flagship crew numbers in 1904, but this detail isn't really covered in the body, per se
  • suggest "including landings at Lemnos and Nauplia" if that is what is meant?
    • I'm not sure and don't have access to the Times. I've queried the editor who added that bit and hopefully he will be able to look it up and see if we can get a better sense of exactly what was meant. Though I suspect it means port visits.
  • suggest moving fleet review link to first mention in 1903
    • Good catch.
  • suggest "where Domville hauled his flag down again when he completed his posting."
    • It ties into him hoisting his flag aboard in the previous paragraph.
  • for Lords of the Admiralty link List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty
  • "and the others had been removed."? Does this mean all the 3-pounders had been removed? If so, just state that?
    • No, she started with six, two were repositioned and the others were removed.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All footnotes are formatted uniformly
  • Sources used are high-quality, reliable, and comprehensive.
  • No spot checks done, but the nominator has a well-established track record. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments
edit
  • What's Silverstone on about with the namesake? I was under the impression that the name Bulwark was a reference to the fact that the navy was the "bulwark" of the country. British Warship Names might be able to clarify this, though I won't be able to get it until next week (dunno if there are any libraries near you that have a copy).
    • You're probably right, but I went with what I had. I've ordered the book from ILL.
  • Would Domville's title have been "Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet" or "Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet"?
    • The latter would be the more formal title.
  • "She left Plymouth five days later" - this seems a little jarring, since we're in a new paragraph in a new section from the date it's referencing
    • That para is all about her movement and activities, which seemed a bit of a disconnect from her commissioning.
  • "fleet review at Spithead conducted by the List of Lords of the Admiralty" - is "List of Lords of the Admiralty" right? That sounds like it's the title of a wiki list. Also, wouldn't it be "conducted for the Lords"?
    • No, I screwed up the link. Ball specifically says "by" the Lords, so they were doing the reviewing.
  • " After covering the safe transportation of the British Expeditionary Force to France in August, the 5th BS remained in Portsmouth until 4 September, when they returned to Portland where they stayed through October aside from exercises." - this reads awkwardly to me, especially the "when...where..." bit. You might split it after they returned to Portsmouth, and then rework the rest as "They remained there through October, only going to sea for exercises" or something. (ping me when you're done - I'm still hacking away at translating Nottelmann)Parsecboy (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Coming soon. Kees08 (Talk) 00:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be all. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking these over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've added this to the Urgents list but it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some additional reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a full review to my source review today. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

"Ask me for anything but time."

  • "served with the Channel and Home Fleets from 1907 to 1912, usually as a flagship. From 1910 to 1914, she was in reserve" A casual read would suggest that she was both in service and in reserve during at least much of 1910-1912.
  • "From 1910 to 1914, she was in reserve. After a refit in 1912, she was assigned to the 5th Battle Squadron of the Home Fleet." Similarly 1912-1914.
  • "her remains were designated as a controlled site" Is "as" necessary?
  • "Note 1: "18 cwt" → '12 cwt'.
  • "for combined manoeuvres, landing at Lemnos and Nauplia" Picky, picky, but would 'stopping' or similar be a better word than "landing"?
  • "Captain Arthur Leveson temporarily assumed command on 3 January" Would the year be appropriate
  • "4 nmi" IMO this should be given in full. I don't think that it is an abbreviation which many readers can be expected to have come across.
  • "ruled out external explosions like a torpedo or a mine" Suggest "like" → 'such as'.
  • "30 ft (9.1 m)" Optional: the conversion seems spuriously accurate to me.

That is all I have. Another sound piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in turn for your rapid response. Leaving aside images and sources this meets all of the criteria, so happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

edit
  • on the 10th, then proceeded to Malta Unlink Malta.
  • The ship visited Trondheim, Norway, on 18 June Unlink Norway.
  • Captain Robert Falcon Scott of Antarctic fame Unlink Antarctic.
    • You know how I feel about geography links.
  • Link "normal" in the infobox.
    • Can't, every navy defined normal load differently.

That's anything from me. Not much but it can help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I appreciate you taking time to look it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [25].

Coterel gang

edit
Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gang of ruffians, check.
Hiding out in Sherwood Forest, check.
Duffing up royal officials, check.
Fair maids and boozy priests, history releases not their secrets.
The Coterel Gang: A likely historical antecedent of the Robin Hood legend. AKA more fun and games from the early 14th-c. when the King wanted to go to Scotland but ended up in Derbyshire, and those who wanted to stay in Derbyshire went to Scotland. All please to comment! ——SerialNumber54129 08:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to User:Jens Lallensack for the thorough GA also. apologies for the belated acknowledgement! ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

edit

I'll make obvious fixes to the text as I go, please check, and I'll add comments here as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • They were joined by men of lower class.[16] It was probably composed of the Coterel brothers with a small number of local men as its kernel— "It" has lost its subject
  • kidney — I'm not sure how international this usage is, perhaps wait and see?
  • Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland area— if you have linked Derbyshire at its first occurrence, you should link the others too
  • High Peak image, although pretty, doesn't today much resemble the "wild forests" of your text
  • highpoint may be correct, but looks odd as a single word
  • Inconsistent capitalisation of Peak District
  • Sir John de Legh, for example, was from Shropshire.[43] Many men—Sauvage, for example— clunky repeat of "example"
  • Lichfield is correct, but you also use Litchfield
  • link Bakewell and Mackworth
Thanks very much for thse pointers, Jimfbleak and for your own edits, all appreciated. Instead of kidney (v Holmesian!), how about just "similar gangs"? ——SerialNumber54129 14:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I like "kidney", but I suspect that it has limited currency these days. I haven't quite finished reading (grandchildren duties ): but I hope to do so soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Duities, literally, of your own kidney!  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Methinks that "Appeltree" should be "Appletree", see History of Derbyshire
  • ...intersect in detail with known historical events such as the Coterels were involved in,— missing "those"?
  • Note 1 has a red link to the "Disinherited". perhaps could be piped to something that helps us understand this?
All done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks very much again. Linked and added your first two suggestions; as to the last, well, it was difficult to find anything to link to without WP:EGGiness, so I cut "Disinherited" and added minor detail about de Montfort and the barons' war, whichh should be more explanatory? ——SerialNumber54129 12:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Petition_SC_8-131-6544_from_Walter,_Vicar_f_Bakewell_to_the_King,_c.1331-dorse.png: under US law, reproducing a 2D work garners no new copyright - this needs info and tagging for the original work
    • Added {{PD-US}} and {{PD-scan}}: they the ones?

Source review

edit
  • The level of detail in the source locations seems a bit inconsistent; we have country in some cases, and not in others; and US states in some cases, and not in others. I'm not particular as to what format is finally used, but consistency is necessary, I think.
  • If you end up using US states, I'd suggest full names, rather than two-letter abbreviations; unlinked, these are quite opaque to most readers
  • It strikes me that since you're using sfn formatting, page ranges are unnecessary for books in the bibliography, where they are not edited volumes (I'm looking specifically at Hanna and Turville-Petre, 2010)
  • "HMC" in HMC 2011 should be written out in full, I think; perhaps even linked, if possible?
  • There's a closing parenthesis missing in the title of Maddicott 2004
  • The google books preview of Miller 1991 suggests both Miller and Thirsk are editors; would the "cite encyclopedia" option be a better one here? It would allow you to include the chapter author, too.
  • I'm unfamiliar with "cite archive"; is "page=petitioners:..." standard formatting?
  • Not critical, but you could afford to lose "edition" information where an ISBN exists.
  • Something's off with the editor name formatting in the Shippey source
  • A PhD thesis is certainly not the worst source to use, but I wonder if it could be replaced, particularly for something like the outlaws fondness for forests.
  • I have similar feelings about conference proceedings; they don't typically undergo peer review...
  • ref 48 needs "pp", and a comma, I think?
  • ditto 104.
  • No other concerns about source reliability
  • Spotchecked ref 27; checks out, though Hanawalt doesn't actually say "presumably"?
  • Also spotchecked 40abc; checks out.
  • Also spotchecked 49abcd; checks out.

That's it; it's mostly a lot of nitpicks. Please ping me when you're done, I'm not watching this. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for looking in, Vanamonde93: I've attended to many of your suggestions / nitpicks, I absolutely agree re. consistency; any I've left as is are per my previous FACs (and I guess my own internal consistency). Good thinking about the cite encyclopedia; it was a bit tricky but I got there. Re. the cite archive, "page" is for the relevant webpage I believe. Thanks again, ——SerialNumber54129 17:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: Most concerns resolved, certainly; It would be nice to replace the thesis and the conference proceedings, but I don't think those are grounds for failure. Nice work. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

I read this on my phone - fascinating story. I now have to go back and find the nitpicks....

  • .....so it is likely, says J. R. Maddicott, that there.... - I would add a note on what he is so we understand why his opinion is important. Hence "so it is likely, says [historian] J . R. Maddicott, that there"
  • Similarly with J. G. Bellamy...
  • I did see some samples when I read this before where I thought the writing could be trimmed a bit....aaaand now I can't find them. Hang on...
  • ..although he was not arrested, and nor was he ever to be. - why not, "although he was never arrested."?
    • How about although he escaped arrest? And drop the nod to future lack of arrests?
Sounds fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laurence was accused of ravishing the Derbyshire estates - don't you mean, "ravaging"?
  • Do we know anything about the murders? I guess as they were the worst crimes it might be good if any facts were added....
@Casliber: H'mm. Oddly, not as much as we'd like. I've added the names and location but that would seem about it... ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I think that is helpful as otherwise it leaves the reader a bit in the dark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't see any other issues prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Eric Corbett

edit

I'm afraid that, unlike Casliber, I can see a few issues with the prose:

  • "... Willoughby paid the massive sum of 1,300 marks for his freedom" It would be nice to get a sense of just how "massive" that was. Would it have paid for a castle to be built for instance? How did that compare to the King's own income?
  • "... they frequently cooperated with other gangs such as the Folvilles". I think this is a common misuse of "such", when what is meant is "including".
  • "The King, Edward II, was extremely unpopular with his nobility ... In 1322 the King's cousin, Thomas, Earl of Lancaster had rebelled, been defeated, and executed for his resistance to them." That makes it seem as if the Earl of Lancaster had been executed by the nobles.
  • " The area of the Midlands they operated within was also wealthier than the national average." This seems just to be tacked on as an afterthought. What's its relevance?
  • "... with a small number of local men at the gang's kernel" That doesn't seem quite right to me. Maybe "forming the kernel of the gang"?
  • "... Bernard had himself been vicar of Bakewell in 1328 but had been forcibly ejected by his parishioners ..." I think that should be "and had been ...".
  • "... with spies keeping a look-out for the Sheriff's men" Why is "Sheriff" capitalised?
  • "Most of the gang who proceedings had been attempted against ..." That's really clumsy. What about "Most of the gang against whom proceedings had been attempted ..."?
  • The caption for the first image in the Peak of activity section should not end with a full stop.

I could go on if you wanted me to, but only if you find my criticism helpful; I know that many find criticism hard to take. Overall I like the article, and I would like to be able to support its promotion after a bit of tidying up, but at the moment I would oppose it. Eric Corbett 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett: Have I ever complained about an in-depth prose review?! I would hope not. But I think I know what you mean. ——SerialNumber54129 18:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't, but others have and are. Eric Corbett 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'll make a few small individual changes that you can review and either keep or undo. Eric Corbett 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eric Corbett, for your comments here and those tweaks you made yourself. I've attended to your points—and adopted your suggestions!—the line regarding the wealth of the area has been moved to the "Origins" section, as it provides some context as to how they were able to make a living. As for "Sheriff"; it's my curse. I Instinctively Seem To Capitalise Everything I Can, and then have to go through changing them all! Bonheaded. BTW, I added a (small) footnote contextualising the 1,300 marks: incomes from either side of the chronology OK? I haven't got anything for goods of an equivalent value I'm afraid. Thanks again, ——SerialNumber54129 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am interested as the first time I read it I thought I saw some stuff that could be tightened but I was on my phone on a plane in economy class sitting between two large people (I am not small either) and the last thing I wanted to do was try and edit anything. Unfortunately my eye for detail is lacking sometime on subsequent reads. SN54129 I think this is doable. I did actually muse on alerting Eric anyway....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like a Sxottish omelette? "There isn't mushroom"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 08:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too, and please don't think that I meant any criticism of you. I know that to some I can appear to be overly nit-picky, but I just want things to be right. Eric Corbett 18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The origins of the Coterel gang were against a backdrop of political factionalism within central government." This doesn't seem right to me, that origins can be against anything. How about something like "The Coterel gang was active during a period of political factionalism with central government"? Eric Corbett 18:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Eric Corbett: Check. I took the liberty of adjusting "with central government" to "within central government"? ——SerialNumber54129 07:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, I'd meant to write "within". Eric Corbett 11:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no firm evidence as to James Coterel's precise motives for embarking on his career in crime. Perhaps, suggests the medievalist J. G. Bellamy, having started off in a small way, they discovered both that they were good at it and that it provided an easy source of income." That's a very uneasy switch between the singular "James Coterel" and the plural "they". The "both" is obviously redundant as well. Eric Corbett 12:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that's a symptom of my having been "got at" by the XXX-crew; great for virtue signalling, crap for decent prose.
  • "The offence was committed at the instigation of one Robert Bernard ..." I'm not a great fan of that "one" Robert Bernard, don't really see what it adds. Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, lost one.
  • "... for which he had subsequently received a pardon." Likewise, I'm not sure what "subsequently" is adding here". Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, just that it was after the event. But I suppose that's rather self-explanatory.
  • "For example, one Walter Aune delivered a quantity of food to them in the woods" Same issue with "one". Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. Just out of curiosity, but is there an occasion on which you would ever use it? I tend to use it when it's a rather common name and someone of whom we know nothing but a name, although I know that's just a personal applicaton rather than an "official" one.
      • I think that about the only time I might be tempted to say "one" would be if I was referring to a old source that had said something like "one Mr Day", i.e. where no Christian name had been given. I'm not claiming that's right, it's just what I'd tend to do. Eric Corbett 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were supporters although not necessarily active members, a group which included at least seven local men ..." This doesn't quite work for me. How about changing "a group which" to "and"? Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... uniting in order to kidnap and kill the king's loyal officials" "In order to" almost always seems like two words too many to me. Why not "to"? Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... late-twentieth-century historian" and "... late-15th-century re-telling" I'm really not sure that there should be a hyphen after "late" in either case. Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always tripping myself up over that one, thanks. Also changed "twentieth" to "20th".

As I fully expect to find myself blocked in the next few hours, and on the assumption that my additional points above will be dealt with satisfactorily, I'm going to support this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 12:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett:, I never thought I'd "oppose" a support, but I beg you not to say that  :( ——SerialNumber54129 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's as well to be realistic about such things. ;-) Eric Corbett 13:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: Well. Changes made, all for the better. Let me just say, thanks very much for looking in here, in spite of all the other crap you're having to deal with. If, in fact, it does not come to pass, you have absolute express permission to withdraw your support in favour of more review, or any other action you deem necessary. In fact, that gives me an idea. Stand by. Thanks a lot and best of luck. ——SerialNumber54129 13:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be withdrawing my support. Good luck with the remainder of this review. Eric Corbett 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

edit

I have made a few minor copy edits which you may want to check.

  • From the first paragraph of the lead: "which flourished in Derbyshire"; "Basing themselves in the heavily wooded areas of north Nottinghamshire". Not necessarily inconsistent, but confusing in the first paragraph.
    • "It flourished in the North Midlands"..."basing themselves in the desolate peaks of Derbyshire and the heavily wooded areas of north Nottinghamshire"?
  • "ignored their summonses and did not even attend" Is this not saying the same thing twice?
    • H'mmm.
  • "opposed to the Despensers and Edward II" The Despensers appear rather suddenly, not even blue linked. Possibly a word of explanation?
    • Added a couple of ines to the context, explaining they were, like Slater, universally hated and despised around the parish.
  • Note 1: "The same thing would occur following and would later take place to those of Despenser following his execution in 1326" This sentence seems to have suffered a mishap.
    • Indeed it has, while adding stiuff for EC above; mea culpa, adjusted now.
  • "it was a relatively wealthy area." Suggest that "it" be replaced with the area in question.
    • Yus.
  • Could we link "High Peak" to Dark Peak.
    • Stand by. I've already linked it to High Peak Estate, elsewhere in the article. Whichever one's more accurate I'l go with; but I have no personal knowledge.
Dark Peak would be the correct link.
  • "James Coterel committed murders in Derby in 1329 and 1330, on the latter occasion killing Sir William Knyveton and John Matkynson in Bradley" "on the latter occasion" refers to "murders in Derby", so John Matkynson can't be one of them. How about 'James Coterel committed murders in Derby in 1329 and 1330, on the latter occasion killing Sir William Knyveton; in 1330 he also murdered John Matkynson in Bradley'. Assuming that the 1330 date is correct.
    • You assume the correctness correctly Stolen that wording though, cheers.
Hmmf! That no doubt comes from hanging around with varlets like the Coterels.
  • "James Coterel was attached" Are you sure about that usage. I thought that only property could be attached, not people.
    • True O King, nowadays, but originally (I guess this is the origin of it, to some extent), it was the attachment of a man by his goods (though you're right, to much the same end). But Legal history blows. I've addd a footnote citing J. H. Baker and a Northants gaol delivery roll explaining tings.
Ah. I am now better educated.
  • £5,200 is an eye wateringly large amount of money for the time. It's about 5% of Edward III's annual peacetime income. That's a lot of cattle. Is your source sure about this?
    • John Bellamy is pretty sound. Bizarrely and outrageously still redlinked though. To be fair, he was first cousin to Edward II, effectively ruled the country in his stead for some years, and was one of the richest buggers in the kingdom—(*OR Alert*)—I suspect he would have had both a lot of cattle and the best quality, which might go some way towards explaining the vast amount.
OK. Hopefully you understand why I felt that I needed to flag it up.
  • "Roaming the Peak District, they sheltered in Sherwood Forest" This gives the erroneous impression that Sherwood Forest is within the Peak District.
    • How about, "Roaming between the Peak District and Sherwood Forest, where they they often sheltered, the gang was continually joined by new recruits"?
Works for me.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you are finding it useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peak of activity" Don't give up the day job.
  • "joined them after getting into debt and then being outlawed when they were unable to repay what they owed" They's and them's referring to different things. Optional: delete "them".
    • On another re-read, that whole sentence is rather clunky; how bout adopting your suggestion and raising it: joined after getting into debt and being outlawed when they were unable to pay their creditors. Tighter, you thnk?
Yes.
  • "the majority would seem not to have been" You seem to share with me a mild tendency towards overcomplicated language :-) . Possibly delete "would"?
    • Heh  :) tightened, merged and redirected into the next sentence (see your next point)
  • "or even to have had criminal records at all" Perhaps 'or even not to have had criminal records at all'?
    • Merged into above.
  • Possibly introduce Barbara Hanawalt at first mention? (If so, then, as Mr riley would point out, beware of false titles.)
    • I must be going blind, but surely she is linked at first mention? (Origins/Coterel fail-->second line). No false title, also courtesy of Sir Riley de Lancs  :)
No, I am going blind. Apologies.
  • I have inserted a new paragraph to avoid the block quote breaking a sentence.
  • "hand over 40 shillings"; "hand over 100 shillings" Any reason why these are not given as £2 and £5? (I realise that you are probably imitating the source, but it reads oddly.(Eg, why not '1,200 pennies'?))
    • Indeed, the source uses shillings and I am not from þe olden days  :) would you rather use pounds?
It is not that important, but yes.
I went with shillings because I felt that it emphasised the largeness of the sum; but no worries, used £s instead.
  • "The Cathedral Chapter supported the gang even after the gang was identified" 1) Doesn't really make sense; 2) "the gang" twice.
    • Tweaked.
  • "support of these two religious houses" Two? Which is the second?
    • H'mmm. I'm sure there was another, but for the life of me, I can't find it now. Removed (possibly temporarily!).
  • "to actively forage for food" There isn't, as I have discovered to my irritation, a Wikilink to an article which covers "forage" in the sense you mean it. Sadly, this needs unlinking.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... that it had cost him Willoughby was ... " I suspect that the start of this sentence has been kidnapped; I advise paying the ransom.
    • More like an expeditionary force  :) repelled.
  • "the majority of accusations the presentment juries made" Was this meant to be 'the majority of guilty verdicts the presentment juries found'?
    • More medieval legalese! The presentment jury was a kind of inquest; it adjudged whether someone should be presented for their crime, in other words, sent on to trial. So I don't think they came to verdicts, as such.
Big apologies. I wrote this is a fit of absentmindedness. On rereading I thought that I had deleted it before clicking "Publish". I'm just time-wasting.
  • "with the King soon preoccupied with projects abroad, the status quo ante soon returned" soon twice: is it possible to replace or delete one of them?
    • Well spotted. Absolutely. I lost the first one because—as you might know  :) —the king was very much preoccupied at that point in time, rather than would "soon be preoccupied". Cheers!
  • Your closing quote: the MoS suggests "Format a long quote (more than about 40 words ... ) as a block quotation, indented on both sides."
    • Point. Done. Two consecutive block quotes from J. Maddicott. H'mmm (again).
  • Note 2: "Sauvage was an independent criminal in his own right" As opposed to being a non-individual criminal in his own right?
    • :p How about Sauvage had already established himself as a criminal in his own right? Or perhaps, Sauvage had already established a criminal career of his own...?
The latter reads well.
  • Note 23: "almost 900 pardons were issued". Ayton has "several thousand were issued during the course of the siege of Calais [1346-47]". Bottom of p. 194-195 of this may be worth reading.
    • Thanks for that; I don't think the figures are particularly contradictory. After all, the Crecy campaign, being bigger=more soldiers=more criminal=more pardons; Ayton's figures: "over 1,100 pardons" (but not all at Crécy), "thousands of enrolled pardons" for Eiii's entire reign, "over a thousand men" pardoned "during the march across Normandy or in the weeks immediately after Crécy", so there's clearly room for discrepancy/elasticity of parameter. Until someone goes through the entire Pardon Roll with a tooth comb anyway. Or have I—perfectly possible—misunderstood your point?
      I say nothing nor wonder aloud at the WP:COPYVIO of attaching to an entire book, either ;)
I was just wondering if you might want to go for the higher number of "thousands", rather than "almost 900". (I would :-) .) And I liked the quote from the Commons petition, although it is drifting off topic.
Nowt to do with me squire. Someone has been a very naughty boy/girl. I stumbled across it while researching for Battle of Crecy.
I've compromised by the old "somewhere between..." trick.

A fine piece of work, the text skips along and the baroque language conjures up a feeling for the period. Equally, having had a dozen successful nominations of FACs covering the English military in 1333-1348 over the past few months, the text, IMO, accurately reflects my sources' view of the place and period in both spirit and detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I will give that a couple of days to settle, then have a fresh read through. But it is looking very solid. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Interesting stuff and well pulled together. I made a few tweaks here and there, all fairly minor and in line with the MoS; a few comments from me, all very nit-picky:

Lead
  • "The Coterel Gang": the other 24 uses of the name have it as "Coterel gang"
    • Check.
  • There are five uses of "gang" in the first para and six in the second. The use of "group" or "band" could soften the impact a bit. (particularly " The Coterel Gang ... was a ... gang")
    • There are 275 (or possibly half that number) uses throughout the article. Bloody hell. Do you think using the collective would be OK? I.e., "the Coterels", like when we say "the Krays" and we mean the gang rather than just the twins. Anyway, I've reduced the number of occurances by half. Bloody hell.
Context
  • "on account of": anything wrong with "because of"?
    • No, changed.
  • Gaveston: I get heartburn at the mention of him. As he's only mentioned in this para, as far as I can see, all he did to annoy people was die... I appreciate there may be too much info to give a brief background as to why him being favourite made Edward disliked, but I'm struggling to see what the reason was.
    • Well; he was a bit of a tool, but that's probably "against policy"  :) have removed Gavescon, as to be honest, he's over and done with nearly 30 years before the events of the film take place.
  • Blimey – they took their herring cooking seriously! Not enough cookery books round at the time, methinks
Origins
  • "he discovered that they were good at it": "He" refers to James Coterel: who is "they"?
    • Now he.
  • "the three brothers Coterel" -> "the three Coterel brothers"?
    • <nowiki>*Sigh* for not being allowed to write like Jane Austin (the only real man at it these days, except for Dorothy Wordsworth; and she's got a beard you could lose a badger in).
  • Suggestion regarding the structure of this bit:
==Background==
===Political context===
===The Coterel family===
===Origins===
    • I'll do look at this in a separate edit, to see wot it looks like. Good idea though, a deadheaded "Background".
Your call, and it's not something I would necessarily push for, but it would be worth thinking about.
Activities
  • Folvilles, and when Eustace Folville: Folville gang link goes to Eustace's page anyway – may be worth dropping it, unless you're thinking of putting up (at least) a stub to provide a target
    • Thanks for the reminder: the literature on the Folvilles is even more extensive than that on the Coterels, and I was intending to hive off the article on the gang from that of the individual. Incidentally, it was actually that that got me doing this, and similarly, I started it off as a biography of James Coterel before realising that the gang is the primary subject, not the man. Same with Eustace I think.
Peak
  • "at least fifty strong." or just "at least fifty."
    • Less strong.
  • "they utilised": Arrrrrgghhhh!!!!!!! "they USED"!
    Sorry: hate the word, which is pointless.
    • Sorry, you should have said. Have some of that Gaveston  :)
Kidnapping of Richard Willoughby
  • At the end of the "Peak of activity" section you say "One of their most notorious acts was not extortion, however, but another kidnapping—that of Sir Richard Willoughby, a royal justice, whom they captured in 1332.[29]" We then have a whole other section on Support, then this one. I think it would make it easier on the soul to have the whole support section at the bottom (i.e. after the "Royal response" section). In that way you'd deal with the gang, all its activities, and then look at the support it received. Your call, but if you keep it the way it is, you should drop the Willoughby reference from the "Peak" section.

Leaning support at the moment, but over to you, maestro... – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much indeed SchroCat, much appreciated as always. I restructured it per your suggestion—here—and I think it's an improvement. Is it what you were thinking? ——SerialNumber54129 14:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed. I've made one tweak, but please revert or change if I've cocked something up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

edit

Overall this looks good and was an interesting read.

General/multiple sections:

  • Is there any system to who gets the appellation 'one' ("one Walter Can", "one Robert Franceys", and "one John Kinnersley", but just "Robert Bernard")?
    • None whatsoever, except for my incompetence  :) discussed with One Corbett above, but I didn't realise I'd used the phrase that often. Well spotted!
  • In the Activities section, the plural possessive is given as the "Coterels's". In later sections, it is "Coterels' ". In one instance under Scholarship, we have "Coterel's" (which is presumably wrong since it is in reference to the group).
    • Right. I'll go with Coterels's, if that's OK, for consistency.
  • 'King'/'king' seems to be capitalized inconsistently.
    • Check.
  • I concur with SchroCat's suggestion to move down the section about support.
    • Done!

Political context:

  • I looked at the source for the quote about "where a quarrel over a badly cooked herring could end in violent death, as happened in Lincoln in 1353", and in the version I accessed it says "happened at Lincoln". Not sure if this is a difference in editions, or a mistake in transcription of the quote into the article.
    • No, "at" is correct(ed).

Activities:

  • Note 4: "Forests were, of course, popular with outlaws as hiding places, as they were increasingly becoming beyond the reach of royal justice." The 'of course' here seems unnecessary (and perhaps a bit too confident about what the reader would know about the preferences of medieval outlaws).
    • Hasn't everyone seen Men in Tights! ;) Thanks for that though, lost the "of course".
  • Also note 4: The interior quote about "Our castle of the wind" seems to have been left unclosed.
    • Closed.
  • Note 9: "This illustrates how it was a policy of Edward III to use members of one gang against another, and to take advantage of pre-existing feuds." Since we haven't been told about this policy previously, it seems better to just state that "It was a policy...".
    • Yes, good point. Done.
  • "If anything, though, says one commentator, their outlawry "seems to have inspired them to expand the range of their criminal behaviour"." The initial words suggest a contrast, but the contrasting option isn't stated. Presumably it is that outlawry should have discouraged their criminal activities? If the contrast is going to be implicit anyway, I would drop the comparative and just state the result: "One commentator says ..."
    • Thanks for that: that was a hanging edit, where I intended to say what the effects of outlawry were expected to but then couldn't find the source. Still can't, for that matter.

Peak of activity:

  • Notes 10/11: It's odd to see note 10 inside note 11. Could the content of note 10 perhaps be merged into note 11 as a parenthetical?
    • If you don't mind, I'll get back to you on that. On principle, I agree; but I seem to remember having discussed that with whoever added the note-within-a-note, but for the life of me, I cant find where.
  • Note 12: Is this a quote? It ends with a quotation mark but doesn't have one to start.
    • No, removed.
  • "They utilised the indenture system: one half was sent to the victim with the demand, and the sum demanded was to be paid to whoever arrived at the appointed time bearing the other half of the indenture." I think this should say "one half of the indenture" or "one half of the contract". When I first read it, not yet having read the explanatory note and not being previously familiar with this system of paperwork, I found it rather confusing.
    • Ay, how about "one half of the indentured contract", to clarify?
  • "William Pymme" – is this the same person as "William Pymm" (no 'e') mentioned previously?
    • Yes it is, he of the loyal servants: the main soure uses Pymme, I think, so I've added the e.

Royal response:

  • Note 20: "a roll of 13 rolls" – not sure I understand how it can be both one and 13.
    • H'mmm. We don't seem to have an article on "membrane", which I've converted the first "roll" to, as a portion of enrolment, but I've redlinked it for future purpose.

Later events:

  • "The Coterels and their gang had received few—if any—legal penalties, and James Coterel was eventually pardoned—of all "extortions, oppressions, receivings of felons, usurpations, and ransoms"[29]—in 1351, probably at the instigation of Queen Philippa, whose patronage he seems to have enjoyed even during his days of criminality." I'm cool with dashes, but in this case none of them seem necessary. The "if any" could be set off with commas, and the detail of the pardon should just be in the main flow of the sentence.
    • Done.
  • Note 23: "thousannds" – is that spelling from the source, or a typo?
    • A typo, from last night. In other news, how the hell is that a redlink??!!

Scholarship:

  • You don't need to use the signature field on the two block quotes that are in-paragraph. The source of each statement is already given in the text introducing them. The signature field is appropriately used in pull quotes.
    • Great! They look so ugly, anyway, but rid of the sigs will definitely help.

I did some other copy edits where it didn't seem worth a comment/discussion, but as usual please say if any of those seem off. --RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Firstly, thanks for your edits, they're all good. And I hope I've addressed your points here; I'm going to have to do some intelligence on a couple of issues, but I'm glad to have them pushed to my attention. Thank you, RL0919, for looking in here, and I hope it wasn't too painful a read  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally looking good. Regarding the possessives, User:The Huhsz appears to disagree with your choice based on this edit. I don't know if they will be commenting here – the account was just created recently, so they may not even know FAC exists – but it's something that should be resolved. Anyhow, based on the current state of the prose I'm happy to support on the assumption that this minor point will get worked out. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: Many thanks for that, it was really nice to see you here. I promise I'll look into those notes-within-notes, and will try and find some consensus on the s's's! It is a new account, as you say, so they may not know we're here. Mind you, for a new account it's also rather odd that their first four edit-summaries were "copyedit", "overlinking", "format" and "Scottish English"...thanks again though for looking in! ——SerialNumber54129 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I just assumed it was a typo. The family name was Coterel, so in plural it would be Coterels, and plural possessive Coterels'. Am I missing something? --The Huhsz (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, all's good Huhsz, some confusion on this page, merely. Thanks for your copyedits and keeping us on the straight and narrow  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be keen on either. Maybe 'composed of both the Coterels and the Folvilles' or 'composed of both Coterels and Folvilles' or 'composed of Coterel's and Folville's men'.
I will try to do a last brush and polish tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild II

edit

Getting into some marginal stuff now, so many of the points below you can ignore if you wish.

  • See point above re possessives.
    • Yes, that was an odd thing that! Sorted now, thanks to all :)
  • "to launch a great commission" "great" doesn't really communicate anything. Either leave out or use a different word or phrase. ('royal'?)
    • Royalled.
  • "distracted by the outbreak of war again with Scotland" Delete "again"?
    • Gone.
  • "for much of the stories later woven" "much" → 'many'.
    • Done.
  • "and the ex-king's failure to suppress it" Was he, strictly, "ex-"? And would he anyway be taking a personal interest in this suppression? Possibly "ex-king" → 'authorities'?
    • Yep, went with "authorities".
  • "motivated them to take a robust approach to law and order. This had little effect." Assuming that "them" refers to the Coterel gang (if not, you need to clarify) then "This had little effect." doesn't make sense. (Possibly delete?)
    • Ah, it was Isabella & Mortimer who wanted law and order, hopefully now clarified...
  • "in their absence judgement was handed against them" I am not well versed in legal terminology, but can a judgement be "handed"? Is there a 'down' missing? Or possibly reword?
    • "given against them".
  • "and seem not to have any criminal record at all" Very optional, insert 'previous'.
    • Done, and spelt correctly on the second attempt...
  • "it would seem that from that point forward" Optional, delete "forward"; optional, "that point" → 'then'.
    • Both good, thanks.
  • "was Pymme's own mother" "own"? As opposed to someone else's?
    • Heh  :)
  • "says historian John Aberth" *cough* false title *cough*
    • Woooah! Done, with thanks for dodging me a Riley-shaped bullet.
  • "directly employed them on several times" Delete "on".
    • Done.
  • "for instance, the robbing of the vicar of Bakewell" → 'for instance, for the robbing of the vicar of Bakewell'.
    • Ditto.
  • "Another "clandestine ally"[16] was Sir Robert Ingram"; "he was also recruited by the Coterels" Is this not saying the same thing in successive sentences?
    • Right, how about "another clandestine ally, Sir Rob Ingram, whom the Coterels had personally recruited"; I think it's relevant to note that they recruited people as well as having others come to them.
  • "The Coterels and their men had received few" Would this make more sense if "had" were deleted?
    • No problem.
  • "Royal authority, too, was weakened" Optional: I am not sure that "too" adds anything.
    • Agree, also changed the tense ("had been").
  • "demonstrated by the Coterels is also "very much Gamelyn style" "also" in the previous sentence, maybe drop this one?
    • Done.
  • "with the more usual brutality of the gangs which dovetail in the ballads" Should there be a comma after "gangs"?
    • Yes, why not.
  • Note 13: "—toothed, which in Latin was "indenture")" Either fully bracketed or fully dashed please.
    • Both?—I think was originally intended...
  • Note 23: link House of Commons.
    • Linked.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again, Gog the Mild, interesting stuff; see what you think of my edits. But I think I went with them all, more or less. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have, in my opinion, a damn fine article here, fully meeting all of the FA criteria. Excellent job. It looked like hard work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanking you, Gog the Mild, as always it's you and the other reviewers who have actually have made the article what it is. Cheers!
The section header is cool. A film, maybe; Gog the Mild II: This Time It's War (In Gascony), or The Gogfather Part II, perhaps  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Part II: Slightly Grumpy Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only slightly grumpy?! The way things are at the moment, that doesn't sound like the spirit of today's Wikipedia ! ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're thinking of Gog the Mild Part XVII: Take no Prisoners and Bayonet the Wounded or Gog the Mild Part XIX: Kill them All, God will know His Own
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [26].

Long Island Tercentenary half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another in the series of commemorative coins issued in 1936. This one at least sold well and was scandal-free.Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
Lead
  • "a coin to mark the 300th of the first European settlement there." Is "anniversary" or something missing?
Yes. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "popularly-used": no need for the hyphen
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more on the Long Island Tercentenary Committee? Was the oversight of the coin their only activity, or was this part of a wider tercentenary celebration? I think a line or two by way of introduction would be beneficial.
I've mentioned their connection with the May celebrations.
Legislation
  • Is it the AmEng practice to put commas after dates, such as "March 11, 1936 by a subcommittee"? I can never remember fully what your US rules on it
From what I understand, many people do but I try to avoid it as it slows down the prose. I've added it here though.
Preparation
  • "having gotten off to a late start": I always shudder at "gotten", but that may just be a BrEng thing. Is there anything wrong in AmEng with saying "having got off to a late start"?
I think it is as you say, but to me anyway it sounds more natural as "gotten"
  • "placing HALF DOLLAR under the ship on the reverse": the image of the reverse at the top shows HALF DOLLAR to the right of the ship
I've clarified this was not done.
Distribution
  • "Chief Engravers" as this isn't being used as a formal title, shouldn't it be in lower case?
The numismatic sources don't tend too. I think I'll stick with them.
  • "William Barber (1869–79) and Charles Barber (1880–1917)" I think we are supposed to use the format (1869–1879) now (even when there is no obvious need to do so). I'd advise it here tho: the two formats in proximity look a little odd
I have done that.
  • "81.826 coins": comma – or was .826 of a coin sold?!
Lol. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. All very minor stuff, and another interesting article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think that's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

edit

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and all working
  • Formats
  • Inconsistent p. range formats (compare 19, 21, 22 with 20)
  • Ref 23: italicization of "Coin Update"?
  • Ref 30 is missing publisher
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I don't have a strong view on capping Coin Update; I am inclined to let it stand. The others have been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

edit

Lead

  • For the second paragraph, it's not a good idea to say "the bill" unless you actually make clear that a bill did exist. You may want to add a sentence before this statement saying that a bill was introduced into Congress. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with this though not with a full sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clear they did well.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background and inception

My feeling is that if there was an incongruity in months between anniversary and celebration, it would be SYNTH to point it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can still give the exact time of when the Dutch landed, or were thought to have landed, without directly pointing out any incongruity that may exist. Display name 99 (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This document attaches significance to June 1636 as the first land grant. The difference between June and May does not seem significant given a natural desire to attract tourists in spring.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why it can't be mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit on the Committee. I will look for a bit on its chartering (likely the state legislature). I'm not sure how much can be productively added though on the Committee's structure though.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It had both as well as a treasurer. I think this bit is to give guidance to the committee and the Mint as to who as the right to sign the order.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The part of a sentence that says "acting through its president or secretary" makes it seem like they only had one or the other. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legislation

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we include anything about what the representatives said as to why commemorative coins should be struck? What did they say that the purpose was? I understand that it was for the 300th anniversary of the discovering of Long Island, but an explanation by the congressmen of why this event was important enough to merit a special set of commemorative coins would be good to include. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found anything in Delaney's own voice on this since both times it went through the House, Cochran steered it through. The Senate hearing did not specifically discuss the merits of the Long Island bill although it was before the committee, they discussed the broader issue of commemorative abuses. I will keep looking for contemporary news coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Anything you can find on that would be helpful. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked ProQuest Historical Newspapers and did not see any coverage of this. I also looked for information on the committee's formation and drew a blank. The tercentenary celebrations got ample coverage in the NY Times.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the committee establishment, this eBay lot seems to indicate the committee was appointed by Governor Herbert Lehman.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the number of coins needed for a complete set multiplied by having them issued at each mint with different mint marks; authorizing legislation for the coins placed no prohibition on this." This is a little unclear to me. By "multiplied," do you mean that the mints made more than was called for? I think the language here may need to be tweaked. Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it bad that the Oregon Trail Memorial Half Dollar had been "issued over the course of years?" Display name 99 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More soon.

Regarding the above two: I've tried to make this clear. What was going on was that the organization that Congress had designated was asking for some of the coins to be struck at each of the three mints with different mint marks, and there was no particular reason to do so except to increase the number of coins a collector would have to buy if he wanted the "complete set". If there's a better phrasing, I will happily adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "increasing the number of coins needed for a complete set by having them issued at different mints with different marks?" I know it's similar but I think it gets straight to the point a little better and is slightly less wordy. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk)

Preparation

This isn't talked about in the sources much. He lived on Long Island is all I see. Bowers suggests that his parentage allowed him to avoid criticisms from the CFA that an artist with a less prominent father would have gotten.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Design

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's Weinman's comment about the obverse in "Design". That's the biggie I think.

That's all for now.

I think that's most things anyway. I Haven't found anything on the actual origin of the committee but I have a list of the officers if it's a help. Prominent, civic-minded people, you know the drill.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Good work. Display name 99 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I'm back up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

The history section is elegant and pleasingly tactful, and the rest of the article is clear, balanced, and evidently comprehensive. I have no quibbles on the text. The best I can manage quibblewise is to suggest asking the wonder-workers at the Photography workshop to give Congressman Delaney a good going over. You'll be amazed at the difference they can make. Be that as it may, I'm happy to add my support here. Tim riley talk 17:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2019 [27].

Maria Rundell

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rundell is something of a mystery figure. There is some confusing information about her life up until the point her husband died. After that she becomes a little more public, writes two books and has a feud and long-running court case with her publisher, John Murray. One of her books was something of a sensation: A New System of Domestic Cookery was published in November 1805. It was a huge success and the book sold around half a million copies over the next 75 years or so. This is another in a long-running series of cookery book writers that I have worked on recently, and any constructive comments and suggestions are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

All images seem to be located in good sections.

I see no ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the source link; no idea on the watercolourist, and some searches have shown no further information on this. I'll have another dig round to see if I can find something else.
  • Yes, Alts are constant weak spot, and I nearly always forget to add them. I'll go through and sort out shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alts now all added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

edit

I always enjoy (and learn a lot from) these articles. Happy to have a look.

  • "as she was increasingly unhappy with the way it had declined over time" I don't really understand what this means.
  • Could we have some more information about the second book in the lead? Publication date, publisher?
  • Is The Feminist Companion to Literature in English an edited collection? If so, perhaps you could credit the view to the particular chapter/entry's author? (And in the references.) I'm a bit surprised by the way you credit things to the newspaper, rather than the author of the article.
    • There is a full page of contributors and their initials, but many of the entries in the work (including that for Rundell) don't identify who wrote it. I dislike quoting a publication too, and only do so when there is no alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where they lived with their aunt and uncle" Thomas's brother or sister, presumably? Do we know who these people were? (Probably not that important - but maybe "with Thomas's sister Mary and her husband John Smith" or something would be neat.
    • Absolutely no idea on this. The sources are so scant on her life that it was a bit of a struggle to get as much as there was. We don't even know the names of the daughters! - SchroCat (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's great that you are recording the questionmarks, but it strikes me that in some places, you state the various views (profession of the husband) but in other places you take a side and only mention the controversy in a footnote. Why side with that number of daughters? Why go for that particular publication date?
    • It's the weight of sources. Her husband's profession, for example, has two possibilities, with the weight of sources evenly(ish) split between them. The number of offspring has several sources going with what we have, but a couple of others giving alternatives. I've tried to avoid OR, or taking sides, but the difference is solely in the weight and quality of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lord Chancellor stated" Who was this? John Scott, 1st Earl of Eldon, presumably?
  • "Rundell's work was plagiarised by five other publishers" at least, perhaps?
  • Are the OED quotes important? I don't know. If you are keeping them, be consistent with your italics!
  • "The 20th-century cookery writer Elizabeth David references Raffald in her articles, collected in Is There a Nutmeg in the House,[72] which includes a recipe for "burnt cream" (crème brûlée)." Why is this important? Or did you mean Rundell rather than Raffald?
  • "she writes that this "appears to be one of the earliest published English recipes for tomato sauce"." Why does the thTis refer to, here?
  • "The food writer Jane Grigson admired Raffald's work," Again, do you mean Rundell here?

I made some changes, including moving a few paragraphs around. Please do double-check to make sure you're happy with my changes. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As always, many thanks Josh, I'm very much obliged to you, both for the copy edits and your comments. I hope I've picked up on them appropriately, but please let me know if I've missed something, or haven't quite done your comment justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, assuming no one spots anything serious. (Could you take a quick look at fn. 73?) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean the brackets round the ref - (David 1979, pp. 345–346, 359, 326, 469, 449–451); recipes cited respectively. - I've worked out the way these can be removed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

I read this article when its was in draft and I made comments direct to SchroCat. Those (quite minor) comments have been acted on.

On the slip of the pen that twice turned Mrs Rundell into her predecessor Mrs Raffald – spotted by Josh, above – I must plead guilty to failing to spot it. (Having written articles for FAC on Massenet and Messager in succession I have fallen into a similar self-dug trap myself, and know how easy it is.)

JM's other comments, above, seem to me ad rem. Once they are dealt with I expect to be adding my support. Tim riley talk 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add my support now. I enjoyed this article v. much. I doubt there is anything out there that SchroCat has missed which could enhance the article, and it is a good read, resourcefully illustrated and well and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria, in my judgment. – Tim riley talk 20:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments Support from caeciliusinhorto

edit

Just a few comments from me:

  • but advice on medical remedies and advice lots of advice!
  • she was increasingly unhappy with the way it had declined over time can you clarify this?
  • a handwritten inscription on the title page is dated 3 December 1905: is this a typo for 1805?
  • Colquhoun states that the tomato sauce recipe was the first printed recipe. am I being excessively pedantic if I point out that this is certainly not the first printed recipe, only the first printed tomato sauce recipe?

Article looking in good shape as expected from you! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto, I'm much obliged to you. These comments all now dealt with. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All looking good. Haven't spot-checked sources. Final minor point: why is the reference to the DNB under "journals"? Overall it's a support from me, though.
      • If you use the cite book or cite web refs, a bot comes along and changes it to "cite journal". Odd, but there you go! Thanks very much for your thoughts and comments: they are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
Just food for thought.
  • "(1745 – 16 December 1828) ... in 1805, when she was 61" Math class is hard, but I see a contradiction here.
  • "book sold around half a million copies, and between 5,000 and 10,000 copies were printed each year." A time period limiting the half million might be useful.
  • "and the types of books a well-mannered girl should read" I might not use the term "girl" what with one thing and another.
  • "Rundell moved to Swansea, South Wales, possibly to live with a married daughter,[9][10][11]" does such a short passage require three cites?
  • I would not use "obtained an injunction" in consecutive sentences when synonyms are available or the text could be jogged. Also watch "style" in second sentence of "Works", "aimed at" shortly thereafter.
  • Do any of the commentators on the cookery book mention the errors complained of? It would be interesting to know if her complaints were justified.
  • "New editions were released into the 1880s[10][4]" order?
  • Were the multiple editions spoken of in "Legacy" simply pirate versions?
  • "The food writer Jane Grigson admired Rundell's work, and in her 1978 book Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book, she referred to Rundell's writing, and included her recipe for Red Cabbage Stewed in the English Manner.[75]" I would cut the "she".
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

To bring an article on an obscure, long-dead cook to FAC is merely a peccadillo; to bring two, an idiosyncrasy; three would be cause to be seriously alarmed.

  • Maths. "the book sold around half a million copies in Rundell's lifetime, and between 5,000 and 10,000 copies were printed each year" At your maximum stated rate of printing, 10,000 per year, it would take 50 years to print half a million copies. And was there not a pause in printing from 1819? Given that Rundell died 23 years after publication, something is awry.
  • "sent two of her younger daughters to London" As she only had three daughters, should that not be 'sent her two younger daughters to London'? OK, just got to the footnote. But as the indeterminacy isn't in the main text it does read oddly.
  • "the two last cookery books that had sold well" Is it just me, or does "the two last" jar a little?
  • "as in some social circles, the receipt of royalties was thought improper" Is the comma needed?
  • "was more profitable that he thought it would be"
That's me being lazy. Possibly "that" → 'than'?
Of course! Now done - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decided that it would need to be decided by a court of law, not a court of equity" Which will mean little to our mythical average reader, even after referring to the Wikilinks. Any chance of this in English? If only in a footnote.
  • "a well-known jeweller of the firm Rundell and Bridge"; " the well-known jewellers and goldsmiths Rundell and Bridge".
  • "has a section of "Directions to Servants" " Should "of" be 'on'?
  • "which includes a recipe for "burnt cream" (crème brûlée)" "a" → 'her'. (Assuming that is the case.)
  • "Red Cabbage Stewed in the English Manner" Why the upper case initial letters.

What a fine read. Bravo. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat. That all looks good. The ? removed from the "mystery comment box". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog: the final piece now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A topic which I have little experience of and less interest in, but this article held my attention right the way through. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you Gog, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cass

edit

Nothing from me, it all looks rather splendid. CassiantoTalk 18:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2019 [28].

A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a season two episode of the American dramedy Ugly Betty. A loose adaptation of the Colombian telenovela Yo soy Betty, la fea, the show is about a young Latina woman who works at the fashion magazine MODE even though she does not fit their expectations of beauty and style. This particular episode is about the wedding of Bradford Meade and Wilhelmina Slater and Ignacio Suarez's United States citizenship ceremony. Victoria Beckham guest-stars as Wilhelmina's maid of honor who steals attention from the wedding, and her Spice Girls nickname (Posh Spice) is referenced in the title. The initial broadcast was viewed by 10.9 million viewers, and the episode was well received by critics. The scenes about Ignacio's citizenship ceremony attracted attention from academic scholars.

I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. I have done FACs on television episode articles in the past, but I would like to continue to grow as an editor through constructive feedback. I hope that this nomination encourages other editors to work on television episode articles, and maybe even bring them through the FAC process too. The above article had a wonderful GAN review and a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

edit

Support Comments from Kailash

edit
  • and the show's 30th episode overall - I'd prefer series as show (although more widely used) is informal.
  • I do not believe one is more formal or informal than the other. I have revised it accordingly though. 05:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please be consistent in naming Victoria Beckham. Some places you use her first name, some her last name.
  • I used Beckham's first name in the "Plot" section alone as I had to refer to every character by their first name to avoid confusion as their multiple characters from the same families (i.e. Meades and Suarezs) and I used her last name in the rest of the article as refer to the writers and actors by their last names. I hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did spot one stray Beckham in the "Plot" section that I changed to Victoria to keep that section consistent. However, if you think that first names should be used throughout the entire article for consistency, then I can revise that as I do understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the episode still seems to be available, I don't think the plot summary needs a source. WP:TVPLOT says, "Plot summaries, and other aspects of a program's content, may be sourced from the works themselves, as long as only basic descriptions are given. Exceptions to this include "lost" episodes (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors are required to use secondary sources."
  • In the past, I have been told either way. I have removed the references for now, but I will add it again if another user really believes it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many refs use "publisher" instead of "website" as they should. Template:Cite web says, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." Please replace wherever necessary.
  • Amazon Video... or do you mean Prime Video?

I guess that's all from me. Only proofreading remains, but I'm sure there are more experienced users to do that. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kailash29792: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed everything. I have provided an explanation for the Victoria Beckham comment and I will have to look into the publisher/website citation further. Thank you for bringing it up, but I just find it a little weird that I have not received any corrections about it in my past GANs/FACs or work in general. Either way, I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My comments have been addressed. I too noticed Victoria Beckham referred to by her surname in the plot, therefore I asked you to maintain a consistent format. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Homeostasis07

edit

Hi @Aoba47: I'll come back to the 'Plot' section later, which I think could use some tightening up. It's a peculiar quandary with FA articles: plot sections must be "comprehensive" while also limited to 500 (in most cases) words, which can result in some jarring juxtapositions, which I see here in lines such as "Betty refuses to attend Ignacio's United States citizenship ceremony and feels guilty about lying to her boss Daniel Meade about Wilhelmina Slater's affair with her bodyguard Dwayne to get Ignacio a visa. Betty's sister Hilda recommends Betty tell the truth." "The truth" could be more explicitly described at this point (I remember watching this episode when it was first aired, and I have a vague memory of Wilhelmina blackmailing Betty—"keep my secret and I'll help your father get his green card"). But Hilda's name is only mentioned this one time in the entire article, so removing the latter line would be no big loss. It's not a big deal, but I see a couple of other instances where things could be tightened up a bit as well. I'll try to expand tomorrow.

  • Thank you for the comment, and I can see your point. I will remove the Hilda part because she is not important to this particular episode. I look forward to your comments on this section. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But otherwise, I have two minor points:

  • "In 2008, Beckham was rumored to be returning for regular guest appearances in future episodes.[11][12]" But this didn't happen, right? Might be a good idea to conclude the suggestion. This 2016 source confirms she only ever appeared in one episode, so maybe incorporate that along with the text, "although further guest appearances from Beckham did not materialize.", or something to that effect.
  • Also, there seems to be an error in the sentence "Wang wore the dress for three weeks; she said it did not wrinkle during the shooting.". But the source says "The dress also survived the long shoot. 'I wore that dress for three weeks and it didn't wrinkle,' [Vanessa] Williams says. 'That's why Vera Wang's the best.'" So it was Williams referring to the dress she wore on set, not Wang. I'm sure someone more familar with fashion would disagree - and I readily admit there was probably some ingenuity to an elaborate wedding dress not wrinkling after being worn every day for 3 weeks - but I don't really consider that fact to be particularly noteworthy, as it stands. I'd consider removing this sentence entirely, although if some sources can be found indicating its note-worthiness, I'd be happy to back down.
  • Thank you for the comment. I am not sure how the sentence got to Wang wearing the dress instead of Williams lol. I have removed the sentence so I agree that it is not particularly notable, and since Williams wore the dress for the next episode, the three week shooting time probably also covers that as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this is FA-quality, both prose and source wise. During my review, I spot-checked at least half the sources included, and everything in the article is backed up by its citation, and I'm happy with the quality of sources. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments so far. I look forward to your suggestions for the "Plot" section as I always struggle a little with that part for a television episode article. I find it a little difficult to summarize not only the episode's plot, but previous storylines and character backstories in a concise manner. It is always good to find ways to tighten the prose. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a good day so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main advice would be to watch out for extended sentences, as there are several unrelated story points crammed into single sentences for no apparent reason—as far as I could read. Also, don't be afraid to use "him" or "her" when it's blatantly obvious which character the prose is referring to, because there's an abundance/repetition of names. I'd also suggest breaking up the paragraphs: since the section is currently 2 fairly large paragraphs when – to me – there's an obvious break in plot devices which is more suited to a smaller, 3-paragraph section (Paragraph 1, Betty/Ignacio/blackmail; Paragraph 2, wedding preparations/character developments; Paragraph 3, Wedding and aftermath). I hope this helps, because I can't really expand much more now. I'll be able to be more thorough/specific tomorrow, if needs be. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestions. I have revised the plot section to hopefully address those points. Your comment will actually help me a lot when I edit and revise articles in the future as you point how I could improve my prose in general. I hope you are having a good week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple of minor changes to the prose in that section still but, yeah, I'm pretty damn happy with the prose as it is now. I'd go so far as to say it's a perfect summation of the plot, even. ;) Happy to support the article for promotion to FA on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Licenses and uses seem OK to me. ALT text is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Support from Damian Vo

edit
  • Support – I could not see any issue with this article. Great work!

Status update

edit

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the random ping, but I was wondering if I could get a status update for this? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, we'll take a look the next time one of us runs through the list. Thanks for your patience. --Laser brain (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, and apologies again for the ping. It is always good to have as many people look over a nomination as possible to improve the article as much as possible. I was just curious about it. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the second ping, but I was just curious about the status of this nomination. It has been a little over a week since the last message, and the nomination has already passed both an image and a source review and has been supported by seven editors. I hope that I do not sound like a pain, but I was just wondering about it particularly after a few FACs have recently been promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

The only thing I could pick up is that you have the quote "Everyone at the wedding will be expecting skinny, beautiful Posh to show up", but there is no mention anywhere in the article that "Posh Spice" is a nickname for Beckham, so a reader unfamiliar with her might be confused by the quote and to whom exactly the first sentence of it refers. Clarifying the nickname in the article would also help explain the joke in the episode title - my understanding (being British) is that "posh" is not a commonly-used word in the US. Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the comment. I kept reading over that part, and you are correct in that someone may have no idea what "Posh" means in this context. I have put the information in an end note because I was not sure of a way to seamlessly put it in the body of the article; if you have any suggestions on how to better represent the information, then please let me know :). Aoba47 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I think you could probably insert it into the actual text like so: "In June 2007, producers requested Victoria Beckham, nicknamed "Posh Spice" during her time as a member of the Spice Girls, to appear as herself in a wedding-theme episode". It seems a bit lost as a footnote........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheDoctorWho

edit

I reviewed this article when it was a WP:GAN and any of my issues/comments were addressed with that. This is a great article and I'm more than happy to support it. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

edit
  • The article doesn't explain who Vera Wang is. I suggest the addition: As well as making a cameo appearance, American fashion designer Vera Wang designed the wedding dress.
  • The main actors don't appear to be credited anywhere; instead the actor names are just used without introduction (e.g. Vanessa Williams). Either add them in parentheses after their character's first mention in the article / plot summary (e.g. "Betty Suarez (America Ferrera)") or introduce them under "Production".
  • ... appearance, was released ... – Comma shouldn't be there.
  • alsonominated – Should be two words.
  • The awards are weirdly placed, in the middle of a section about critical reviews. I'd move it above "Critical reception" entirely, to be the first paragraph of "Reception".
  • The section "Racial analysis" has prose that can be improved. I'm particularly not a fan of the sentence: They argued Bradford's dismissal of Betty as "some assistant" had "very quickly dispel[led] any faith in the reciprocal protections promised by the American Dream embodied by the citizenship ceremony". This sentence needs to explain Betty and Ignacio's contrasting opinions about the government and their reasoning. Looking at the source, it seems that the author is making the point that their lack of faith and faith (respectively) in the system swap during the course of this episode. Ignacio gains faith through getting citizenship, even though he did so outside of the established system, and Betty loses it because she is "reduced and marginalized" as an assistant, and gets fired unfairly in a violation of the "reciprocal protections" promised by the American Dream. This argument needs to be conveyed properly in this article, whether it's through quotes or rewriting (or a mixture). Then I think the mention of the American Dream here and in the next quote needs a bit more context/analysis/depth to it, as at the moment it's not really clear how it links to the episode's storyline or its themes.
  • The Strachan sentence doesn't mention the actual episode this article is about. How did Strachan see "A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" in relation to the theme he identified in the season?
  • Strachan talks about "A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding" in the rest of his part on Ugly Betty so I thought the line may be relevant, but I have removed it since the connection is not 100% clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to look at sources, images etc. but I see from the comments above that these have already been thoroughly checked. I'll be happy to support in regards to prose if the comments above are addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bilorv: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but if there is anything else that requires additional work, please let me know. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent! The Racial analysis section now looks up to FA standard, which was my only non-nitpick concern, and my other comments have all been addressed. I made the tiniest edit here and I'm delighted to support promotion to FA (taking the source spotchecks and image rationales on good faith, as others above me have reviewed them). — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane

edit
  • In the lead I'd consider describing who Bradford Meade and Wilhelmina Slater are, I.e 'the wedding of publisher Bradford Meade and former supermodel Wilhelmina Slater'
  • 'and Becki Newton's cover of Kelis' 2003 single "Milkshake"' - I'd consider giving some context in the lead about why she's covering the song, but up to you.
  • How is Wilhelmina having an affair with her bodyguard helping get Ignacio a visa? I'm confused about the connection.
  • 'Prior to the ceremony, Wilhelmina has Victoria locked in a confessional booth.' - this leaves me wanting to know more. Did she manage to get out?
  • Victoria's final scene is her yelling and knocking on the door to get someone's attention; she presumably is stuck in the booth for the remainder of the episode, and it is never directly addressed even by the follow-up episode which is a direct continuation to this one. Here is a link to the YouTube video of Victoria's scenes in the episode. Despite the heavy promotion of her guest appearance and her name in the episode's title, she has a relatively minor role. Please let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I found. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [29].

Letter-winged kite

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an elusive nocturnal raptor that generally lives in areas far from human activity....and thus is little studied. I have scraped together what is known for the article. I am waiting on OTRS to see if I can use another couple of images and someone may be in the process of donating others (so they will either appear or not at some point in the next few days). Anyway, have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Scant fare from me; only four points to address:

Description
  • "and grey plumage is slightly darker all over": "the" or "her" before grey?
I went with its instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • Is the map necessary in the IB? If not, it could be moved to this section, where the distribution is being described. No probs if the IB is the usual place for distribution maps.
With all the birds I have done (and loads of other folks') it's in the infobox. Years ago Hesperian (talk · contribs) put them in the distribution section but no-one else has Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that may be the case. No probs with where it is at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breeding
  • "feathered by 3–4 weeks of age and can fly at 7 weeks": technically the numbers should be written out, but I leave that to your discretion
I went with numbers as there are larger numbers about this sort of stuff sprinkled about that section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation status
  • 1000 -> 1,000?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another very nicely put together piece. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
I have removed px and added source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb

edit
  • Should be "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" rather than "IUCN Red List of Endangered species"--terminology and capitalization slightly off
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrative of an expedition into Central Australia is in sentence case in text but title case in reference
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has large deep red eyes, I think should be It has large, deep red eyes,
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss explanation of cere
added a bit - hard not to repeat "bill" in the same sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "retrices" should be "rectrices" (two instances that I've seen)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birds in juvenile plumage are able to breed within their first year of age this confuses me. I think it would be better as "Individuals reach sexual maturity at x age" or "within x years"
thought my way was in plainer English but not fussed really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, this may be a non sequitor in the description section anyway. Would it make more sense to include this in #Breeding? My confusion was also in part due to "birds in juvenile plumage" rather than "juveniles", as I had to think if there was a lag between a fledgling developing "juvenile plumage" and then the amount of time after that happened to reach sexual maturity. Kind of like a two-step math problem. I'm probably overthinking it though, in terms of terminology. Enwebb (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
has been moved to breeding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's my feedback through "distribution and habitat" Enwebb (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say When a mouse or other prey is spotted, but then go on to say that rats, not mice, are their primary food source. I feel you can simply say when prey is spotted
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should central Australian be capitalized here? One central Australian study over two and a half years... In the next sentence, Central Australia is written with a capital C.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predation is pretty short to be a subsection. Sometimes I include information on predators, disease, and parasites for a mortality section if one aspect alone is scanty.
unfortunately very little other material out there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...contact with people in most parts of its range could be more simply contact with people in most of its range
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feral cats prey on nestlings this should probably be in predation section
moved - just realised that statement does not come from that source (ref 25) so will find the source for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be good to point out in conservation section that foxes and cats are non-native predators/competitors
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! Clearly a very high-quality article. Enwebb (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Enwebb (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be good to show a cladogram?
there are only some genus ones and not with this species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been incorrectly called white-breasted sparrowhawk" Link sparrowhawk here?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on what's the closest relative within the genus?
it will be basal to the other 3 species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should be stated then? FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look but I don't think anyone has published anything phylogenetically on the group. The other three species are very similar and were considered conspecific at one point. I am guessing but I will see if I can find a source that supports same Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should definitely be mentioned that they were thought conspecific then, not as simple taxonomy after all... FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one was never thought to be conspecific - it was the other three with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomic history is unusually simple; no synonyms or recombinations?
yep and nope Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Range of E. scriptus" Why the scientific name here?
no reason. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption to the video is very uninformative, how about "footage of two birds in Bowenville, SE Queensland" or similar?
used image instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there, why not state location in the other captions?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Feral cats prey on nestlings." No source.
Weird. HANZAB doesn't mention this. Can't think of where it came from (checked a couple of places) now so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image of multiple roosting birds seems more interesting than the video, if you have to choose:[30]
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both ise and ize.
ised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Central Australia is duplinked in the article body.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds:Non-passerines" Space needed?
Seems to have been done, and one of my own comments somehow moved here by mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomic history is unusually simple; no synonyms or recombinations?
yep, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The feet have three toes facing forwards and one toe facing backwards." Isn't this common to all Accipitriformes? Seems an odd thing to point out?
Ospreys don't. Also at one point the Elaninae were thought to have some affinity to owls (strigifomes), which don't either Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't know, seems they can turn one toe back and forth... FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Birds in juvenile plumage reach sexual maturity within their first year of age." this seems oddly phrased and placed. Isn't it the same as just saying the species reaches sexual maturity at this time, and shouldn't it be under breeding then?
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phrasing "Birds in juvenile plumage reach sexual maturity" still seems oddly specific. Is it meant to convey that they can breed even while they still have juvenile plumage? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coloration" This should be colouration, no?
'u' added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the black-shouldered kite" You give scientific name for most other species mentioned in the article body. Perhaps others are missing.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quueensland" Double u!
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and southeastern corner" Is this a placename? Should be capitalised then, and anything to link?
not as official as some, often written "southeastern South Australia". No wikipage - will see if offwiki sources consider it official or not Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the roosting image would make more sense where the nest image is now, as that paragraph deals with roosting, then the nest image would make more sense below in the breeding section, where it discusses the nest?
yep, rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "black kites (Milvus migrans)" given scientific name twice.
oops/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This individual then" Seems wordy and unspecific when you could just say "he" or "the male", as you say her?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and may even begin a second brood" With this or another male?
the same Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and have more than one nest and brood at once" Same question as above, is it the same phenomenon that is meant?
yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as the plains rat (Pseudomys australis)" Here, and in a few other places, you link the scientific name rather than the common name, any reason for the inconsistency?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dingo and house mouse?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It gains its name from the highly distinctive black underwing pattern of a shallow 'M' or 'W' shape" Only stated in intro.
oops/added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the letter-winged kite is the world's only fully nocturnal Accipitriformes or Falconiformes raptor" Only specifically mentioned in intro, the article body just says family.
given that the definition is raptor is a massive headache and now Accipitriformes and Falconiformes are distantly related and actually the former group is closer to owls anyway, the sentence becomes difficult to state simply. Also they occasionally do hunt in the day. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly to all the elanid kites" Only stated in intro.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hylian Auree

edit

A finely illustrated and comprehensive account on this cute bird. The prose reads well and is easily understandable to a layman as myself although I do believe the writing in the third large paragraph of the Breeding section could benefit from some tightening and simplification. I’ve reread it several times after my initial comments and I cannot fault it. Great work! Auree ★★ 22:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my c/e to make sure I haven't changed the meaning anywhere. Specific comments:

  • "There is some evidence that they are more divergent from other raptors and better placed in their own family." - I was a bit disappointed that I didn't get to find out what evidence that is. Can we get a bit more on this, maybe in what way they are divergent? In any case, should we use "... that they may be" instead of the definitive "that they are" here, since the evidence isn't conclusive?
rejigged last bit - it is genetic evidence but it was at genus level (Elanus) and none of the samples included this species. Furthermore this article is about the species so have aimed to provide enough context for the reader to place the species in the whole raport scheme of things but left out further detail as off-topic. The further evdence for a deeper split is also genetic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading as it is now, it makes much more sense. Auree ★★ 17:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The letter-winged kite is generally silent when alone but often noisy when breeding or roosting communally at night, often beginning at the rising of the moon." Can we rejiggle this a tad so it's clearer what begins at moon rise: the noisiness, the breeding or the communal roosting?
added "to call" after beginning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likened to chicken-like" - reads a bit quirky (though I do like chicken)
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A rasping call, or scrape, composed of six or seven half-second long notes is the main contact call between a pair, often used by the female in answer to a whistle by her mate, when a bird alights at the nest, or—loudly—in response to an intruder." - a bit long winded
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which often starve" – not a huge deal, but if possible, can we briefly explain why their dispersal would lead to starvation?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species is generally rare in New South Wales,[16] and has been recorded in the vicinity of Broken Hill in far western New South Wales,[21] and a dead bird recorded in a street in Inverell in the north of the state in 1965 and another spotted there a year later." - something is off here; could also be tightened/re-ordered.
tried a rejig. tricky this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was tricky. I gave it my own attempt to improve the flow slightly – see here with my note in the edit summary. Auree ★★ 17:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, we read that it is unknown whether the kites remain bonded "between breeding seasons", but then we find out that "[t]here does not appear to be a set breeding season" – which left me a bit bemused.
they have spells of breeding that are related to rodent irruptions. Although they are not regular seasons they are still called such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, although I don’t suppose “between breeding” or “after breeding” (without “season”) is acceptable? Auree ★★ 17:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hadn't thought of the last option, that works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dull white eggs measuring 44 x 32 mm" – needs conversion to inches
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a bit of description of the young birds in the Breeding section that overlaps with the Description section. Not sure if this is common practice ..?
yeah generally put stuff on baby birds in nest into breeding section as it is an integral part of it. Guidebooks often do as well. Also moved the other sentence about immature birds breeding there - whole cycle etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He calls as he approaches, at which the female flies out to meet him and receive the food which she then conveys to the young. At times the male brings food to the female on the nest but has not been known to feed the young himself. As the brood grows, the female joins the male in catching food, and may even begin a second brood and leave the male to feed the older brood." - writing is a bit loose and disjointed in this portion.
I've stared at this passage several times today and not come up with a more succinct way of phrasing it. Any suggestions welcome Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. Auree ★★ 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a go; see if it still conveys the intended meaning. Auree ★★ 17:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah nice! that works! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we split the large breeding paragraph? Maybe somewhere between the description of the physical nest and that of the brooding/eggs.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It flies at a height of 10 to 20 m (33 to 66 ft), moving in wide circles. It hovers at a height of up to 30 m (100 ft)." - what does the fact that it "hovers" higher than it flies means?
hovering is when it is staying in one spot scoping for prey - it's very distinctive when you see it. I'd be guessing that it needs to be higher to take advantage of updrafts but I'd be guessing. No reason is given in the source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I guess my issue is with the 10-meter gap between flying in circles and hovering—when/why/how it went higher. Is there a way we can combine these two thoughts more seamlessly to describe the hunting sequence?Auree ★★ 17:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
temporally linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One Central Australian study over two and a half years found that the birds had relocated to an area within six months of a rodent outbreak starting." - why is this important? "relocated to an area" reads a bit like non-information.
Ok, it means that after the rodent population started booming in one area, within six months the kites had found them and relocated there. As it was a specific field study, I added the location - might be important if other research from a different area finds something different. Rather than "relocated"...."moved in"? I like "relocated" as it implied "moved in and set up residence" there. I can't think of a more succinct way of saying it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now, and "relocated" is fine; I guess my confusion came from its placement within the paragraph. It comes right after we discuss declining rodents/bird dispersal, which makes it read as though their relocation to another area occurs after an outbreak's end, not in response to its beginning. What about moving it up behind the paragraph's first sentence, and rewording to "One Central Australian study over two and a half years found that, within six months of an outbreak starting, the birds had relocated to that location." or something similar? Auree ★★ 16:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that works well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another engaging read, Cas. Feel free to point out where I'm off track! Auree ★★ 01:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats all consistent
  • Quality/reliability: No issues here

Brianboulton (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx for checking. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit
  • Wondering if there's a way to separate the links for "irruptive" and "raptor" in the lead; those unfamiliar with the subject may miss the reference to population growth entirely.
that's a tricky one. I think it is easiest just to delink bird of prey as a pretty obvious link. I can't otherwise think of a reword that splits the two words and irruptive is definitely the more educational link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "primary coverts", perhaps.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At night, it could be mistaken" The "it" is potentially ambiguous, I think.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "heavier overall and lacks the black markings" I'd prefer a comma before "and" but I recognize that folks have different opinions about this.
I think it works well, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think sub-national territorial units, including Australian provinces, should be linked.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution and habitat starts with distribution, jumps to population irruptions, and then goes back to distribution...I think some reordering would help the flow.
My idea was: core distribution --> irruptions --> places it appears when there are irruptions....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Ah. So the second paragraph refers only to areas where it's recorded during irruptions, but not otherwise? In that case the sequence makes sense, but that's a subtlety I missed, and I think a slight rephrasing would be helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I have slept on it and taken another look I have rejigged it like asked. It isn't that clear-cut anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When using "city name, state", is it not conventional to follow the state name with a second comma? It reads odd to me without; but maybe it's an ENGVAR thing.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in response to rodent plagues" Does the source really say "plagues"? It strikes me as somewhat old-fashioned, coming from a time when all rodents were considered a nuisance...
changed to "irruptions" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are egg measurements averages? Do we need an "averaging" or even an "approximately" before them?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of "food and hunting", I'd prefer to see the material about potential competition gathered together; it's separated by a sentence about predation rate at the moment.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have; a solid article, if a tad brief. Ping me when you're done, if you would; I'm not watching this. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes there was less material on this species definitely. @Vanamonde93: over to you... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [31].

Alexander II Zabinas

edit
Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A BC version of the Wars of the Roses, the Later half of the Seleucid Empire's era was chaotic. In short, two branches of the royal family fought for the throne and the period was full of intrigues and strong queens. Alexander II was the last claimant of the Antiochus IV's line, the infamous king behind Hanukkah. History is written by the victor, and that is why the legitimacy of Alexander II was always questioned, but one need to read this article, which incorporate the most recent scholarship, copy-edited by the editors guild, and is the result of months of work, to decide what is true.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
I can imagine... not very easy to follow tbh. I wish there was a way to make it easier, but even in academic books written for a non-specialist audience it will still be confusing. Too much happened, too many people, and too many events.
  • The many coins show are a bit confusing; could it maybe be stated in the captions what their relations to the subject were?
Done
  • There are a bunch of duplinks not so far from each other, you can highlight them with this script:[32]
Done
  • I'm confused by the structure, which is of course also due to the flurry of names and events. But why do you present the subject after the section that covers his coronation as anti-king (if I follow correctly), Choosing Alexander II? I can see why you would want to get a lot of details out of the way first, but why not put the Choosing Alexander II section after the section that first presents him, to help the reader (and put the focus on the subject of the article earlier)? That section actually seems to overlap with some of the text under Ascending the throne already, perhaps merge the two?
I thought a lot about this before nominating. The first part of the article is thematic instead of chronological because if I dont mention that Alexander II was chosen by Antiochus VIII then the reader will reach the surname section and not understand what is happening. At the same time, I cant talk about Alexander II's ascension before I give the long introduction and the events initiated by Demetrius II. I merged the section choosing Alexander II to the background. The section is more concerned by the rebellions ignited by Ptolemy VIII and not Alexander II anyways. Also, choosing Alexander II in Egypt does not indicate his coronation. It seems that Demetrius tried to leave Egypt before Alexander can reach Antioch and be crowned.
  • "Modern historic research preferred the detailed account" Prefers?
Done
  • "elevated to kingshp" Missing i.
Done
  • "bore the epithets Theos Epiphanes (god manifest) and Nikephoros (bearer of victory)" Why does the article title not use one of these names, as Zabinas is apparently not a self-identification, but derisory (maybe, but therefore controversial)?
Most common name is the derisory one....
  • You use both ise and ize endings. Is this US or UK English?
I will fix this tomorrow.
Fixed. Its UK English now
Still seeing some izes under the footnotes. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • "based on triads that include a supreme god" perhaps use past tense, as I doubt anyone believes in this anymore?
If only. The Middle East would have been much more peaceful now. Fixed
Hehe, doesn't seem like it kept people from fighting back then, though! FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)½½[reply]
Guess its in the genes....
  • "The Syro-Phoenician religious complex" Perhaps state this was of the natives, to contrast it with the Greek rulers at the beginning of the section?
Done
  • "that a son of deity" a deity.
fixed
  • "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess. Ancient literature does not record a marriage between a Ptolemaic princess and Alexander II" I think you could merge these two sentences, as much of it is repetition, and to make it more concise. For example by saying "then it can be understood that Alexander II might have married a Ptolemaic princess, though such a marriage is not recorded by ancient literature".
Done
  • "This led the Jews to send an embassy" Jews or Judeans? I wonder what is more appropriate here?
I think Jews is correct. By that time, Judaism and Judeans became one and the state was based on Jewish religion (aftermath of the Maccabean revolt)
  • "struck to celebrate of his victory" Is the of needed here?
Fixed
  • More names and terms could be linked in image captions.
Added
  • "the cornucopiae coins can be used to show" Why suddenly present tense?
Fixed
  • "dates to 125 BC by many numismatists" According to?
Fixed
  • "and choose Alexander II" Chose?
Fixed
  • "a representative of Antiochus IV's line" Supposed representative?
Added

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • In all cases an explicit tag should be included for the original work, not solely for the photograph. Also not a fan of including auction details in the image description
Tags added
Weird. Its included in the standard CNG tag. I fixed it

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool. But why are some links included in the short citations, while others (e.g. Barag & Qedar, Brug, etc) are in the main sources list?
When I have a link in the short citations, it takes you to the required page (if its available online). When the link is in the main list, then no link exists that takes you directly to the required page; you either will be redirected to the full article and have to scroll to reach the page, or the article is not free to read online but the link will take you where you can somehow order the book...etc. The links in the short citations are always titles with the numbers of the desired page and the pages are only linked if there is a copy of them online
  • Formats
  • Ref 10 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 14
  • Likewise 65
  • Likewise 71
  • Ref 73: range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 75 requires p. not pp.
  • Ref 77 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 91
  • Ref 95 requires p. not pp.
  • Ref 117 requires pp. not p.
  • Likewise 119
  • Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher locations in the sources list. You generally omit these, but see Bevan 1902
Done for all above
  • Quality/reliability: the article is extensively referenced, including many from foreign language sources. So far as I can judge, all sources appear to meet the required criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

This article is in great shape, although I have no clue about this historical period in Syria. I have a few comments:

Thanks for taking this
  • "most ancient historians and the modern academic consensus"
Done
  • suggest "the Egyptian king instigated revolt in the cities" if that is what is meant?
Done
  • suggest "where Cleopatra Thea residedruled" if that is right?
Done
  • "He maintained a friendly relations"
Done
  • so, Cleopatra Thea married Alexander I and then Demetrius II? Could she be married to two men at the same time, or is something missing here?
I clarified it. Her father divorced her first
  • link Babylonia
Done
  • "He was able to defeat Diodotus Tryphon" per MOS:SURNAME as he has already been introduced
Fixed
  • this section is rather hard to follow, who is the sister when it says "he warred against his sister"?
Clarified (Cleopatra II)
  • suggest "Justin thenfurther stated that Alexander II"
Done
  • link numismatist
Done
  • "using several arguments" two arguments? I'm not a fan of the bulletting, but can't think of any better way of subdividing the arguments.
Done
  • in note 11, "The historian Nicholas L. Wright" but isn't he a numismatist? At this point in the narrative, you should probably just go with "Wright"
Done
  • suggest "were instigated in their rebellion by Cleopatra Thea
Done
  • at one point Diodorus Siculus is just referred to as Diodorus, I suggest introducing him as Diodorus Siculus and thereafter as Diodorus, if that is appropriate
Usually the full name is used. I applied this
  • the nNike theft if that is right? I'm unsure about capitalisation here, we should go with what is in the sources, but be consistent
Done
  • is there a issn or similar for Brug?
Sadly not
  • a map showing his conquests or extent of his control would be a great addition to the article
I created one

That's all I have, well done on this. I did wonder about the necessity for the extensive and complex Background section, but can see an argument for most of it given the dynastic links etc, and the fact that many of the players come up later. Due to this, if you trimmed the Background section, you would probably have to add a lot of the material in later in dribs and drabs to explain context. It is just hard to follow, but perhaps it must be thus, at least for those not familiar with the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. The background is a pain, but all people mentioned had a role in the story and it was the only option to introduce them here instead of breaking the narrative if I was going to explain about them when writing about Alexander II
The map is a good addition. Supporting, nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kaiser matias

edit

I'll preface by saying I know nothing about the topic:

Thanks for doing the review
  • In the lead I'd consider making the stuff about his parentage a separate paragraph, so just have the opening sentence stand on its own. It just seems like a lot to take in right away.
It will make it a one or two lines paragraph, which is too short. I would like to keep it as it is if you dont insist
  • "...the Egyptian king instigated revolt..." Should either be "instigated a revolt" or "instigate revolts."
Done
  • "Based on those arguments, the account of Porphyry regarding Alexander II's claim of descent from Alexander I should be preferred to the account of Justin." The order of the citations here is mixed up (36, 42, 40).
Im not sure what can be done here. Source 40 is used twice so it appears after source 42 in this sentence but also appears earlier in another sentence. I arranged them based on the content. Its meant that source 36 be opened first, then 42, then 40
All good
  • "The coinage of Alexander II was minted in: Antioch, Seleucia Pieria, Tarsus, Apamea, Damascus, Beirut and Ascalon..." Is there any specific reason for the order of cities here? I'd suggest going alphabetical, but if there's a purpose then that's obviously good.
They are arranged geographicaly based on the importance of a region in the kingdom. Northern Syria first (where the capital is), then coele Syria then Cilicia (I moved Cilician Tarsus to the end of the list)
Great, thought there was a purpose, just wasn't sure.
  • And looking over the bibliography, would it be worth dividing it up a bit? Perhaps primary sources, books, journals, or something? I'm not suggesting this has to be done, or should be done even, but just thinking out loud.
Wont be a bad idea, but Im not sure what is a primary source here. No source is contemporary. What seems like an ancient source was written 200 and 400 years after Alexander II's death and was based on older actual primary sources that no longer exist
Like I said was more thinking out loud, and not concerned about how it looks as is.

Overall not a lot I see to clarify, and overall looks good. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good from me, so supporting now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [33].

Muhammad II of Granada

edit
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Muhammad II, the second monarch of Nasrid Granada (the last Muslim state in Spain). He had a rather long life and managed to ensure the survival of his small kingdom by defending and often manouvring against its larger neighbors. After passing GA I took the reviewer's follow up feedback and after some research added more information to the biography. I hope it's ready for an FA review now. HaEr48 (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

edit

A few points on the prose: the text is mainly in British English ("realise", "manoeuvring", "recognised", "neighbours") but the American spellings "center" and "centered" keep cropping up. And though "mountaneous" is a splendid word, it isn't in the OED: "mountainous" would be better. If the article is indeed meant to be in BrE, "This likely offended Muhammad" would be better as " This probably offended Muhammad".

There are a few duplicate links that would be better eradicated: "Muhammed III", "Nuño González de Lara", "Córdoba". That's all from me on the prose. The content looks excellent, and I expect to be supporting, but I'd prefer to wait until others more expert than I have had their say. – Tim riley talk 06:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I fixed all the non-British words and duplinks. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No pressure Tim, but would you like to revisit now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nudge, Ian. I've studied the comments below and reread the article, and am entirely happy to support now. Tim riley talk 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

FunkMonk

edit
Seems to have been resolved. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why Nuño González de Lara is spelled out at every mention?
  • "who were led by nobleman Nuño González de Lara" e has already been presented by this point, so why "the nobleman"?
  • "Before Abu Yusuf left, Muhammad's court poet wrote a poem expressing fear of Castile's power and appealing for the Marinids' continued help." Sounds interesting, could it perhaps be quoted here for flavour ?
Makes this come much more alive than just pure description, and also underlines the point about the importance of poetry during his reign. Shouldn't this sentence begin with a capital letter, though? "that the mosques in this land". FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, other feedback about the poem is welcome too. HaEr48 (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. HaEr48 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Málaga in its hands, Muhammad then helped" His hands?
  • "who was checked by the North African Volunteers of the Faith" Any background on these? Had they been brought by the Marinids? I see they are explained under Governance and legacy, but wouldn't it be best at first mention?
  • "by Infantes Sancho" Infante?
    • Infante is actually a Spanish royal title, usually for a king's son. Sources about Spanish history in this period (e.g. O'Callaghan) often uses "Infante X" to refer to such a person, even in subsequent mentions, so I'm just imitating that because it feels useful to hint that these people are very high-ranking. The part you highlighted reads "Infantes Sancho, Peter and John" because there are three infantes. I added "(Prince)" at the first mention of the word - would that help? Another alternative is to not use the title, but it means losing the hint that these people are high-ranked (there are more infantes mentioned in this article). Do you have suggestions? HaEr48 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think it would help if you simply said "the infantes", which might convey better that it refers to all of them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks, done. HaEr48 (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

All of the sources used appear to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. I have carried out a limited spot check of a few citations, and in those cases the sources referred to seem to support the text cited.

There are several acceptable ways of hyphenating ISBNs, but only one should be used within any single article. I have tweaked Catlos.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. HaEr48 (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • The Volunteers were a component of Granada's military made up of warriors from North Africa, largely political exiles who migrated with their families and tribes.[46] They were so integrated with Granada that they still defended Granada against Castile despite Granada also being at war with the Marinid state where they came from. Why should this be notable? They were exiles from Morocco and almost certainly didn't have any loyalty to the government that exiled them.
    • "I removed "They were so integrated with Granada that ..." to make it less dramatic. The source I use (Harvey p. 159) seem to think this is noteworthy. Maybe you're right, but arguably there is a difference between joining a holy war abroad and being in a foreign army that is at war with your home country, exiled or not. Thank you for your review! HaEr48 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, nicely done. I'll look it over again in a few days to see if there's anything that I missed on the first go around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of them were members of tribes or families which became political exiles from the Marinid state. Shouldn't this be "had been exiled"?
  • Otherwise not seeing anything else in need of correction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Constantine

edit

I reviewed this at GAN, and am very happy with the changes and additions since. I also added a few minor things on Muhammad's contributions to the institutions of the Nasrid state and did a few minor copyedits. after going it over, I really can't think of anything to complain about. There is potentially some scope for expansion (I am pretty sure that some more details about his legislative and administrative activities could be found in very specialist sources), but otherwise the article is comprehensive, and none of the—otherwise excellent—sources I have at my disposal on al-Andalus come close to it in terms of completeness. So definitely support, and well done to HaEr48. Constantine ✍ 16:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [34].

Jean-François-Marie de Surville

edit
Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jean-François-Marie de Surville, a French mariner and explorer of the 18th century who sailed from French India as leader of an expedition hoping to find the mythical Davis Land. The expedition was unsuccessful but it ended up being only the third European visit to New Zealand, after those of Abel Tasman and James Cook, the latter preceding him by only a matter of days. My first ever FA nomination, I have been working away on the article, on and off, for a while, taking it to GA earlier this year. I look forward to the feedback of the reviewers. Zawed (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. It is highly readable, evidently comprehensive, very well illustrated, and thoroughly referenced from a range of sources. A few duplicate links – Malacca, East Indies, North Cape – don't greatly bother me, though I could do without the otiose linking of "French" in the opening sentence and "New Zealand" later. "British" and "English" are used seemingly interchangeably, which I'm not sure about. But nothing to prevent support, I think. – Tim riley talk 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I have dealt with the dupe links, the linking of French and New Zealand, and also resolved the inconsistency between English/British. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image scaling should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size
Thank you. I have adjusted image sizing as indicated plus add a USPD tag as required. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compute. ..."when the ship arrived at Port-Louis, only 69 of the original complement of 173 men had completed Surville's expedition; 79 had died through sickness or attacks by hostile islanders, and another 28 had deserted.". I don't have the Dunmore book to check but a further three seem to be AWOL. Moriori (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good catch, I should have thought to add up the numbers as a doublecheck. The total number of survivors was actually 66, I must have made a typo when writing this section of the article up. Corrected now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Spotchecks: For first-time FA nominations I like to carry out a few spotchecks on sources, for accuracy, close paraphrasing etc. In this case, there's only one source which provides an online link, that to the DNZ biography (Dunmore 1990), so I've checked the four citations to that (Ref 3). Incidentally, this gives pp. 411–412, which I can't see in the source.
  • Ref 3a: Your text: "Surville's employer was a commercial enterprise established several years previously to trade in the East Indies". Where does it say this in the source?
  • It doesn't and looks to be an error that crept in as the article was expanded and new refs inserted. I have added a ref from Salmond (a well regarded professor of anthropology at the University of Auckland) to support this. Zawed (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3b: Your text: "During the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War he served in the French navy." Checks out
  • Ref 3c: Your text: "he married Marie Jouaneaulx at Nantes. The couple had two sons, who later joined the French Army" Checks out
  • Ref 3d: Your text: "Father Paul-Antoine Léonard de Villefeix, the chaplain on Saint Jean-Baptiste, conducted the first Christian service in New Zealand when he celebrated mass on Christmas Day 1769." you need to qualify this, in accordance with the source, which only says that it is likely that Fr de Villefeix did this.
  • Have done. Dunmore's 1981 book (which I only acquired a couple of weeks ago) goes into a bit more detail on this but he is careful to only present it as a possibility, albeit a likely one. I have expanded slightly on this for more context. Zawed (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formats:
  • WorldCat gives 2009 as the date for this edition of Quanchi and Robinson
  • Otherwise, all refs and sources seem to be consistently formatted
  • Quality and reliability. No obvious issues here. The sources seem to be satisfy the criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties to copyedit/review...

  • Can we say what sort of vessel Bagatelle was?
  • Surville is described as returning to the French East India Company in 1748 and 1765 but I didn't see where he'd left it in-between. I assume it was in the 1750s due to his service in the Seven Year's War but be nice to see it spelt out.
  • Surville sailed first to the Nicobar Islands to verify the presence of a Danish colony there and then, without stopping, proceeded to Malacca, arriving on 29 June 1769 -- "Without stopping" reads a bit oddly to me; do we mean he verified the colony's existence as he sailed past?
  • ...several of his crew deserted. In retaliation, Surville kidnapped some of the Bashi islanders -- "Retaliation"? Did the Bashi islanders induce Surville's men to desert?

That's about it. The article seems quite comprehensive, which I imagine would be a bit of a challenge given the times we're talking about, so well done. Will take Nikki's image check and Brian's source review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Thanks for the feedback, I have replied to your various points above. Zawed (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate, that's all fine (tweaked things a bit but you probably expected that!) -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit
  • "Born in Brittany, France, Surville joined the French East India Company when he was 10 years old, in 1727." Would this be better like: "Born in Brittany, France, Surville joined the French East India Company in 1727, when he was 10-years-old."?
  • "...including an account of Abel Tasman's journey of 1642 to New Zealand." Perhaps: "including an account of Abel Tasman's 1642 journey to New Zealand."?

Other than that don't see anything really needing to be worked on. Interesting topic. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you looking at this, I have rephrased as per your suggestion. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then you have my support. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [35].

Eddie Gerard

edit
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An early ice hockey player who was well known in his day but largely forgotten now, Gerard was one of the premier defenders of his era. A previous FAC failed a few months ago largely due to concerns over prose, but I've since tackled that and had it looked over at WP:GOCE. Thus I've brought it back here, and am ready to see it through. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Addressed that.
I don't have those details, but per the LAC site it is in the public domain. However I've removed it regardless. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for birthdate? Source for height and weight?
  • FN25 doesn't correspond with any of the Bibliography entries
  • Don't double publisher as author in web refs
  • Why specify province for Calgary but not Montreal?
  • Canadian Press is an agency
  • Coleman ISBN seems to correspond to a different edition
  • Quotes within newspaper titles should use single quote marks
Thanks have addressed these. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

This reads much more smoothly than last time – I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this since it was last here. I've made some very minor MoS tweaks, and I'm leaning strongly to support at the moment, but a few points first.

(BTW, I'm British, so if I suggest something that's not right in CanEng, just let me know and I can strike it.)

Personal life
  • "Gerard was born February 22": this may be a CanEng thing, but "born on" seems more correct
The former is passable, but thinking about it that may be a more colloquial way of saying it. I added the "on" as a result.
  • "His middle name" -> "Gerard's middle name" (the last "he" was William)
Fixed
  • "Fame.[2])": ref outside the bracket?
Fixed
  • "Outside of hockey he": perhaps "Outside hockey Gerard"? (1, no need for the "of"; 2. you should say Gerard as it's the first reference to him in the paragraph)
Fixed
Post-playing
  • "the fall of 1932": Avoid WP:SEASONS. If you don't have a month, then "late 1932" would suffice
Done

That's it. Interesting article, although I know nothing about the sport. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through it, I do really appreciate your reviews both now and before. Especially nice to have someone unfamiliar look it over, ensures I don't add too much jargon. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

edit

This is just to reserve a seat here. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 13:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I know about ice hockey would fit on quite a small piece of paper, and my comments are to be read in the light of that. The prose seems to me perfectly satisfactory, and the career details are clear and comprehensible even to a layman like me. As far as I can judge, the article is comprehensive and balanced. It is very nicely laid out, with the statistics admirably clear and easy on the eye. In the Playing style section we have refs [39][4] in that order, which you may want to reverse, though I don't press the point, and in the sentence after that we have "during his career" and "throughout his career" in quick succession. Those are the only quibbles I can come up with, and I am happy to support the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 22:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words Tim. Hearing them from someone like yourself is high praise indeed, and that the article comes off readable to someone unfamiliar is what I strive for. I made the two fixes you suggest, and will again say thanks for looking it over, always appreciate your input. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from The Rambling Man

edit
  • "between 1920 and 1923. He won it again in 1922 " reads odd to me, what about "between 1920 and 1923. He also won it in 1922 "?
Fixed
  • "becoming the first player to win the Cup four years in a row" definitely odd because he didn't become the first player to win it four times in a row until winning it again in 1923...
I changed the wording, maybe that's better.
  • " ice hockey player and coach" in opening sentence vs "he served as a coach and manager" should manager feature in that opening sentence as well?
It should have, missed that earlier.
I moved the reference to the sport earlier, maybe that helps
  • "the Geodetic Survey" odd linking just half a formal title.
I linked the full thing.
  • "Left Wing/Defence" (infobox) any reason for the overcapitalisation?
Not really. I've left Defence at this time as it's a separate position, though.
  • "Gerard was born" don't we normally start the first line of the personal life sections like this with the subject's full name?
Done
  • " on February 22, 1890 in" comma after 1890.
Fixed
  • " future NHL players" first (and unlinked/unexpanded) mentioned of NHL, needs linking/expanding first time for non-expert readers.
Fixed
  • "(Joliat, Frank, and Georges would later be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame)[2]" needs a full stop, but I never like these parenthesised sentences, they are perfect for footnotes.
Thanks, I was actually struggling on how to best incorporate that.
  • "Gerard was married to" any word on when this happened?
Unfortunately not. In this era it was not common to report those details, so to have his wife and children's names is huge as is.
  • You use "outside of hockey" and "outside hockey" in the same way, I have to say that I think "of" is entirely redundant in the first instance but understand if it might be an EngVar thing.
It may just be my messy grammar, as I agree and removed the extraneous "of".
  • "moving to the Geodetic Survey" same comment as before re: linking.
Fully linked again
I'm almost certain it refers to rowing, as there's a prominent rowing club in Ottawa. But I'm hesitant to make a definitive statement without firm evidence.
  • " paddling championship.[8][2]" refs in numerical order.
Fixed
  • "and fisher" I take it that's an ENGVAR thing too, as I would say "angler". Or "fisherman".
It probably is, but "fisherman" sounds better.
  • " that year" I would include "that" in the pipe.
Changed to note the year, as it is a new paragraph.
  • "As Canadian football was strictly amateur at the time, as a..." as as is jarring.
Re-worded
Re-worded
  • "As early as 1910 Gerard, was" peculiar punctuation placement for me, comma after 1910 rather than after Gerard.
Yeah, that's weird. Fixed it.
  • "over the next few years" a little loose, especially when talking about just two years, perhaps "over the following years"?
Done
  • "Gerard during the 1913–14 season, his first with the Ottawa Senators." this is a fragment so no full stop needed, but what does "first win" mean in this context?
Removed period. And don't see a "first win"?
  • " in 1916–17" -> " in the 1916–17 season".
Fixed
  • "February 24" make it clear this was in 1917.
Fixed
  • "1917–18 season" for consistency and avoiding easter eggs, include "season" in the pipe.
Done
  • "Gerard had 14 points" "had" seems odd to me, not "scored" or "made" or something similar? There are a couple of these.
Using "had" for points in hockey is common, but it isn't a definitive thing by any means, so changed it up.
  • "The following season" put "following" in the pipe.
Done
  • " in 1921–22"->" in the 1921–22 season".
Done
  • " for the following season, Gerard" put "following" in the pipe.
Done
  • "In 1925 Gerard " 1925 is definitely an easter egg link, no clue as to where it might take us.
Clarified
  • Link "expansion team", where I come from, we have no such concept.
Done
  • "The final against " shouldn't that be "finals" as it links to a "Finals" article?
It's complicated; it used to be a singular, but the media and league has slowly changed it to plural. I've gone ahead and changed the word to "series" anyways.
  • " the Rangers' coach and manager, took over, and ultimately won the game" well, the Rangers ultimately won, not just the coach/manager.
Clarified
  • " 223 games, with a record of 80 wins, 75 losses, and 24 ties" doesn't add up, what happened in the other 44 games?
I'm not sure what was going on there, but seems part of his second tenure was added there. Fixed the numbers.
  • " in 1929–30" -> " in the 1929–30 season"
Done
  • "During his one game with the St. Patricks during" repeat of "during" is jarring.
Fixed
  • " Hockey Hall of Fame.[41]" no full stop required. Same in subsequent section.
Fixed
  • Be consistent with linking in the Bibliography, e.g. The Gazette is linked a couple of times with unlinked instances in between.
Fixed
  • Ottawa Citizen appears to be linked twice as well.
Fixed
Removed

That's all I have, mainly trivial. Let me know if anything needs further discussion, happy to re-review whenever needed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through it, I really appreciate you taking the time to give it a thorough look. I've addressed everything here, but if you see anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, glad to be of assistance. Content with the changes, more than happy with the overall article, so I've moved to support. Good luck. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

edit
  • Gerard helped the Senators win the Stanley Cup three times in four years between 1920 and 1923. He won it again in 1922 as an injury replacement player with the Toronto St. Patricks, becoming the first player to win the Cup four years in a row. - I'd like this restructured. I was confused as to how the player won the cup three times between the dates, and also won it in 1922 for another club. I'd mention he won it four times in a row between 1920 and 1923, three times for the Senators, and once in 1922 for the patricks. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some re-wording, so hopefully that makes it easier to understand.
I'm not too sure, honestly. They played in a local city league so aren't too prominent, and I can't recall anyone else notable who played there (in contrast the New Edinburghs definitely are notable, and had several big names). I've removed the link.
I changed the name of the collapsed boxes, but honestly can't think of a good name for it, though ideally I'd prefer it collapsed.

That's all I have right now that isn't mentioned in the above from TRM. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I believe I answered everything here, but if you have any other comments I'll gladly welcome them. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this now, works for me. Change to Support Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [36].

Caroline Brady (philologist)

edit
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By her early teens, Caroline Brady had lived in three countries, traveled across the Pacific aboard a cargo ship, and called the house of a future murderer home. By her twenties and thirties, she was a philologist at Berkeley. And after seemingly vanishing in her forties, Brady returned after a quarter century to publish two of her most important articles, one right before, and one right after, her death.

From those missing 25 years, to even her name, much of Brady's life remains unknown; as Llywrch pointed out, there's likely a story here deserving of original research. In lieu of this, however, what we have is by far the most comprehensive take on the life of a person who was little lauded during her lifetime, and seems to have died without an obituary or other notice. This article has been worked on for nearly two years, including a good article review by J Milburn in May. At this point I am confident that it is at, or substantially near, the best possible version of itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch comments

edit

I'm limiting myself to three comments, two of which I consider minor:

  • Since her full name appears to be "Caroline Agnes von Egmont Bradey", shouldn't that form appear in the lead? At least mentioned as an alternative form of her name?
  • Done.
  • I'm unclear about the outcome of her fellowship: after being named as the recipient, did she go to those 2 universities? Or was she named, then never attended either? (Or maybe we don't know.)
  • Footnote 3 is as close an answer as I can find on this point, although I've just added the first sentence: Brady was listed with a Cambridge, Massachusetts address in 1953. In his January 1955 review of her work "The Synonyms for 'Sea' in Beowulf", Adrien Bonjour noted that "Miss Brady has now been working for some time at Harvard—let us hope that she will soon publish more about the ways of the word in Beowulf."
  • Her disappearance. This is an important point, but trying to properly explain it runs headlong (& stupidly, IMHO) into some of Wikipedia's rules. Simply put, her promising academic career effectively came to an end at this point, & without engaging in original research (as you quoted me stating above) we don't know what happened next in her life. She could have left academia for any number of reasons, most of which are relatively benign -- marriage, boredom -- & some which are not, namely discrimination against women. FWIW, that her sister's obituary fails to mention any children Bradey had doesn't necessarily mean they didn't exist: newspaper obituaries are based on the information that the family provides, & Frances' next-of-kin may have omitted mention of Caroline's children for any plausible reason.
    Going off on a tangent here, the ancillary information on her last articles provide some material for thought about her final years. It is surprising she was published in Anglo-Saxon England -- this periodical didn't exist in the early 1950s when she was last active in academia, indicating she kept up with the secondary literature in the field. This surmise is supported by the citations in her 1979 paper: while she draws predominately from pre-1952 publications, there are a fair number of more recent publications cited. And she thanks a number of people at the end of the 1979 paper, indicating she kept in touch with some of her peers over the years. (None are acknowledged in her 1983 paper, which may be due to her death before she completed the final revision.)
    In short, while it is a mystery why Bradey halted her promising career so early, IMHO it is a minor mystery. Why she left academia can't be answered within the confines of a Wikipedia article, although it would make for a more honest article if we could explain that failing. Since I don't know of a way to effectively invoke WP:IAR here to do so, I wouldn't let this one issue prevent this article from promotion to FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Llywrch, thanks for your comments. I think you're probably right about the relative importance of Brady's disappearance. In the context of Wikipedia, Brady is significant for her contributions to philology. In the context of the 1950s through 1970s, Brady may well be significant for what her experience says about the cultural milieu. Brady is especially intriguing because the former stops right when the latter begins; the way to find out more would likely involve digging into her family tree and looking for living (albeit distant) relatives. I wouldn't rule out doing so at some point—though to be clear, for the purposes of this nomination, I believe the article is complete.
As far as tangents go, as you say, it seems pretty clear that she remained connected to academia. Her job in Bronxville is a good indication that she remained interested in the field after leaving university life, and AbeBooks contains a number of her offprints inscribed to Fred C. Robinson. In fact, the signature used in the infobox comes from such a copy of her 1979 article (which may explain the seemingly wobbly hand). Personally, I find the move from a professorship at Penn to a random community college in Oregon, and the "ill health" resignation only months later, to be among the most curious unknowns. They suggest to me that Brady was pushed out of academia more than she left it willingly; as you say, however, this remains one of any number of possibilities. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this tangent, your mention of Fred Robinson above is interesting in that one of the persons Brady thanks for help with her 1979 article is Dr. Robinson himself. I wonder if he encouraged her to return to publishing her work?
As for another person she thanked in that paper, Stanley B. Greenfield, he happens to be a professor of English at University of Oregon, under whom one of my favorite professors studied, Dr. Georgia Crampton. (I own an autographed copy of his translation of Beowulf). I'm surprised to find myself six degrees of separation from the subject of an article. (And I only learned of this connection yesterday.) Does that mean I have a conflict of interest in this article? -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, I've reached out to the bookseller to see if he might have Robinson's papers (or knows who does—if not him, presumably the family). It's a stretch, but there's always a possibility that he might have retained his presumed correspondence with Brady. He also long outlived the other people thanked in the 1979 paper. If I'm not mistaken, you're three degrees of separation from Brady? With something that dire, we'll have to add a hatnote to this review. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Nikkimaria, I'm not sure when (or if) it was first published, although the City of Vancouver would be the copyright holder, and they assert that it is in the public domain. Per the photograph's page, it was taken by Walter E. Frost, and per his page on the website of the city's archives, his photographs were "Donated to the Archives by Walter Frost in 1985", while "Images in this fonds created before 1949 are in public domain. Copyright in the remaining images is owned by the City of Vancouver." --Usernameunique (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • City of Vancouver goes by Canadian copyright expiration rules - unfortunately for our purposes the US status is more important. Is there any known publication other than the archives site and here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, I've emailed the archives and will let you know when I receive a response. There are a number of indications (e.g., here and here) that the city intends to make their copyrighted archival holdings freely available, so if there is an official policy saying as much (or we can get OTRS permission), that should also work. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Usernameunique, is this resolved now? If we're still waiting on a favourable response from a third party should we remove problematic images for now to let the FAC proceed to what otherwise looks to be a successful conclusion? Or are things adequate as is? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Rose, I've removed the image. I just got off the phone with the archives, who said that they do hold whatever copyright remains for Frost's works, but their policy is to stay out of matters of use, so they would be unable to license it (if indeed it is still under copyright). It's hardly an instrumental photograph for the article—and from Google, it looks like some pre-1924 postcards may provide suitable alternatives—so I've removed it. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus

edit

Support: my concerns were addressed. Thanks.Praemonitus (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I performed a quick read through and a couple of points caught my attention:

  • For me the statement, "her resignation due to "ill health" was announced after a few months", in the lead appeared to be about leaving Pennsylvania. It was only after I read the article body that I found it meant the College in Oregon. I think this impression was created by the use of the word 'yet'. Can this sentence be re-worded so it is clearer?
  • Reworded: The following three years were spent at the University of Pennsylvania, and at the end of 1949, Brady moved to teach at Central Oregon Community College; after only a few months at the college, her resignation due to "ill health" was announced.
  • "...by World War I he was serving overseas, in France and Germany as first a captain and then a major." In which service and for what country? Remember the U.S. didn't enter WW1 until 1917, and the move to B.C. (along with his ancestry) implies (potentially) the Canadian army.

Overall though it looks to be in good condition, albeit missing a big chunk of her life presumably due to lack of available sources. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Praemonitus. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praemonitus, just wanted to see if you might think about lending your support to this nomination, either based on the review you have already done, or if you think there are further points to note. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Nick-D

edit

I knew exactly nothing about this person before reading the article, and found it to be very interesting and in good shape. It's also great to see a high quality article on a female scholar, especially of this era. I have the following comments:

  • "She next became an English instructor at the College of Agriculture" - which college of agriculture is this?
  • " The ship carried only two families and a woman traveling alone, in addition to a cargo of pig iron, and had what the Los Angeles Herald described as "a rough voyage across the Pacific"; a week before arriving in Los Angeles, she struck a whale" - while it provides some interesting colour, this doesn't seem relevant to the topic of the article and feels a bit like padding
  • It's a little tangential, but I think it's both interesting and adds some color. Crossing the Pacific on a cargo ship in particular sounds like a harsh journey, and perhaps gives an indication of a her upbringing. The whale strike both adds to this, and—considering it was reported on by the Los Angeles Herald—was probably an rough event that people remembered.
  • "by World War I he was serving overseas as part of the Rainbow Division of the United States Army National Guard" - this is vague and inaccurate. He wouldn't have been in France with the US Army when World War I broke out in August 1914, as the US didn't enter the war until 1917.
  • "in France and Germany" - he wouldn't have served in Germany until after the end of the war (presumably as part of the US contribution to the occupation of western Germany)
  • Clarified: by the end of World War I he was serving overseas as part of the Rainbow Division of the United States Army National Guard. It's unclear when he enlisted, but newspaper articles make clear that he stayed in the army for decades afterwards.
  • Do we know anything about how Brady developed an interest in languages? Presumably this was from her mother?
  • Nothing at all. It might have had something to do with her being born in China and thus exposed to different languages, but that's just a guess. Why do you say that it was presumably from her mother?
It seems relatively unlikely for a soldier Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter penned two separate reviews disparaging her scholarship" - if this person was prominent in the field, surely their assessment of Brady's work should be noted in the body of the article rather than a note?
  • I've kept the footnote but added some to the body, which now reads the latter penned two separate reviews disparaging her scholastic "immaturity" and "judgment", and suggesting "she overestimates the worth of debaters' points". Do you think we need more that's not in the footnote? On the one hand, it's cutting criticism but not terribly substantive; on the other hand, it perhaps sheds some light on Brady's (presumed) inability to settle into the academic world.
  • " including one who wrote that" - who was this?
  • Revised: including the Old English scholar Philip W. Souers, who wrote that: I'll probably create a stub for Souers shortly.
  • Revised: Her approach was considered "philological in the traditional sense" by O'Keeffe

Thanks for taking a look and the review, Nick-D. I believe I've addressed everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - I enjoyed reading it, and it's great to improve our coverage of female scholars, especially pioneering ones. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support, Nick-D. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources appear to be working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Note error message, which relates to a source evidently not cited.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 9: p. range requires ndash, not hyphen
  • The page is 2-II (i.e., page 2 of part II), would this not take a hyphen?
  • Refs 14, 15, 16, 18: Are these different newspapers, or are they variants of the paper's title?
  • They are now known as the Austin American-Statesman, but were separate papers—the Austin Statesman and the Austin American—at the time. I'm not sure why the former has both The Statesman and The Austin Statesman on different copies of its front page, but I relied on this.
  • Ref 61 requires pp. not p.
  • Fixed.
  • Bibliography list: "O'Brien O'Keefe" appears to be out of alphabetical sequence
  • Done.
  • Quality and reliability
  • What makes "Family Search" a high-quality reliable source? If it is justified, add publisher details
  • It's less a source/publisher than a repository of documents.
  • Otherwise, sources appear to meet the required quality/reliability criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit
  • Does the lead require scare quotes around "ill health"?
    I think so—it was an abrupt resignation, and "ill health" is a vague and frequently invoked reason for resignations that may have actually been inspired by other causes. "Personal reasons" is another such example.
    Yes, but there are ways to write it without the quotes, which, thanks to widespread journalese, now almost implies a falsehood. You could say "resignation, citing ill health, was announced", or equivalent; that way we're not taking a position, but it looks a little more elegant. The same applies to the later comment about quotes, too.
    Reworded it to after only a few months at the college her resignation was announced, citing ill health. As for Malone, it now reads: penned two separate reviews disparaging what he termed her scholastic immaturity.
  • I'd prefer "Col." to be spelled out as "US Army Colonel" in the first body sentence; the setting is China, so it isn't obvious.
    Done.
  • "from the school's Berkeley campus" This confuses me. I was under the impression that the various UCs were different schools; certainly UCB wasn't a campus of UCLA, as the text seems to imply.
    Changed to the system's Berkeley campus., but am open to other wordings.
  • Can you link PhD at its first use in the body?
    Done.
  • Generally, I prefer everything worth linking to be linked at its first use in the body, even if it already is in the lead; the names of universities, for instance.
    Done.
  • Minor point; the "publications" section makes heavy use of short quotes; I wonder if some of these could be reworked so as to make the reading less choppy? It isn't a serious concern, but it would be nice.
    Removed quotation marks from one of these ("disregard") as not necessary (it's already quoted in the preceding sentence). The other two short quotations are used in reference to Kemp Malone writing two separate reviews disparaging her scholastic "immaturity" and "judgment"; here I think it makes sense to keep them, making clear that the words are Malone's.
  • It has become somewhat conventional to list published works at the end of an article, to the point where I almost missed the "personal life" section. Would you be willing to break up "Publications" into a prose section (before Personal Life) and a list (after Personal Life)? Also, I wonder if all her journal articles need to be cited? It feels a little excessive to me.
    I've moved "Personal life" above "Publications." It doesn't feel ideal, but neither was having "Personal life" lost under a list of her works. As for her articles, I generally try to go for a comprehensive list, and listing 12 doesn't feel particularly excessive.
    Here's the thing; most notable academics will publish many dozens of papers in their career. I happened to be reading the work of a scientist whose article on Wikipedia is still a stub, and who isn't yet at the end of his career; yet, he has upwards of 80 publications. The only reason you're able to list everything is because Brady was not very prolific; you couldn't apply that standard to most notable academics. For the sake of consistency, I think the list should be confined to works that attracted comment from the secondary sources you are using.
    That's certainly a concern, but I tend to come out on the opposite side. First, for relatively unsung academics like Brady, there is no complete list available to otherwise cite or link to. Some have a festschrift, Academia.edu profile, or other work indexing their output, and there the case could be made that a mere citation is needed. Second, and more uniquely, Brady suffers from name confusion—she is variously referred to as Carolina (Agnes) Brady and Caroline Agnes Von Egmont Brady—and so having a list of exactly what she wrote helps to clarify things. Finally, to combine consistency and personal preference, I attempt to create a complete bibliography for the articles that I work on (usually including tracking down a copy of each publication), and this has not yet been a problem. Other examples are D. H. Turner and Herbert Maryon. There may be a point at which this becomes untenable, as you say, but I don't think we are there yet.
    Okay. I disagree, but I won't oppose over this.
  • If her final publication was posthumous, then surely she died before it was published? Could you be a little bit more explicit, even if it's only to say how we know that it was a posthumous publication?
    She is referred to as "the late Caroline Brady" in the table of contents of that journal, but since she died in 1980, a 1983 publication would have to be posthumous. Perhaps this is a bit clearer now that the "Personal life" section (which mentions her death) directly follows "Career"?

That's all I have: nice work. Please ping me when you're done, as I'm not watching this. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Vanamonde93. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: Two replies for you. Incidentally, I'm refactoring indenting for accessibility reasons; asterisk-colon-colon is accessible; colon-colon-asterisk is not, to visually impaired readers; or so I was told quite recently. I used to use the same system you just did. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vanamonde93. Responses above. Interesting to hear about the asterisk/colon convention; I'll try to adhere to that going forward. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, concerns adequately addressed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Vanamonde93. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2019 [37].

Soultaker (film)

edit
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 01:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing the same intro I used last time, now with some re-wording:

"Does anything really star Joe Estevez?"

— Crow T. Robot, Mystery Science Theater 3000

You like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident? Well I got an article for you. Presenting Soultaker, a 1990 movie starring Charlie Sheen's uncle and the films screenwriter as the female lead. What would have remained in obscurity if it wasn't selected for mockery on the cult television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, this article presents a passion project based on a real near-death experience the screenwriter, Vivian Schilling, had in her life that became a 250k dollar budgeted picture. And despite the negative reception it got, it still ended up winning a Saturn Award for Best Video Release.

I still believe that this meets the criteria and with enough people reviewing the article it can become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 01:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

edit

I continue my support from the the previous FAC. Good luck with it this time around. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

A cheesy movie that is written about well enough to make me stop thinking about copyediting.....which is a Good Thing. I think we are there on comprehensiveness and prose....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Toa Nidhiki05

edit

I was going to list two changes to make here, but that would honestly be ridiculous so I made them myself. I struggled to find any issues with prose, the references are all formatted properly and of high quality, and the article is comprehensive in its coverage of the topic. Full support in my book - great work! Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

edit

I supported this before, and I do believe the article still meets the levels required. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

So there hasn't been much activity on this nomination other that re-stating of supports, but I have to acknowledge that J Milburn made comments in the last round about opportunities for expansion. Since this is a relatively short article, it seems prudent to take such concerns seriously. What, if anything, has been done since the last nomination to address those concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I stand about where I did towards the end of the last review; "this still feels more GA than FA to me. I think the writing could be a bit smoother and more could be drawn from the various sources". Josh Milburn (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restating supports? Two different people reviewed this article this time. Only Aoba has restated support. GamerPro64 13:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: I have repeatedly combed through the sources that I used for the article and I do believe that I used enough of their relevant information for use. J Milburn even said in the last nomination that he doesn't intend in standing in the way of possible promotion for the article. With no real opposition, I would assume that Soultaker meets the FA criteria. GamerPro64 21:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2019 [38].

Operation Obviate

edit
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Obviate was the second-last of a long running series of Allied air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz during World War II, and took place on 29 October 1944. The battleship had been crippled by an attack several weeks prior, but was targeted again as the Allies had not been able to confirm the extent of the damage and remained concerned that she posed a threat. A force of 39 heavy bombers armed with huge, and very expensive, bombs flew from Scotland to attack Tirpitz in northern Norway, deliberately violating Sweden's neutrality en-route. The operation ended in failure as the battleship was covered by cloud just before the bombers arrived, and while most dropped their bombs no hits were achieved. The aircrews' success in scoring several near misses despite the conditions demonstrated the skills which sent Tirpitz to her end in an almost identical attack two weeks later.

This article forms part of a series I have been working on covering these air attacks, with four articles on earlier raids having been brought to FA status. The article was assessed as a GA in December 2018, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in March. I have since further expanded the article drawing on new sources, and am hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I looked at this during the Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then. I have a few comments:

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats:
  • According to WorldCat, Random House is the publisher for this edition of Konstam 2018, with "place of publication not identified".
  • Again according to WorldCat, the ISBN link for Zetterling and Tamelander appears to go to a different version of the book. It gives the year as 2011, not 2009. There is a 2009 version here, but it carries a different ISBN
  • No other format issues
  • Quality and reliability: the sources appear to meet all the appropriate criteria ≥or quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to be out of town for the next week. I'll follow up on reviews posted during this period when I return. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde

edit

A well-written article: I expect my (forthcoming) comments to be brief. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the background section could use a sentence or two of bigger picture background; as written, the reader is unaware of what made the Tirpitz such a threat, different from other battleships.
    • The first para of the background section does this, I think? There was nothing particularly special about Tirpitz (modern historians stress that she was a good battleship, but not notably superior to other battleships of her generation) Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, perhaps she wasn't; but she was certainly perceived to be, wasn't she? In any case, I think this is better now with the other changes you've made.
  • "breaking out into the North Atlantic" is potentially confusing to readers unaware of which navies controlled which regions of the North Atlantic at the time.
  • Is "midget submarine" linkable?
  • In the third sentence of the first paragraph, might it be worth emphasizing that the Tirpitz was tying up major units of the British fleet, preventing them from carrying out other operations (or am I wrong about this)?
  • "the 170-mile (270 km) voyage south" Is it accurate to call the voyage "south"? It's mostly west, surely?
  • Is there any information available on why the "empty" Lancaster was used?
  • A reader might wonder at the German decision not to station fighter aircraft near the Tirpitz; is any explanation available?
    • No source discusses this explictly in the context of this operation. Angus Konstam's book notes that poor coordination between the German Navy and Air Force was the main factor which led to a lack of fighter protection for Tirpitz on every single occasion she was attacked(!). By this stage of the war, the German Air Force was collapsing, so fighter units were likely hard to find as well - the one which was deployed to protect Tirpitz after this attack wasn't really combat-ready (as described in the Operation Catechism article). Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting. The point from Konstam that you mention might be worth adding.
  • Similarly, is there any information on why the world's most powerful battleship was used to protect Tromso? In other words, why was Tromso of any significance?
  • The last two paragraphs of "German preparations" strike me as out of place, as they aren't really about German preparations at all. Might they be divided up among the previous sections?
    • I've moved the last para to the section on British preparations, but I think that the second one belongs here: it's about the attitudes of the ship's crew and local civilians ahead of this battle. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the civilians aren't German, and the morale of the crew sounds like something more appropriate to background...but I'm not going to oppose over this.
  • "forward airfields" is a piece of military jargon that could use a link or an explanation
  • The numbers of aircraft from the two squadrons jump around a bit; they go from 18 and 18 to 20 and 20 to 20 and 19.
    • Yes, and no sources explain why. I suspect that what happened was that to ensure that 18 aircraft could be dispatched on the raid, each squadron prepared and deployed 20 to Scotland. All of those which were flyable were then sent, leading to larger than planned numbers of aircraft being involved in the attack. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Can't do much about a lack of information on an otherwise comprehensive article.
  • If the Lancasters were using a hole in the German radar, any information on how they were detected?
    • I seem to have stuffed up here: I was upgrading this article while writing the Operation Catechism article, and while the bombers were sighted by observation posts in Catechism, they don't seem to have been in Obviate. The reference didn't support this statement, and it's in none of the other works. I've removed this. Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third sentence of the lead strikes me as redundant; can it be removed, or perhaps reworked, to avoid repeating information in a lead that isn't very long?
  • I know the usually infallible Brianboulton already did a source review, but; the locations of publication are somewhat inconsistent in their level of detail; some include province/region/state, some include country, and some just mention the city. I don't particularly care which format is used, but I'd prefer consistency, unless there's a good reason for what you have right now.
    • My understanding is that geographic details beyond the city are needed when it's not a well-known city and/or centre of publishing. Hence, London and Oxford don't need further details while Annapolis does. I've tweaked the details for Plymouth as I don't think that the locations of British regions are well known. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, they could be linked, if they're obscure, and left unlinked otherwise...or, if you just used the city, linked every time, which is something I've done before.
  • Also, the unorthodox section title "works consulted" leaves me confused, because they were cited, not just consulted. Are you opposed to the conventional "sources" or "bibliography"?
    • I've used "Works consulted" in a bunch of FAs with no complaints. The advice at MOS:BIB is less than helpful, but discourages using "bibliography" and doesn't strongly recommend an alternative... Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer plain old "sources", but it's a minor point.

@Vanamonde93: Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing from coord duties to review...

  • Dönitz also expressed hope that retaining the ship in commission would "continue to tie down enemy forces and by her presence ... confound the enemies' intentions".[13][14][15] -- I think it'd be best to cite the final quote to a single source and place the citations relevant to the preceding info before the quote.
  • I've always seen Tait's nickname rendered as "Willie" rather than "Willy" -- is the latter definitely how your source puts it?
  • RAF Sumburgh in the Shetland Islands was selected as the emergency airfield. If any of the bombers were damaged or lacked sufficient fuel to return to the UK, they were to proceed to the Soviet airfields at Vaenga or Yagodnik. -- Calling Suuburgh the emergency airfield sounds a bit odd when the Soviet airfields were apparently also for emergencies -- do we mean Sumburgh was the emergency airfield in the UK?

Will stop there for now but reading well so far as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian - I'll follow up on these comments tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks again Ian, I've just responded to the above. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming, just a couple of relatively minor points following my copyedit...

  • As the Tromsø area was within range of Lancasters flying from northern Scotland if they were fitted with extra fuel tanks and other modifications, this operation would be simpler to conduct than Operation Paravane.[26] Nevertheless, it required a lengthy return flight of 2,252 miles (3,624 km).[25] -- I find "nevertheless", like "however", borderline OR unless the source in FN25 also makes a comparison to Paravane.
  • All of the aircraft selected for the operation were fitted with powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin 24 engines, which were rapidly sourced from maintenance units and airfields across the UK. -- Could we substitute "hurriedly" or "hastily" for "rapidly" and still be true to the source? The former options sound more appropriate given the situation...
    • "hurriedly" works well, and captures what happened better (a series of flights to multiple operational airfields and depots across the UK where these engines were to be had) Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Nikki's image review and Brian's source check as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2019 [39].

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

edit
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 18th Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War and went on to fight in the Battle of Singapore. The article has previously been nominated twice, the last time back in April. At that point, the review stalled over FAC 1a issues. The article has since been edited by GOCE, and other changes have been made in an effort to overcome this last hurdle.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Alt text, disambig, external links etc are fine. 11:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Support by Gog the Mild

edit
  • "after the re-emergence of Germany" I think that this means something like 'after the re-emergence of Germany as a significant military power' or similar. If so, it may be best to say so.
    I see the issue with this sentence. I have currently phrased it as "European Power", as Germany also regained it's political clout during this period. If this doesn't work, I think we can reword the entire thing to something along the lines of "...following the rise of the Nazi party..."?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
European power is fine.
It does.
  • "(aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, construction of better-quality barracks and an increase in supper rations)" Optional: replace the parentheses with commas; insert 'the' before "construction".
    "I made the latter change. To me, without the parentheses it wouldn't work and would need to be two sentences so: "The plan was for existing units to recruit over their establishments, and then form second-line divisions from cadres which could be increased. This process would be aided by an increase in pay for Territorials, the removal of restrictions on promotion which had hindered recruiting, the construction of better-quality barracks, and an increase in supper rations." Preference? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be different, but its your article and it is perfectly comprehensible as is.
Re-looked at it, and made a change. Does this still work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 18th Infantry Division became active on 30 September 1939; its units had formed, and were administered by the parent 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division." I think that this needs a 'prior to', as in 'The 18th Infantry Division became active on 30 September 1939; prior to this its units had formed and been administered by the parent 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division.'
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 18th Division was also composed of" Why "also"?
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supporting division troops" Insert 'and' before "supporting". Optional: "division" → 'divisional'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 18th Division had little required equipment" Is there a clearer way of expressing this?
    I believe I have made a suitable change hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Much better.
  • "On paper, an infantry division should have had" Delete "On paper". Optional: "had" → 'been equipped with'.
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 47 of the required 307 Boys anti-tank rifles" insert 'only' before "47".
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and other parts of England" Delete "other" or replace "England" with 'United Kingdom' or otherwise rephrase; Scotland and Wales aren't parts of England.
    I have switched around the sentence around. The division moved around England, as well as Scotland and Wales. Quite rightly, not aiming to imply that the latter two are part of England.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Japanese had pushed Allied forces south through Malaya" Reads a little oddly. Perhaps 'the Japanese had forced Allied forces to retreat south" or similar? (I think that we can take "through Malaya" as read.)
    I have went through the suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 11 January, Kuala Lumpur fell". Optional: 'On 11 January, Kuala Lumpur, the Malayan capital,fell'
    I have added this in, although noted that it was the capital of British MalayaEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British and Indian troops were moved between the defile and causeway" I don't follow this. Does it mean 'the British and Indian troops were moved to between the defile and causeway'
    I have to relay on my fellow editor Keith for this part, as I do not have access to Woodburn Kirby. From what I can see via Google Books snippet view, it appears to be based off the following:
"The attack on Bukit Pelandok also failed, and the enemy remained in possession of the defile. Duke then disposed the Norfolks and the Punjabis in defensive positions between the defile and the causeway and ordered 2nd Loyals"
Hopefully, this will help clarifyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that you need to add "to". (Otherwise the natural reading is either that they moved from the defile to the causeway, or that they were already between the two and moved to another position between the two,)
Yes, clearer.
  • Footnotes e and f. I am not sure why this information is in footnotes, it seems entirely appropriate that it go in the main text.
    They previously were part of the main text. I believe it was me who moved them to the notes, in an effort to streamline the sentence. Suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weell. To my eye you have quite a bit of information in footnotes or bracketed out. It is not a deal breaker, but it potentially breaks up the flow of a nicely written article. Footnotes b, c and d - fine. But take "The 6RNR was to be reinforced by the depleted 3rd Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment (3/16PR) and the untried 2nd Battalion, Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) (2LR) from the 9th Indian Division ... " You could have footnoted out the bit in brackets, but you didn't and IMO the flow is the better for it.
Similarly, to me the article would flow better with something along the lines of 'The 5th Battalion, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment was taken from the division and assigned to the 1st Malaya Infantry Brigade. Two ad hoc formations were created: Tomforce from the divisional reconnaissance battalion, the 4th Battalion, Royal Norfolk Regiment, the 1/5th Battalion, Sherwood Foresters and a battery of the 85th Anti-Tank Regiment, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Lechmere Thomas; and Massy Force from 1st Battalion, Cambridgeshire Regiment (1CR), 4th Battalion, Suffolk Regiment, the Indian 5th Battalion, 11th Sikh Regiment (5/11SR), and various other units including artillery and 18 light tanks, under the command of Brigadier Tim Massy-Beresford. The rest of the division remained in its sector.' But if you don't like that, the way it is still meets all of the FA criteria.
A wonderful suggestion, which I have implemented.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inflicting over 600 casualties in the process for the loss of 165 men" "in the process"; "for the loss": one is superfluous. Suggest 'inflicting over 600 casualties for the loss of 165 men' or similar.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice work. Impressive. See what you think of my comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, your review, and your comments. I have acted upon most, and have left comments for the ones that I have not yet addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting late, so I shall return to this tomorrow. Nothing so far to cause me any concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a few additional changes per your comments, and several changes per comments from PM below.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fine piece of work. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

edit

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR, and also at FAC before, and it is in great shape. Cognisant of the criticisms that were made last time it was at FAC, I have gone through it again looking for improvements that could be made. I have a few:

"The new programme was as follows: (a) To send the Regular Army ... in the first six weeks. (b) The first ten Territorial Divisions ... in the fourth, fifth and sixth months. (c) The last sixteen Territorial Divisions to be similarly ready int he ninth to twelfth months."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I carried out the sources reviews for both of the archived noms, and in each case gave a clean bill of health. Nothing appears to have changed meantime – no issues with links, formats, quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

edit
  • reinforcing Operation Crusader by Middle East Command as planned Try "as planned by Middle East Command"
  • That's all I've got on a first reading. I'll give it another go in a day or two.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment, and look forward to additional ones to further develop the article. I have tweaked this sentence, as it supposed to be pointing out that the division had been dispatched originally to reinforce Crusader.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Zawed

edit

This looks in great shape - the only comment I would make is in the final section: "...however, the commanders agreed on 15 February...". I find the use of commanders to be a little vague; perhaps Malaya Command is more explicit? Zawed (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wigmore does not state who the "area commanders" are (Pervial held a conference, which based off the source included brigadiers providing the tactical situation on their front; but does not state if it was all brigadiers, if divisional commanders were there etc), but the final decision was made by Percival. So I have tweaked the article to reflect he decided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I've requested an image review, as it doesn't seem that issues raised by Nikkimaria in previous nominations were resolved. Please let me know if that's not accurate. --Laser brain (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:
OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2019 [40].

Bernard Hinault

edit
Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bernard Hinault, five-time winner of the Tour de France and one of the most prolific athletes in the history of his discipline. The article passed GA in March. I nominated it for FA in April, but not much interest in reviewing it meant that it failed. I am now re-admitting it, hoping for more participation. I am pinging Brianboulton and Giants2008, the only two people to chip in last time around. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Comments by Sportsfan77777

edit

I'm going to comment this time. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my comments:

Lead

  • His amateur career was extremely successful and he signed with the Gitane–Campagnolo team to turn professional in 1975. ===>>> After an extremely successful amateur career, he signed with the Gitane–Campagnolo team to turn professional in 1975. (no parallelism as is)
  • In 1978, he won his first two Grand Tours, the Vuelta a España and the Tour de France. ===>>> In 1978, he won his first two Grand Tours: the Vuelta a España and the Tour de France.
  • A knee injury forced him to quit the 1980 Tour de France while in the lead, but he returned to win the World Championship road race later in the year. ===>>> Although a knee injury forced him to quit the 1980 Tour de France while in the lead, he returned to win the World Championship road race later in the year.
  • In the 1986 Tour de France, he engaged in an inter-team rivalry with LeMond, who won his first of three Tours. ===>>> In the 1986 Tour de France, he engaged in an intra-team rivalry with LeMond, who won his first of three Tours.
  • In the infobox, is the Boss or the Badger his primary nickname? From the lead and the article, it sounds like the Badger should be listed first?
All done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • Okay.

Amateur

  • He received his own bike when he was 15, as a reward for passing his school examinations and used it for his trips to college. ===>>> He received his own bike when he was 15 as a reward for passing his school examinations, and used it for his trips to college.
  • During the summer of 1971, he made training rides with René, who was a second-class amateur and had problems keeping up with the sixteen-year old. ===>>> During the summer of 1971, he made training rides with René, who had problems keeping up with the sixteen-year old even though he was a second-class amateur.
  • This was his last season as an amateur and again highly successful ===>>> This was his last season as an amateur and again was highly successful
All done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1975–77

  • he would have likely been prevented from turning professional before the 1976 Summer Olympics in order to be part of the French team there. <<<=== Who (or what) would prevented that?
  • unwritten rules of the field (peloton) ===>>> unwritten rules of the peloton (the main field)
  • Hinault won all of the intermediate cash prizes until five-time Tour de France winner Eddy Merckx declared that Hinault was included in the pact. <<<=== I'm a little confused. Did Merckx actually add him to the pact at some point, or did he just pretend Hinault was in the pact to take his money?
As I understand, he included Hinault in the pact, meaning that all the money was split up between all of them after the race. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he came sixth at the World Championship Road Race being beaten to the line for fifth by Eddy Merckx. ===>>> he came in sixth at the World Championship Road Race, being beaten to the line for fifth by Eddy Merckx.
  • During the spring classics season of 1977 ===>>> During the one-day spring classics season of 1977
I think that is quite redundant, a classic is a one-day race by definition. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1978

  • He won stage 11b, a mountain time trial in Barcelona ===>>> He won stage 11b, a mountain time trial in Barcelona,
  • A sixth win was prevented on the final day of the Tour: A short time trial was raced in the afternoon ===>>> A sixth win was prevented on the final day of the Tour, which was a short time trial was raced in the afternoon
  • Which stage did Hinault make up ground on Zoetemelk after the uphill time trial? If it is stage 16, that is not clear.
  • That was, until Pollentier was caught trying to defraud his doping test and was disqualified, leaving Hinault and Zoetemelk to fight out the overall victory. ===>>> However, Pollentier was disqualified for being caught trying to defraud his doping test, leaving Hinault and Zoetemelk to fight out the overall victory.
All done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1979

  • losing almost four minutes to Zoetemelk ===>>> losing almost four minutes and the lead to Zoetemelk
  • Zoetemelk broke away with Hinault ====>>> Zoetemelk and Hinault broke away
  • Zoetemelk finished 3:07 minutes behind Hinault, but then had ten minutes added to his time for failing a doping test. <<<=== Maybe not important, but why wasn't he disqualified?
Back then, it was customary to receive a ten-minute penalty for a positive doping test instead of being disqualified (even though this was often handled inconsistently). I could provide background on that, but since it is not actually about Hinault, this seems a little too much in the scope of this article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his first of four consecutive Super Prestige Pernod International <<<=== Should that be plural?
Added the word "competitions". Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980

  • partly to prepare for the cobbled sections during that year's Tour de France ===>>> partly to prepare for the cobbled sections in the upcoming Tour de France ("during" doesn't seem right)
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1981

  • Hinault had never made a secret about his dislike for riding on cobbled roads. ===>>> Hinault had never made it a secret about his dislike for riding on cobbled roads. --OR-- Hinault had never made his dislike for riding on cobbled roads a secret.
Done.
  • On the time trial to Pau on stage seven, he regained the lead and did not lose the jersey until Paris, ===>>> On the time trial to Pau on stage seven, he regained the lead and did not lose the jersey, (He never lost the jersey.)
I don't really understand the distinction? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it sounds like he lost the jersey in Paris. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1982

  • stage-three <<<=== That hyphen is inconsistent.
  • Later in the season, he added another victory ===>>> Later in the season, Hinault added another victory (Otherwise, "he" sounds like Zoetemelk.)
Both done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1983

  • He came back and took the lead the following day on the mountain stage to Castellar de n'Hug. <<<=== Who is "He" here? Hinault?
  • Add when Gorospe took the lead in the Vuelta.
Gorospe moved back into the lead on that very stage, have added half a sentence to reflect that.
  • with him taking victory in Ávila ===>>> with Hinault taking victory in Ávila
  • Hinault's tendinitis had returned and after two failed attempts to get back into racing after the Vuelta, he announced that he would miss the 1983 Tour de France. ===>>> Following the Vuelta, Hinault's tendinitis returned. After two failed attempts to get back into racing, he announced that he would miss the 1983 Tour de France.
All done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1984

  • Next, he won the Trofeo Baracchi, a two-man time trial, in which he competed with Moser. <<<=== Any particular reason he competed with Moser?
I wish I knew. Often, teammates competed in this event together, but it appears that sometimes it was just friends or riders put together for whatever reason (maybe to produce an exciting race). I cannot find a source that explains this in detail, all I know is that the two rode that edition together. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1985

  • underlying his loyalty ===>>> showing his loyalty
  • holding an advantage ===>>> building an advantage
  • This was enough to secure a record-equalling fifth Tour victory for him, by just under two minutes from his younger teammate. ===>>> This was enough to secure a record-equalling fifth Tour victory for Hinault, by just under two minutes over his younger teammate. ("him" is not clear; "from" implies behind)
All done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to the third point.

1986

  • He won the mountains classification and was given the combativity award. ===>>> He won the mountains classification and was also given the combativity award.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

  • Okay.

Riding style

  • His enigmatic exit from the 1980 Tour created tensions with the press that would never fully recover during his active career. ===>>> His enigmatic exit from the 1980 Tour created tensions with the press that would persist during the rest of his active career. (His relations wouldn't recover, but the tensions remained.)

Nickname

  • Okay.

Doping

  • French Senators <<<=== I don't think "senators" should be capitalized?
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • The prose is solid. I pointed out some minor grammar issues. The main repeat issue is using "he" when it isn't clear that the subject is Hinault. Will support once the above points are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Have reacted to all of your comments, most is done, one or two things I did not really understand. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lee Vilenski

edit

Taking a look now. Hope to give some feedback soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I've got:
  • known by the nickname le blaireau -Should the nickname be in quotes?
I think the italics should be sufficient? Not sure if there is a policy about this.
  • He associated himself with the animal on the grounds of its aggressive and fightful nature, a trait he embodied on the bike[according to whom?]
Is expanded upon and sourced in the article body, so no source needed in the lead.
  • What's an second-class amateur?
I rephrased this sinced I couldn't find a source explaining the amateur system of the 1970s.
  • Who is 16 in this sentence? During the summer of 1971, he made training rides with René, who was a second-class amateur and had problems keeping up with the sixteen-year old.
Clarified.
  • he and René escaped from the field to take a dominant victory, shared as they crossed the finish line together - is it a dominating victory if neither one won? Is "dominating" NPOV?
Rephrased.
  • This note Due to the events of the stage in San Sebastián, the Vuelta a España did not return to the Basque Country until 2011. seems a little out of place to me. Could easily be in the prose if important, ignored if not.
Removed. Thought it was interesting to add it, but you're right, it doesn't concern Hinault.
Most of it seems fine to me, a few nitpicks. If you look at the above, I'll see if there is anything else. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I think everything here is taken care of. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

Apart from issues resolved at last FAC:

  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: ref 103 requires pp.
  • No further issues relating to quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Done. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

Unfortunately this seems to have stalled and will have to be archived soon if it does not attract any additional support for promotion. @Sportsfan77777: Do you have anything additional? --Laser brain (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I have been making changes over the past two days. I know, I am slower than I'd like, but it's not stalled... please don't close this again... :( I am doing my best! This jumping on closing nominations is exactly what demotivates people from contributing from Wikipedia... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I am supporting now that my comments have been addressed. With three supports, does that suffice? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested an image review, since this is still missing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Status of addressing Cas's comments below? --Laser brain (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I am hoping to get this done today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Done! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: Pinging you to see if maybe the article has enough support now? Source and image reviews are done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

edit

Taking a look now....

After an extremely successful amateur career - sounds effusive. I'd tone it down a little "After an (highly) successful amateur career" or something
Done.
Advised to try to stay with the other riders, Hinault won the event. - I don't follow...he didn't stay with the other riders...?
Have added the word "only" to make it clearer. He was supposed not to get dropped, but instead dropped everybody else.
sleeping between straw in the barn - err, "sleeping on/under straw in the barn"?
Done.
he and René escaped from the field and reached the finish alone - "escaped" seems an odd word here..."outpaced"? "set off"? sorry, am cycling neophyte and realised later what this was about
During the spring classics season of 1977, Hinault left the Tour of Flanders before it had even started - do we know why? The reader is curious....
Done.
with a "colossal margin" of 3:15 minutes ahead of favourite - there should be a way of saying "colossal margin" without using original words and quotes
I used the direct quote to avoid coming under POV when I tried to phrase it myself. I have now rephrased it a bit in my own words, hoping that this will suffice. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
crossing the finish line to take the title in "a state of obvious distress". - ditto
Done.

Apart from that, reads well in an engaging and exciting manner and looks pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thank you for your comments, all should be done now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BaldBoris

edit
  • Starting with 1978 Vuelta a España, many races links are unnecessarily unpiped as it's clear from the section heading and intro what year it is.
I am trying to catch every instance of this. If you find the time, feel free to check if I spotted all of them.
  • at the 1978 Vuelta a España, then held at the end of April. The last part means nothing to someone who is unaware when the Vuelta is held now. I'd say move it to the beginning (In April,) or explain further.
Have added a note to explain this.
  • prevented on the final day of the Tour, Change to "race" as or add "Grand" before, although it's the "Tour" of Spain, the Tour de France has taken the word Tour.
Done.
  • His victory allowed him to wear the French tricolore for the following year. Add "jersey".
Done.
  • yellow jersey wearer Better to explain that it's the race leader there rather than a couple of sentences later.
Done.
Done.
  • Hinault suffered two punctures "two tyre punctures" or "two punctured tyres"?
Done.
  • that year's Liège–Bastogne–Liège Remove "that year's"
Done.
  • Frankfurt Add ", Germany" Outside of races where it's clear what country a city/town is in, I would add it. I can't find the MOS on it, but it's what I've always known.
Done.
  • Sallanches Add ", France"
Done.
  • Hinault had broken away about 80 km (50 mi) from the finish with several riders, including Pollentier and the first-year professional Robert Millar. What's the relevance of these riders? Pollentier was only mentioned previously as only a "temporary yellow jersey wearer" and Millar has none.
Removed and moved note about York into the quote box.
  • He suffered seven crashes and punctures, "tyre punctures"
Done.
Done. Wasn't even aware of that rule, thank you!
  • World Championship in Prague Add ", Czechoslovakia"
Done.
  • Giro–Tour I've always used a hyphen, but may be wrong?
I have done the hyphen.
  • Basel Add ", Switzerland"
Done.
  • criterium two days after the Tour "post-Tour criterium"
@BaldBoris: I don't quite understand. Should it be "post-Tour criterium two days after the Tour"? That sound a little redundant. I think the way it is written now is more understandable to non-cycling fans, who might not know the practice of post-Tour criteriums.
"post-Tour criterium two days after the Tour," But it is what it is. That is what cirteriums just after the Tour are called. Otherwise the reader will be questioning why he would ride a street race, unless it were a custom. The reader should not be patronised. If you feel it needs a note to aid in their understanding then do that. BaldBoris 21:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it was two days after isn't important. BaldBoris 21:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sporting director Stick with directeur sportif
Done.
Done.
  • he came second to Colombian Martín Ramírez Why mention his nationality when others don't?
Removed.
  • I wouldn't describe crashing into and punching a protester having "fighting spirit". It describes someone who's fought on when everything's against them.
Reworded.
  • leader's pink jersey in 1985. Already explained in 1980.
Done.
  • Even though Hinault had pledged support for LeMond for the 1986 Tour, Already say it's 1986, twice.
Done.
  • L'Alpe d'Huez Alpe d'Huez
Done.
Done.
  • , a criterium in Angers. Add ", France"
Done.
  • Hinault retired from professional cycling on 14 November 1986, his thirty-second birthday. Repeated from the start of the section. Looks messy. Either way remove 1986 from the date/dates.

Coming from a cycling guy, this article is very succinct. Will support once my comments are cleared up. BaldBoris 01:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Thank you for your comments! Haven't gotten through all of them yet, will do the rest later, hopefully tonight. I will have to check on that hyphen, I am not really sure either... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BaldBoris: I think I've gotten all now. There is just one thing where I didn't quite agree. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, apart from the post- Tour cirterium bit. I support it nevertheless. BaldBoris 21:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BaldBoris: Thank you! I have made the post-Tour criterium change and added a note. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
It can be seen from Wikimedia Commons that the image is cropped from this original. Copyright and use information is given, as the National Archive of the Netherlands has a partnership with Wikimedia.
Same as above applies here. "Anefo" is short for "Algemeen Nederlands Foto", referring to the Dutch Photo News Agency. Names of actual authors are given next to their association.

ALT text looks OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I am not really experienced with these image things. What course of action do I need to take about the things mentioned above? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first image you need to show where the license statement is, the second and third images I'd yank them unless we can get the author information cleared up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I should have cleared that up now above? I am unsure if these things need to be made clearer on the Commons pages of the pictures? Not all too familiar with that project unfortunately. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case it seems all fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2019 [41].

Early history of Gowa and Talloq

edit
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) and Masjawad99 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the early history of Gowa and Talloq, a pair of kingdoms which were to be one of strongest powers in pre-colonial Indonesia. The article was initially written and passed to GA by Karaeng Matoaya, but he hasn't been active since. Recently, Masjawad99 and myself tried to expand and improve it further. We nominated it for FA but after a few responses (all responded to and none seems negative) it was closed for inactivity (see archive1). Hopefully we'll be able to get more feedback now. HaEr48 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mimihitam

edit
  • I think the scope of "Early history of Gowa and Talloq" would have to be defined more clearly in the beginning of the article rather than in the "Aftermath". Who made the periodisation of early, middle, or late history of Gowa and Talloq? What separates the early period from latter periods? Is it because it was a pre-Islamic period, or is it because it was the time when Gowa was rising significantly? It would be helpful if you could clarify this in the article.
  • Since Gowa would be Islamised after this period, could you perhaps clarify the (animistic?) belief that they had during this "early period"? Maybe it could be described in the "Background" section.
  • "the veneration of the divine origins of nobility and the influential role of the bissu priesthood remained powerful obstacles for Islamization" --> isn't the bissu part of the Bugis culture?
    • Bissu also existed in pre-Islamic Makassar society according to the source cited (btw, I fixed the pages, it's pp. 117-119, not pp. 142-144). Or at least a similar concept; Ahmad Sewang (2005, pp. 152, 176) lists daeng ta alakaya as a Makassarese synonym for bissu (but even the term bissu is unmarked, which means that it also exists in the Makassarese language). Masjawad99💬 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Masjawad99: Re page number, I think the original author (User:Karaeng Matoaya) uses the 1994 revision of the Pelras article as the source for page number. This explains why many of them were out of range in the 1985 version (but in range for the 1994 version). I checked a few citation and they checked out. See my edit in [42]. HaEr48 (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like "with the king's power felt from Minahasa to Selayar" needs to be elaborated further. In the body, it is written that "Gowa was thus able to vanquish a staggering number of polities throughout the island of Sulawesi, from the northern Minahasa Peninsula to Selayar Island off the southern coast." The word "vanquish" implies that Gowa once conquered Minahasa and Selayar, which might not be accurate based on the sources.
    • The cited source (Bulbeck 1992 Figure 4-4) does include Selayar and Toli-Toli in the Minahasa peninsula in "Places defeated by Tunipalangga", so those statements seem accurate. HaEr48 (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard that the Gowa managed to control Sumbawa at some point. Was it during this early period?

That's it for now. I would like to thank you in advance. Mimihitam (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masjawad99 I also have a question pertaining to this image: File:South Sulawesi between Gowa and the Tellumpocco.png. Could you explain to me the darker blue area that are located between Wajoq, Ajatappareng, and Soppeng? Mimihitam (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are Lake Tempe and Lake Sidenreng. Yes, the color choice is quite unfortunate (the Gowa-Talloq's color is too similar IMO). I might remake the picture, but it would take some time. Masjawad99💬 22:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished reviewing this article and I support the nomination Mimihitam (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, Gog the Mild, Dank, and FunkMonk: pinging potential reviewers (sorry for bothering but this FAC needs more attention). HaEr48 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on pretty shaky ground with this subject, but I'll return if it gets some more qualified opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

edit

I'll have a look at this, but it may take two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says "three or four", and this is not much over 30K. And the paragraphs shouldn't be too long. That said, it now reads pretty well IMO; good work.
  • "and innovation on local weaponry" → 'and innovations in local weaponry'
  • "witnessed setbacks for Gowa's campaign" "for" → 'to'.
  • "The early historical period of two kingdoms" Should that be 'of the two kingdoms'?
  • "in which Gowa and Talloq converted to Islam, defeated its rivals in South Sulawesi and expanded its power beyond South Sulawesi to become the most important powers in eastern Indonesia" Is "Gowa and Talloq" the name of one polity or two? If one, then "powers" → 'power'; if two, then both "its" → 'their'.
    • @Gog the Mild: Made it grammatically two for now, but I'm a bit conflicted about this. This sentence was talking about the period when the two kingdoms were very unified. They each had their own royalty, but they ruled as a form of configuration and as far as foreign policy and expansions are concerned they acted as one. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you need to chose a date or event from which you will consider them to be one polity. This may be arbitrary. The main thing is to be consistent within any given period. (As you weren't here.) It would probably bee worth stating within the article from which date/event you are considering them to be one. I see some parallels with England, Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  • "The early history of Gowa and Talloq witnessed significant demographic and cultural changes as well." → 'The early history of Gowa and Talloq also witnessed significant demographic and cultural changes.'

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "innovations on local weaponry" "on" → 'in'
  • "Four main ethnic groups inhabited the Indonesian peninsula of South Sulawesi" When was this?
    • The source (written in 1997) writes in present tense, but presumably this applied to the period we were talking about as well, because as far as I know there have been no large scale ethnic migration in South Sulawesi which would have made this not true. Pinging Masjawad99 to weigh in. HaEr48 (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we really want to be accurate in representing the time period I have to look for another source then. It is there merely to provide some kind of geographical and demographic overview so that people won't get confused whenever there is a mention of "a Makassarese state..." or "a Buginese kingdom..." Masjawad99💬 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree it's a good overview, and allowing users to know the difference between Makassarese, Buginese, etc. as a background for reading the rest of the article is worth it IMO. HaEr48 (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caption: the one starting "A woman holding Salakoa... " is not grammatical. Possibly break into two sentences?
Apologies - you are correct. I misread it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of those look appropriate to me. If I do spot any more I will change them and post the diff so that you can check that you are happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Islam in the 1600s decade" → 'to Islam in the first decade of the 1600s'. (Assuming that that is what is meant.)
  • "halt Gowa's eastbound expansionism" "eastbound" → 'eastward'.
  • "The erstwhile Karaeng Gowa was exiled east" I am not sure what the "exiled East" bit means.
  • "During this period, Goa and Talloq embraced Islam" a) Does "During this period" refer to the former or the latter of the periods mentioned in the previous sentence? b) "Goa" → 'Gowa'.
    • Latter. Updated to clarify.
  • "Gowa won a series of victories against their neighbors" "their" → 'her'.
  • "Gowa's expansions covered most of Sulawesi" → 'Gowa's expansion [no's']extended to most of Sulawesi' or similar.
  • "as well as overseas in parts of eastern Borneo, Lombok in the Lesser Sunda Islands, as well as the Aru and Kei Islands in Maluku" It would be better if you could avoid saying "as well as" twice in the same sentence.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ruled by small chiefdoms with populations only in the hundreds" Optional: Delete "only".
  • "well-fed by both the Jeneberang River and the monsoon rains" "well-fed" → 'well-watered'.
  • "The export of rice both encouraged political centralization as the elite accumulated and competed for foreign luxury goods..." Do you mean 'The export of rice encouraged political centralization as the elite both accumulated [accumulated what?] and competed for foreign luxury goods' or 'The export of rice both encouraged political centralization [and something else] as the elite competed for foreign luxury goods and...'?
    • I think the original writer intended to combine these two sentences: "the export of rice encouraged politcal centralization..." and "the export of rice led to continuous agricultural intensification and expansion..." I have split the sentence for clarity. Masjawad99💬 22:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wet rice agriculture quickly increased in Gowa and its environs as in the rest of South Sulawesi, with large swathes of formerly unoccupied land settled and farmed." To my eye this seems to duplicate what has been stated in the previous paragraph. Delete?
  • "The mobilization of the rice surplus" I don't think that "mobilisation" makes grammatical sense in this context.
  • "The mobilization of the rice surplus also supported foreign trade on an unprecedented scale" seems to cover much the same ground as "The export of rice both encouraged political centralization as the elite accumulated and competed for foreign luxury goods"
  • "Another momentous process in Gowa and Talloq's early history" Optional: "momentous" is a bit of a word to watch; consider changing?
  • "the early history of the script remains shrouded in mystery" Peacocky? Perhaps 'the early history of the script remains mysterious'.
  • "was pervasive even on a popular level" "on" → 'at'.
  • "and other forms of continuities" → either 'and other forms of continuity' or 'and other continuities'.
  • "authority derived from the spoken word more so than literacy" Optional: I am not sure what "so" adds. Suggest either deleting it. Also consider 'authority derived from the spoken word more than the written'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my strong opinion, Bulbeck's list is not appropriate in this article. "The table of twenty two attributes presented in Bulbeck (1992) is produced below" and the list, with a brief explanation should be moved to a new article. (Possibly titled "Secondary state".)
    • I think it is still useful to show which of the attributes of early statehood that have been achieved by Gowa in the period covered by the article. Also, what Bulbeck means by "secondary state" =/= early state. Masjawad99💬 23:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Historian Anthony Reid argues" → 'The historian Anthony Reid argues'.
  • "that labor for infrastructural projects were recruited by landed nobles" "were" → 'was'.
  • "historian William Cummings" → 'the historian William Cummings'.

Notes:

Phew!

I will go through your changes and queries tomorrow, and then reread the whole thing. It is looking very solid to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Good work right through that process. Outstanding:

  • You will need to pick up the missing ISSNs and locations if you are to pass a source review - or even encourage an editor to start one. Shout if you have problems with this.
  • I have made some copy edits. Please let me know if I have made any errors, or if you don't understand why I have made any.
  • Bulbeck. A potential 'deal breaker'. I will come back on this.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Bulbeck
edit
  • "the population of Makassar and its environs ... or even grew as much as tenfold". Going to the source you cite, are you quite sure that "immediate hinterland" corresponds to "Makassar and its environs"? That would not be my reading, but I have not gone through the whole source.
    • This refers to the "coastal" area in the source, which increased ~3x in the 1992 source and revised to 10x in the 1994 source. I replaced it with the precise definition used by Bulbeck (3.6 km from the coast). HaEr48 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the inclusion of the population density 'sea of numbers' table does not help a reader and would be much better summarised in prose; indeed, I would argue that you have already covered the key findings above them and that the tables are superfluous. If you really insist, I can grit my teeth and let this go, but I would feel that you were doing a disservice to a fine article.
  • The twenty two attributes table needs to go. (I don't even see that it needs replacing with prose: "The capability of Gowa's rulers to integrate foreign expertise with local society allowed sixteenth-century Gowa to satisfy eighteen of the twenty-two attributes offered by Bulbeck as the "more useful, specific criteria" for early statehood." seems entirely sufficient to me. If you think that further explanation is necessary, add it in prose.) I am happy to get into a more detailed debate over this, but hope that this will not be necessary. I note that you make no attempt to explain what "Caldwell's six criteria", which I think is appropriate; but that you devote more space to the 22 attributes than you do to "War against the tellumpocco and the reign of Tunipasuluq".

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Thanks for taking on board my comments re Bulbeck. Rereading them I fear that I may have come across as more assertive than I meant to be. If I did, apologies. This is a splendid article, an example of Wikipedia at its best in a difficult topic area and I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No apologies needed at all (at least not to me). I really appreciate your taking the time to give feedback and explaining your reasoning, especially given that it seems unattractive to most reviewers due to its rare topic area. HaEr48 (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Nah, now the article seems much better and easier to read. Thanks for all the feedback and support! Masjawad99💬 21:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • The map showing the location of Gowa and Talloq could be moved up to be the lead image top right of the article.
  • "Gowa and its coastal ally Talloq[a] became the first power to dominate". Surely this should be "powers".
  • You have two refs in the first paragraph and none in the rest. The usual practice is that the lead is not referenced as it summarises the referenced main text.
  • "enabled by wide-ranging administrative and military reforms" "enabled" sounds awkward to me here. Maybe "as a result of"
  • "largely unconnected to foreign technologies and ideas." Quotations should be attributed inline. Ditto "went over to Melaka, then straight eastwards to Banda. For three years he journeyed, then returned."
  • "Manuscripts in this genre are arranged chronologically, listing important events such as births and deaths of aristocrats, construction projects, the arrival of foreign delegations, natural disasters, to peculiar events such as eclipses and the passing of comets." Not wars?
  • I would link "toponym".
    • Replaced with "place names" which should be easier to understand.
  • "Only after the rise of Makassar" This is confusing. You have previously used "Makassar" to refer to the people, but you here seem to be referring to the town. Maybe "Only after the rise of the town of Makassar".
    • Replaced with "Gowa and Talloq" to reduce confusion between Makassar the town and Makassar the people. 16:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "The most celebrated of his accomplishments" Obviously of Tumapaqrisiq Kallonna, but as he has not been mentioned since the middle of the previous paragraph, you need to say so.
  • 'Reign of Tumapaqrisiq Kallonna' The last paragraph has apparently random comments in italics.
  • "The question over the succession after Tunibatta's death was resolved" I suggest "Tunibatta's death was followed by a succession dispute which was resolved".
  • "Some of the conceded vassals had previously been subject to Gowa for a century." I am not clear what this means. "Some areas conceded to Boné been subject to Gowa for a century"?
    • Yes, that's what it means. But I removed the sentence, it seems unremarkable to me that area that you have to cede have been with you for a century.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the murder of Tunijalloq in 1590, Karaeng Matoaya, the eighteen-year-old son of Tumamenang ri Makkoayang" "After the murder" implies that it has been mentioned previously. I suggest "Tunijalloq was murdered in 1590". Also Karaeng Matoaya was presumably the brother or half-brother of Karaeng Baine, which seems a relevant way of describing him.
    • Tunijalloq's murder is mentioned in the previous paragraph ("...but was assassinated by one of his subjects in an amok attack..."). As for Karaeng Matoaya, he was indeed the half-brother of Karaeng Baine. Added the information. Masjawad99💬 00:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Karaeng Matoaya then appointed Tunipasuluq, Tunijalloq's fifteen-year-old son" Her son or by another wife?
  • "By 1630, Gowa's expansion not only extended to most of Sulawesi, but also overseas in parts of eastern Borneo" I would say "to parts"
  • "However, in the late 1660s Gowa and Talloq were defeated by the alliance of the Bugis and the Dutch East India Company." I would prefer "an alliance"
  • 'Demographic and cultural shifts' section. The first paragraph largely repeats what you have said above.
  • "the toponym Talloq" As above, I would link toponym.
  • "archaeologist F. David Bulbeck" You refer to him here as if it is the first mention of him. You should just say Bulbeck.
  • "new pieces of furniture were introduced" I would say "new types of furniture were introduced"
  • "Another notable process in Gowa and Talloq's early history was the introduction of writing" "innovation" wlould be better than "process"
  • "Francis David Bulbeck" You should just say Bulbeck.
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

I don't see that this has had a full source review anywhere (acknowledging some comments by Gog the Mild). I've requested one. --Laser brain (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser brain. Pinging Brianboulton as well, given that he did the source review in the first nomination, and this article did not change much source-wise since that review. I've posted in his talk page as well. HaEr48 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

I carried out the sources review in the earlier archived nom, and gave it a clean bill of health. Little has changed this then, but there are a few minor points for attention:

  • Verification: some references show wide page ranges, e.g. refs 39 (1–20); 44 (117–160); 108 (1–28); 133 (35–59). It should be possible to be more specific in identifying the precise page number which supports the cited statement.

Masjawad99 Could you help with some of these? Probably there are other instances in addition to what the reviewer noted. HaEr48 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton and HaEr48: I have added specific ranges for some of them, but I have no access to the other articles/books right now. Masjawad99💬 21:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masjawad99 Thanks. I'll try to take a look at the others, but give me a few days. If we could find a different work that is accessible to support the same statement, that would work as well. HaEr48 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formats
  • Ref 22 requires pp.
  • Confirm ref 40 page range ("10f5")

No further issues that I can see. Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2019 [43].

Project Excalibur

edit
Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather strange event in the history of the cold war.

It involves Edward Teller, Ronald Reagan, nuclear bombs and freaking lasers. If that were not enough, it's also filled with leaking top secrets, railroading people, lies, and is the basis for one of the major steps on LLNL's long downward spiral in the eyes of Washington.

The article went through a lengthy (due largely to my workload) but relatively uncontentious milhist-A-class review. I draw attention to the threads on the talk page, make of them what you will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

Only a handful of drive-by comments at present, I'm afraid. The article is very, very long; I'll try to find time to read it all, but I can't promise.

  • For consistency you should stick with one or other of "exoatmospheric" and "exo-atmospheric".
  • Similarly it would be as well to decide between "focused" and "focussed"
  • The phrase "a number of..." appears a number of times – ten to be precise. It's generally a woolly and unnecessary phrase: "outlined a number of possible uses" would be shorter and better as "outlined possible uses" and so on. Where it is used instead of "a few" or "many" it would be briefer and clearer to say "a few" or "many". Tim riley talk 07:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: All fixed! !!!!

Comments from Praemonitus

edit

That is a long read, perhaps even WP:TOOLONG? Here's a few issues I noticed:

  • The article mixes "Xray" and "X-ray", "meters" and "metres". Please be consistent.
I cannot see any instances of "xray" or "metres". I assume someone else fixed the.
  • There are a few unexplained acronyms: DoD, SDIO, MX.
Fixed. MX is not really an acronym.
  • What does "small laser gain" mean?
Simplified.
  • "George Chapline had also been studying the X-ray laser concept": 'also' is redundant.
Removed.
  • It would seem like, per MOS:DATETIES, this article has strong national ties to the U.S., so the perhaps date format should match? E.g. "13 September 1978", "23 February 1981", "4 September", "23 March 1983", ...
Uhhh, that is the format I see them in.
  • "They calculated that the system produced...": who is 'They'? The "R Program"?
The team running the experiment. They were not part of the weapons program.
  • "...recent advances in Soviet weapons would soon put them in a position to threaten the US": this was in 1982? The Russians had the R-7 in 1957, so what sort of threat is he suggesting?
There is an overarching bit of history taking place at this time that I have not had time to write about. Through the 1970s the Soviets began upgrading their ICBM INS systems, as were the US, to support MIRV. The US estimates of the accuracy of these systems was dramatically overstated (as was typical of the era) and suggested that the Soviets were able to attack US missile control centers. This was immediately ascribed to the Soviets attempting to develop a first-strike capability, which they combined with thier large national civil defense system, in order to start and "win" a nuclear war against the US that was predicted to take place sometime in the early-mid-1980s. This was known as the "window of vulnerability", and was the major reason that Carter, and especially Reagan, spent so much upgrading their own weapons systems.
  • "...the system would only be useful against missiles at short range...": 'short' is vague.
Explained.
  • "And once the rocket had stopped firing": starting this sentence with the conjunction "And" seems unnecessary, and is probably grating to some people.
Removed.
  • "...would be 1,000 times more powerful...": should clarify that they mean the nuclear device rather than the laser. The latter is covered further down.
They do not, this is the energy of the laser itself.
  • "The fact that it occurred the same day as a critical review in the influential journal Science was dismissed": Seems ambiguous. Dismissed by whom and to whom?
Clarified.
  • "There is also considerable debate on whether or not Excalibur...": 'also' is redundant.
Removed.
  • The "Lasers" section could perhaps use a simple illustration of a ruby laser structure for clarity.
Added.
  • "X-ray lasers" section: wait, so the transition is 334 million times less likely but the excited state is extremely short-lived. Logically this seems contradictory, so a little clarification would be good.
This is the result of delivering an entire atomic bomb's worth of energy in a couple of nanoseconds. It's brute forcing the problem.
  • "dispersion angle", "solid angle", "collimated": these technical terms needs a link.
All added.
  • "...ablation generated shock waves...": unexplained technical jargon. What does this have to do with X-ray attacks?
Didn't write that para, removed it entirely.
  • "Soviets Flight Testing Nuclear Bomber" has an online link available from aviationweek.com.
Ohhh, nice!

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

edit

@Maury Markowitz: Where are we with addressing the above comments? I've added this to the Urgents list but ultimately it may need to be archived soon if it doesn't attract additional review and support for promotion. --Laser brain (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are not pinging me so I'm not seeing them. I'll get started on these now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: again --Laser brain (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

edit

Support: G'day, I had a look at this when it was at A-class review. Overall, it looks pretty good to me, although the science is beyond me. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • for the hatnote, it would probably be best to write at least a short, well cited stub as they shouldn't contain redlinks per WP:REDHAT
  • just wouldn't work --> "just would not work"
  • simply couldn't be --> "simply could not be"
Both done.
  • to arrange an interception --> "achieve an interception"?
Actually, that means something slightly different.
  • for citation # 4, please include the work or publisher (looks like it might be CBS News?)
Done.
  • page number or location for citation # 44?
Done.
  • same as above for citations 84 and 96?
84 already has it (p4) the second is the entire work.
Sorry, I meant citation 94 and 96. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has changed number again -- to clarify, it is the "Blumberg & Panos" citation that I think needs a page number. Otherwise, I think all my comments have been addressed, so I've added my support above. Nice work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) in diameter, at a distance of 1,000 kilometers (620 mi) that represents a solid angle of 10−12 steradian (sr) --> "A typical ICBM is 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) in diameter, at a distance of 1,000 kilometers (620 mi), which represents a solid angle of 10−12 steradian (sr)"?
Done.
  • in the Further reading section, the Rotblat and Hellman source is inconsistently formatted
Reformatted.
  • there is a mix of date formats, for instance compare "December 14, 1985" with "8 October 2008"
Reformatted.
  • are there any more categories the article could be added to? Currently it only sits in two, which seems a bit limited
Open to any suggestions! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Category:Directed-energy weapons? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • and as a sort of flash bulb for taking} Merge flash bulb here.
Done.
  • concepts. Hagelstein arrived in May 1975, Replace "in" with "on".
I believe "on" only applies when the date is complete.
  • job at the lab with the aim of leading the Replace "with the aim of leading" with "intending to lead".
Done.
  • technology to the policy makers Merge policy makers.
Apparently US is two words, UK is hyphen.
  • (BAllistic Missile Boost Intercept) Maybe decapitalise the "A" here.
It is part of the acronym.
  • Reagan made the decision to announce Remove "made the decision" with decided.
Done.
  • MX-like missile firing for 180 seconds missile firing needs a hyphen here.
No, this is a "missile, firing", not "a missile-firing ship".
  • for the free electron laser Free electron needs a hyphen.
This is the way it is used in every text.
  • Given the light weight of the Excalibur-type Light weight needs a hyphen.
No, this is "the light weight" not "a light-weight material".
  • inclined to call it an earthshattering report Earthshattering needs a hyphen between earth and shattering.
Direct quote from source.
  • Third generation weapon Needs a hyphen between Third generation.
Direct quote.
  • the laboratory for that ten-year period Remove "that ten-year period" here with "those ten years".
Done.
  • At that point any one of the atoms You mean "anyone"?
No, any one.
  • their atoms entirely, producing a gas of nuclei and electrons No "a" here.
"Some kleenex" vs. "A kleenex". A singular object is being referred to.
  • The "X-ray based attacks"' name needs a hyphen between based attacks.
It is not a single adjective before a noun.
  • the steel guy-wires white hot White hot needs a hyphen.
Same case here, "white" is an adjective *for* "hot", as opposed to "white-hot steel".
  • rods needed to be long and skinny You mean belong?
As opposed to short.
  • amplification with a laser gain of about 5 5 should be five.
Done.
  • the president another three times.[31][30] Order ref in numerical order.
Done.
  • If there are scientific article should have metric units as primary units.
I use the units as originally specified in the source material.
  • I see a lot of "howevers" here some of them should be deleted by MOS:HOWEVER
Guilty, as charged. There were 10, now there are two.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of them! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • The source link for File:Karl R. Bendetsen.jpg is dead.
Fixed.
  • As is that for File:George A. Keyworth, II 1981, 4.jpg.
Fixed.
  • And File:C13571-8a.jpg
Fixed.
  • And File:Space Laser Satellite Defense System Concept.jpg
Found on thousands of pages, do we need to pick one?
Yes. Preferably the original, or as close to the original as you can manage. As has been the admirable case with the other images in this article.
  • And File:Brilliant pebbles.jpg
Fixed.
  • All images require alt text.
I do not believe this is true? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An FA needs to be fully MoS compliant. The MoS states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. See WP:ALT for more information." under MOS:ACCIM. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. This has come up in the past and invariably the result was that a caption OR alt was required. I assume this was changed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I got hit with it a couple of times a few months back and dug into it. So far as I can see the current MoS requirement is pretty clear and pretty inflexible. (I didn't want it to be when I first researched it.) It also gives a decent explanation of why it is needed and what goes wrong if there is just a caption. So when I do image reviews I always check it. (Currently having a similar discussion on another FAC, so it probably is new.)
I removed it instead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Always irritating when you have to do that. I once had to remove every image from an ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather mild irritation in this case... I didn't add the image originally :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "In space, the lack of atmosphere to block the X-rays allowed attacks on missiles thousands of kilometers away." So was it launched from a satellite in space or from the ground? The article states that both were considered but this should be briefly pointed out in the lead.
It was always fired in space, the original source could be anywhere - a satellite, a ship, even an aircraft.
  • " showed a film exposed the output of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium". " showed a film which had been exposed the output of plasmas of chlorine, calcium and titanium"?
Changed it another way.
  • "The most pointed of these was Sobel'man's statements". What does "most pointed" mean here?
Changed it, but I'm not sure its an improvement.
  • Why is Diablo Hawk italicised?
It's a nickname. The actual name is some classified string of letters and digits.
  • "Peter Hagelstein was putting himself through MIT". Is this AmerEng for studying for an undergraduate degree?
It is, but changed.
  • "It was at about the same time that the University of Hull publicly announced they had succeeded in making an X-ray laser." Why is this relevant? The research does not appear to have been used by the Project Excalibur people.
Just general background on the entire x-ray field.
  • "Even if the Soviets launched a full-scale attack, it would limit US casualties to 30 million. That was considered acceptable?
Well, there's a reason they called Teller a mad scientist! But given that the projections at that time were 90% of the population would die, 30 million is a bargain.
  • "only to receive a yet another report" This is ungrammatical.
Indeed.
  • "This led to a 4 September meeting without the rest of the High Frontier group." Obviously with the president but you should say so.
Yup.
  • "Wood used this argument during congressional meetings on SDI. When asked about the possibility of a Soviet version of Excalibur and what a US response might be, Wood stated that X-ray lasers could be used against any object in space, referring to this as a "counter-defensive" role. This claim was quickly turned against him; if Excalibur could destroy a Soviet SDI system, then a Soviet Excalibur could do the same to theirs. Instead of ending the threat of nuclear weapons, Excalibur appeared to end the threat of SDI. More worryingly, when one considered such scenarios, it appeared the best use of such a system would be to launch a first strike; Excaliburs would destroy US defenses, their missiles would then attack the US missile fleet, and remaining Excaliburs would blunt the enfeebled response.[67] Miller immediately sent a letter countering Wood's claims, but the damage was done." I am confused what this paragraph is saying. You say that Wood's claim was turned against him, but then that a letter countering his claims was too late. Were Wood or his opponents talking up the danger of a Soviet Excalibur?
Sort of, hopefully, my edit clarifies this slightly. Basically, Teller and Wood had said "the Soviets are doing it so we have to" for decades (and not just them, see policy by press release). So Wood was playing this game again. But that led the committee members to ask what the US could do if the Soviets did build their own. And that's when the crap hit the fan, due to what appears to be a careless comment. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused. If the committee members had destroyed Wood's arguments, then why did Miller, who you present as a sceptic about Excalibur, need to reply to them, and what does "but the damage was done" mean - for or against Excalibur? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the confusion appears to be about Miller. Miller was definitely not a skeptic once he assumed control in 1985. He initially set a conservative message, but once in control of the arms side (which happened in 1985) he was in full support. It was Miller that presented the misleading information to SDIO, and Miller that sent Woodruff to internal exile and took over his post. His attempts to defuse Wood's words were very much in keeping with his other actions around that time. I believe this is fairly well covered now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I think you just discovered a Grammarly bug.
  • "These devices demonstrated" What devices? Maybe "Goldstone demonstrated".
Even better...
  • Over the protests of colleagues, Teller mislead the highest officials of the United States Government" misled?
If only it were missiled.
  • "Others report that Teller's going around the official channels" Does "going around" mean here using all of them or bypassing them?
Yes, fixed.
  • " It is said that Reagan's "kitchen cabinet" was pushing for some sort of action on BMD" Who said?
Improved.
  • "Others give the nod" This is too colloquial.
Improved.
Linked.
  • "The main problem in producing such a device is that the probability of any given transition between energy states depends on the cube of the energy. Comparing a ruby laser that operates at 694.3 nm to a hypothetical soft X-ray laser that might operate at 1 nm, this means the X-ray transition is 6943, or a little over 334 million times less likely." I do not follow this. You appear to jump from the cube of the energy to the cube of the wavelength.
Ahhh, well, yes. That's how it works. e=hw.
  • "In order to damage a booster, it is estimated that about 3 kJ/cm² would need to hit the airframe." This is the first mention of the word 'booster' and the only mention of 'airframe'. It will mean nothing to the great majority of readers.
I am not convinced of that, but I've changed it anyway.
  • "The enhancement of the brightness compared to the unfocused output from the bomb is η / d θ {\displaystyle \eta /d\theta } {\displaystyle \eta /d\theta }, where η {\displaystyle \eta } \eta is the efficiency of conversion from bomb X-rays to laser X-rays, and d θ {\displaystyle d\theta } {\displaystyle d\theta } is the dispersion angle." This will only be comprehensible to experts and in my view does not belong in a Wikipedia article.
Technical articles, and this definitely falls into that category, generally do include math.
  • MIRV - this should be linked.
It is, is there another one that should be? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • "BAMBI used small heat-seeking missiles" This implies that BAMBI went ahead, which does not seem to be what you are saying. "BAMBI would have used"?
There's a continual thread on this in various MOS related pages, and I'm not going to wade into it now. But basically, this is the way it should be according to The Powers that Be.
  • There is an error message on citation 3.
I guess someone fixed it? I do no see an error.
  • I could not understand some parts of this article, probably due to my lack of technical knowledge, but, as I have said above, I think it is crucial to explain in the lead that Excalibur could be launched from land, sea or space but could only be fired in space. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already reworded that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Hawkeye7

edit
  • Since you mention Hagelstein's PhD thesis, why not supply a reference to it for the reader? ([44])
Done.
  • While LLNL is defined in the lead, suggest doing so again when it first appears in the body.
Added.
Linked and linked.
  • Fn 88 is the article and Bennet the politician referred to by note h, so why not link it here too and name him instead of "one politician"?
OK.
  • Supply the URL for Stevens, Charles, "Status of the x-ray laser: the exclusive real story" [45]
Done.
  • The link on Thomson Strategic defense of X-ray initiative – X-ray laser research goes to findarticles.com, which isn't very useful. Try the correct URL [46]
Didn't add these, but I'll link.
  • Link Peter Goodchild, T. A. Heppenheimer (whose name is wrong), David Perlman, Joseph Rotblat, Robert Scheer, Herbert York
  • Sourcing is inconsistent. Some newspaper articles are in the bibliography, and some are not. Suggest moving fn 5, 18, 22, 38, 42, 52, 68, 88, 94, 106, 107, 131, 132 to the bibliography.
    It is very consistent - items used in more than one location are in the bib, one-offs are not. This saves the reader having to click multiple times to get what they need. If you have counterexamples let me know.
    Fn 5 appears twice. It is the only exception. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two journals have ISSNs
  • Only one book has a location
Not updating.
Very nice article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2019&oldid=913361396"