Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2020

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2020 [1].

---

Hassium

Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are free.
• Sandwiching between infobox and first images. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment

• Transcluding a significant prose section into a FAC seems questionable to me, and it prevents you from fixing the sandwiching problem. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Introduction_into_superheavy_elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.

@R8R: What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?

@Buidhe: +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all edits made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.

I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from ComplexRational

I have made a few substantive edits to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support.

• The atomic number is the number of protons in an atomic nucleus. – anyone reading the article should know this; at most, a parenthesized definition such as "atomic number (number of protons)" is enough.

  Addendum: to avoid breaking the text flow (as pointed out by R8R, the next sentence should be shortened or cut as well; we don't need to define the more common terms in this article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to a parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've given it more thought and I don't see what can be done to help this without removing important information, but I'd like to hear from you if you think otherwise. You see, I want to mention the following points:

  • The heaviest element in nature is uranium;
  • Elements can be referred to by their atomic numbers;
  • The first element heavier than uranium was synthesized in 1940;
  • Elements through 101 were discovered in Berkeley;
  • Starting with element 102, a new contender emerged in Moscow/Dubna;
  • and so on.

  The current text seems optimal to me to make those points. Note j could be remade to also differentiate elements through 101 from elements 102 onward by their synthesis method.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  It flows fairly well as is, but atomic number is mentioned earlier as well, and I don't believe a parenthetical definition would cost too much meaning or flow as opposed to the current standalone sentence for a basic definition. Either way could conceivably be workable; I agree with your points, but don't want to include an extra explanation if it is not necessary.

  This might turn out to be a matter of preference, but nothing is lacking either way, so I won't let this hold up my support. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've given it some more thought and I figured I could contract the text without compromising the ease of reading.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• was discovered in 1940 at the University of California in Berkeley, California, United States. – I do not believe the detail in note [j] is necessary. Since this section does not provide background information on the topic, the exact details of how neptunium was discovered are not important to this topic.

  OK, I've removed note j. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Let's talk about it some more. The point of that note was that that reaction was different from what we've described so far ("combines two other nuclei of unequal size" -- a neutron is not a nucleus, and the reaction itself isn't precisely in the same category, as I have described in that note), and a note seems suitable to point out this small difference.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'd prefer appending the sentence Elements through 101 were discovered... and stating there that neutron capture and alpha irradiation were used in these discoveries, and that they are not nuclear fusion per se. I feel this would flow better than a note, and not drop this extra bit of context.

  Sounds good but alpha particles do qualify as nuclei, so technically that is nuclear fusion?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Technically it is, this change is just to differentiate these techniques from light-ion bombardment. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Now that I've thought more about it, I think the important distinction here is that elements through 100 were discovered by having uranium absorb neutrons, and then we hit a wall that prevented from more discoveries in that manner, and element 101 had to be discovered via bombardment by whole nuclei. In fact, even the first publication on synthesis of element 100 followed after a bombardment of uranium by oxygen, rather after endless absorption of neutrons. I think I'd rather highlight that; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  @R8R: There are a couple of natural breaks. One is where the discovery became physics instead of chemistry (E102), another is after you hit the fermium wall (E101). The important thing IMHO is when it really became a one-atom-at-a-time thing, so I agree with you that this is the one to highlight. Double sharp (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm still pondering this. We indeed can say this, but should we? After all, the section is supposed to be about the discoverers, rather than discovery methods. It appears to me that what exactly the synthesis methods for all those elements were is quite off-topic for hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have considered this and I think I was right to say we shouldn't say this just because we can because we go rather off-topic otherwise. Although if you disagree, I'll be eager to listen to you.--R8R (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  It looks pretty good as is. I agree that this section should not detail discovery methods, for those are explained in detail elsewhere and would indeed stray off-topic. Since that note is no longer in this section, we can consider this adequately resolved. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons. – I'm unsure about this. To an uninformed reader, it would suggest that heavier nuclei are more stable, not less stable (after ⁶²Ni). This could be removed together, a link to an article such as nuclear binding energy should be sufficient.

  I've copyedited a previous sentence to make it clear enough.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's better, though I'd also suggest changing this to "the more total energy" to make it obvious that more nucleons have more total energy, but are not more stable as a result. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  I did some more copyediting; please see the results.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• hypothesized a different mechanism – proposed or suggested would read better in my opinion, as these experiments were soon conducted, and hypothesized connotes greater uncertainty than I understand from the source.
  • Changed to "proposed". Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei – I suggest adding somewhere, perhaps in parentheses, that this refers to symmetric fusion, so that readers have a short and to-the-point connection.

  I have my doubts about that, though I'm eager to see what I could be missing. You see, "symmetric fusion" is also rather vague, and there's nothing to link that to, so I wonder if it's going to create even more confusion instead (it would need an explanation in the likes of what we already have: "more equal atomic numbers").--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  True, we should keep it as simple and straight-to-the-point as possible. I think we can leave this one as is. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• including one around Z = 108. – note [t] is definitely not needed; these symbols are introduced and used earlier in the article. I suggest removing it entirely.
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That the note was misplaced is clear enough, but have the terms really been introduced by the time we first use those letters? if so, where?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  They're not all consistent (Z is introduced in the infobox, the others are thrown around). To make it unambiguous, I suggest adding them to the transcluded short introduction if possible. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  My understanding has been that the infobox doesn't matter (it's more of a data sheet rather than article text). It appears to me that the note is best restored at the first occurrence of these letters in the text (currently "the vicinity of Z = 110–114"). I also think that there is no room for these symbols in our short introduction.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Only thing is they're not all introduced in one place. Atomic number is introduced in the context of uranium (discovery section), mass number could be added in the note dealing with nuclide notation (note [k]), and I don't see neutron number anywhere before the isotopes section. Working with these is doable, it's just not as consistent as we'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I guess we have to play with the cards we've been dealt. Since that appears to be okay with you, I have restored the notation note at the first occurrence of this notation in the text.--20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• No results have been released. – citation needed, and date needed. Otherwise, some more definite statement should be made in the article (if necessary, about the fact that no results have been released, structured similarly to hassocene at the end).

  I have updated this paragraph.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Atomic nuclei show additional stability...indicate closure of "sub-shells". (4 sentences) – since the sections have been rearranged, I suggest moving these sentences up to the isotopes section, and introducing the island of stability and the nature of ²⁹²Hs differently here.

  Good one; please see my edit. Comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  The flow is much better now. The island of stability is appropriately introduced, and the part about ²⁹²Hs in nature is both contextualized and focused. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• This in turn increases the gravitational attraction – a {{dubious}} tag was added, and looking at it, I also am inclined to question because gravitational attraction isn't the dominating force at the atomic scale. This could perhaps be simplified as well, as a more thorough explanation would require more jargon and stray off topic. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's actually a very good tag, and I'll address it below.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Responded there.--R8R (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Should we have alt text for the last two images? The diagrams are pretty straightforward, but the captions should at least be converted to alt if not supplemented by something else explanatory.

  But they do, don't they? What pictures are you referring to exactly?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Never mind, I missed the way it was formatted. My mistake. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced. – how come you re-added this? I removed it because it is outdated and inaccurate; a more recent source says that ~100 flerovium atoms have been synthesized in total, many of which decay to hassium, not including the many hassium atoms directly synthesized and/or used for chemical studies. I think we're better off without it unless a very recent (2019 or 2020) source gives a number; someone else will inevitably comment that this is outdated or note the inconsistency across articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this has to do with Hurricanehink's comments below about how much Hs has ever been produced. I personally think it makes some sense to make it clear to the reader what kinds of quantities we're talking about. (If you can count the atoms, you have basically nothing.) However maybe it's better to instead stress that you get only one atom at a time (as the events are surely widely spaced apart in time): it doesn't quite make sense to ask how much Hs has been produced because by the time you produce the second atom, the first is long gone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this idea came to me after I saw the comment a comment by Hurricanehink below. It appears to me that it's a good idea to have a crude estimate to get some sense of how research there has been into the element. To me, it doesn't seem like 2011 is that long ago given that I don't find it reasonable to have a precise estimate in the first place, but if it helps, I've seen some similar estimates dated 2019: one, two.

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't remember us discussing this before.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 estimate might be a better place to start if you believe it's a good idea. I feel it's already emphasized that several experiments were performed, and it seems clear to me (but maybe not all readers) the contrast between the amount of research done on hassium vs. all heavier elements (as noted in their respective articles). And you're right, I don't think we discussed it. I removed it in this edit, which I surprisingly remember, and was genuinely convinced I did it much more recently than December 2018. I still feel the same way about it now, though, but I'm open to a less crude estimate to give a general idea if there is a recent source available. ComplexRational (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I've put in the two references I mentioned above and modified the sentence somewhat. Does it look good for you?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks better. It leaves room to account for what I mentioned, and you're right that if there were over 1,000 atoms, the word choice would reflect that (rather than simply over 100). Also, for future reference, we say "on the order of" rather than "in the order of"; I made that correction. More English language peculiarities... anyway, I think we can consider this resolved. I'll review the rest of the comments hopefully tomorrow or over the weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I think you mentioned it to me some time before but evidently I may not always be the fastest learner.

I'll gladly wait for your upcoming responses.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: All done. RL has been quite a mess and mentally very taxing this week, so I apologize for not finishing sooner. I have one open comment still, and would like to resolve that, but this article has come a long way over the past year and with all the changes enacted, I'm happy to support now. ComplexRational (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: thank you very much! There's no problem with waiting whatsoever since I'm not active every day, too. I hope you're doing fine. I took another look at the last issue you raised and I think I found a good solution.--R8R (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Support - I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.

• The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives, were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products. The heaviest isotope produced by direct fusion is 271Hs; heavier isotopes have only been observed as decay products of elements with larger atomic numbers. - source?

  That phrase is covered by the table in that section, and the table is well-referenced.

• have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei. - ditto

  This one is covered by the references earlier in that sentence. I put them there for the convenience of the reader who may want to check the sources so they could see which part of the sentence is covered by what.

• and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. - I'm guessing these refs are already elsewhere in the article.

  Yes. The decay part is covered by the table in the Isotopes section, and the chemistry part is covered by the Experimantal chemistry section.

• Are you dealing with the dubious - discuss tag in the Relativistic effects section?

  Yes, I have responded to it below.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you mean re-adding the reference for the first point you raise?

Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end: 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes", and the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", which... I noticed "No results have been released." IDK what's appropriate for chemistry articles, but maybe add a "As of {{currentyear}}" in this sentence? Tough to cite a negative though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As for lack of citations at the end of paragraphs: I have generally applied my common sense and the Wikipedia policy (luckily, the two coincide): I put citations wherever the information could actually be challenged by a curious reader. I generally doubt it that somebody is actually going to question the nomenclature (as in the 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion") when the physics behind it is cited. Sometimes, paragraphs end on statements that I expand on in the following paragraphs (2nd paragraph of "Isotopes"). The sentence ending the 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes" is referenced, it's just the references for the convenience of a curious reader willing to check the sources are not at the end of the sentence. As for the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", it is indeed hard to cite a negative but luckily there's something coming our way, so I'll expand on this statement regardless of whether the report has actually been released.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reworked the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence," so that's now out of the way too.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There is one vague estimate which has been reproduced a few times. I don't know the ultimate origin of the estimate (the book I found it in doesn't use in-line citations) but it's rather believable. Added it in the beginning of the Isotopes section.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that bit, but could you improve the wording of the bolded part - "As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced" - grammatically it could be stronger. For instance, "As of 2011, the amount of Hassium atoms ever produced numbered in the hundreds." I hope that still implies the same meaning, and it could still be written stronger. It's a shame the source wasn't more specific, like giving a range, or giving some cap. More than 100 could be 1,000 or a million, which is different when it comes to microscopic quantities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I went for the time being for "As of 2019, the quantity of all hassium ever produced was in the order of hundreds of atoms." This seems good enough for me. I frankly rather doubt it that anyone would assume that if it there were a few thousands of atoms that anyone would mention merely "more than 100". That is mathematically correct but that's not how real language usually works :) but the combination of sources makes me even more confident in the statement as I gave it.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Readded the particular source citing the sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Your wording for "hundreds" works great.I'm picky, and for all of the hard work you've put into it, you should be proud of what you've written (with other writers, yea, Wikipedia is a collaborative platform, but I know what it's like doing the bulk of the work for a very niche subject, and as a fellow science nerd, I appreciate your work on such an elementary article). Happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Most elements are not as niche, but it's good to branch out every once in a while. I should be able to start a review on your article on Sunday.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9

As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects.

Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments from DePiep

• About section title "#Introduction". It is the first section, depth h2 (==). This is confusing since the lead (top) section performs this task already implicitly (see WP:LEAD for example: Introduction is a synonym even). Also, as it stands it suggests or states that it is an introduction to the article topic (i.e., hassium). This confusion can easily be removed by changing this section title into "Introduction to the heaviest elements", "Introduction to heavy elements", or something alike. A similar issue is likely to appear in all articles with this introduction transcluded. (Noted before [2]). -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  A heading such as Introduction to superheavy elements or similar would be fine with me, and avoid this ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  That would be fine if we didn't use the same introduction for elements 102 and 103, too. Does Introduction to the heaviest elements work for you?--R8R (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ah yes, there's that. Introduction to the heaviest elements works. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  OK for this appreciation. I note, just a note, that the reuse of the section now implies a sub-optimal outcome (compromises to keep the whole). For a TOC, these section titles are very long (trying to squeeze too much into it?).

About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail—as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).

I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my preference: I prefer any of the two proposed here (not using [ ] brackets); actual choice should be short, but in no way incorrect or confusing (up to the specialists). Changing between the transcluding articles may occur AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about getting a sub-optimal outcome because I'm certain what we got isn't one. There is at the highest count one small part of the text which could in principle differ at all, and the difference would be very small anyway. And even at that, that's not a distinction I'd want to draw anyway.

  Note that the notion of "superheavy elements" is explained in a note. Regardless, the "heaviest" elements that we're talking about is not a well-defined term like "superheavy elements"; it's merely used for convenience for as many elements as it could reasonably take. In our case, the defining principle that highlighted the need of this introduction in the first place is the synthesis method. The introduction focuses on synthesis and the general principle used for elements 102+.

  To me, it seems like "Introduction" is just fine. I'll also note that we have articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics or Introduction to genetics, which go beyond their respective lead sections. If we are to make a longer title, then we should be accurate about it. "Introduction to heavy elements" would be plain confusing: when I think of heavy elements, I think of mercury or lead, not rutherfordium or hassium. "Introduction to superheavy elements" is better but again, we use the same text in nobelium and lawrencium. "Introduction to the heaviest elements" avoids this problem and is about as long anyway.--R8R (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  Why do you think "Introduction" is fine, wrt my objections? The example "Introduction to quantum mechanics" is not applicable here, as the title is a higher level instead; sections titles do not conflict. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  You see, I have never really thought of the lead section as of an introduction. From my (writer's) perspective, you first write an article and then you summarize it in no more than four paragraphs which is as much as most people will read. Hence to me, that's what it is: a summary.

  That being said, I do not want to dismiss your objections entirely, which is why I am trying to consider other possible section titles.--R8R (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I like "Introduction to the heaviest elements". After all, it is not just about element 108. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  @R8R:: OK for the writing process, but in this case the result has this flaw: an "==Introduction==" only can refer to the title (to mean: 'Introduction of hassium' then). Which does not cover the content of the section correctly. Secondary , the (possible, partial) overlap with the implicit concept of the lede is adding up to the confusion. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  The "Introduction to hassium" meaning wouldn't at all be wrong. The whole point of this section is that it applies not only to the heaviest elements in general, but also to each element individually. It's only an introduction to the heaviest elements as much as it is an introduction to hassium, an introduction to copernicium, to flerovium, and so on. It's just that it's easier to take this introduction to hassium into context of that it applies also to many other elements, but the idea that this text is an introduction to hassium alone is also completely correct. This, come to think of it, is another thing I like about the shorter section title.

  "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is also fine by me. I still don't see the advantage "Introduction to superheavy elements" compared to it. It narrows the scope by including two elements (or even more, depending on how you count) for which this introduction also applies perfectly well, which goes against the very point of generalization which is why we can't have "Introduction" in the first place. That is because "superheavy elements" is a chemical concept, and the introduction is not about chemistry, so there's no reason to stick to it in its title. And "Introduction to superheavy elements" is not really shorter either, see for yourself:

 Introduction to the heaviest elements
 Introduction to superheavy elements

So since Double sharp also likes this idea, I'll change the title to "Introduction to the heaviest elements" for the time being, although if you have another reason to have a different title, I'll gladly consider it.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've made the change, the longer title seems rather clumsy but we can live with that if considering the lead section an introduction is actually a thing.--R8R (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The lede, I suppose, is more of a summary than an introduction. OTOH, whenever you have some stuff before a bunch of level-3 sections, then I can see a sort of quasi-lede being used as an introduction. Anyway, I like what we have now ("Introduction to the heaviest elements") because it tells us what we're going to get in that section. Double sharp (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Afternote: I find the notion that the original "Introduction" it can rightly be read as "Introduction to hassium" incorrect. That is not the content of the section. Also, the original source article title also so. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I conclude consensus for the change. This also implies the same change for the other transcluding element articles. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• About section #Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108.

1. The introduction The chemical element with the highest atomic number ... by observation in nature (4 sentences) is only about the general Z=A+N description. I don't think this is needed. By now and by here in the article, concepts of "heavy" and "atomic number" should be clear. First suggestion: remove those [four senteces], and adjust next sentence.

Sorry to say this, that's not what those sentences are about. They are about what the heaviest element in the nature is (from what point discoveries by synthesis begin). There is no mention of N or A whatsoever. Another point is to introduce the "element XX" terminology which the general reader may be unfamiliar with. Removing those sentences would make the text less readable as per what I just mentioned.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. Why this section at all? An old introduction to the transfermium wars that was kept? It has nothing to do with hassium, and does not even make an introduction to it (or its discoverers). Also, to me it occurred as an extension/protraction of sorts to the previous section. What would the article lack when we remove this section? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There are two main stories to uncover in history of discovery of an element such as hassium: one is that there is a great amount of technological/scientific developments that are needed for the discovery, and the discovery is a scientific achievement regardless of who achieves it. The other story is that there are different scientific teams seeking to write themselves down in history as discoverers. This subsection is an introduction to the latter story (and the next one introduces the reader to the former). This section ends on the very important idea that there is this conflict and that other teams are a part of this. Even though the lab in Berkeley did not claim discovery of element 108, it is still important because its other claims clashed with the German claim to the displeasure of both the Americans and the Germans.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• About section #Cold fusion, and #Reports, subsections of #Discovery.

1. Another pre-discovery section, and an overall generic introduction. It does not specifically lead to 108. My first idea is to merge relevant parts into the actual discovery-of-hassium section.

I beg to differ, it is very relevant and not generic. The cold fusion technology was only useful for discoveries of a limited number of elements (107 through 113). And it's important because even though you can figure out that 88 + 20 = 108 or 82 + 26 = 108 (those reactions are mentioned in the reports section), if you want to really understand the subject you need to know why those were the combinations used and not, say, 96 + 12 = 108.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

2. The section Hassium#Reports does describe the actual discovery. For this, its title is a bit understating. Maybe the cold fusion + and reports (process of discovedry and claim) could make a strong centerpiece of #Discovery. -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I really do give a positive answer to at least something but I find myself unable to do so. I think "Reports" is a solid title. That you report a discovery and that you think you have made a discovery doesn't mean you have, and any discovery needs a confirmation. Arbitration is a fairly short section because it would otherwise be too technical. Naming is an important section, not scientifically but symbolically: as in any human endeavor, there are people whose feelings are an important part of the picture: in this case, the feelings in question are the desire to discover something new and be the first to do so and the desire to get recognized for it.

If you think there's anything important missing, I'm all ears. A comment like "maybe it could make a strong centerpiece" is hard to react to especially when I think it already is already satisfied.

There are important things about a discovery other than the experiment itself. I think I covered them all. If you think otherwise, again, I'll be glad to consider that.

Also, since you knew this article would be at a FAC, I would've appreciated it if you had made your big content comments before the process started. I hope we can make this a common practice in the future.--R8R (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to respond tonight.--R8R (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, alas I can't do it today, but I have an answer in mind and I'll try to write it down tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How are things here now? DePiep, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Naypta

I've not conducted a broad review of sources for the statements here, I'm mostly focusing on the prose and text.

• Hassium has been made only in laboratories in minuscule quantities; its possible occurrence in nature has been hypothesized but no natural hassium has been found so far - this sentence feels a bit messy to me. Perhaps one way of improving it might be "Hassium has only been produced in a laboratory, in very small quantities. Natural occurrences of the element have been hypothesised, but none has ever been found"?

  I'm not sure about this one. I liked the rest of your copyediting suggestions, but I'm not sure about this one in particular. @Double sharp: would you provide a third opinion?--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Hmm, I actually do like Naypta's suggestion here. Double sharp (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Okay then! Copyedited as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1978 - does this really need the full location spelled out like this? Just "in 1978 in Dubna, a town in the Soviet Union" I would think would suffice. Likewise, Darmstadt, Hesse, West Germany could just as well skip out Hesse.

  I have picked up the habit of writing longer location names from the Americans. You see, when they name a town, they normally add the name of the state it's in. It makes perfect sense to me: the United States is a big country, and getting a tiny bit of context is helpful to not feel completely adrift before an unfamiliar city name: you probably don't know what kind of a city "Jefferson City" is, but you know where Missouri is, so "Jefferson City, Missouri" won't sound quite as alien. Now, my understanding has been that English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia that is written in English rather than a Wikipedia oriented in all matters on native English speakers, and there is no preference with respect to toponyms. My understanding is that, say, "Wixhausen, Germany" is as understandable to an average German as "Jefferson City, United States" to an average American, that's why I opt to use the province/region/state name, too, if the country is big enough. With respect to Soviet places in particular, I also mention the name of the corresponding Soviet republic because those republics eventually became independent countries that exist to this day and that generally kept the Soviet subdivisions.

In the case of this particular article, these clarifications are also useful because they serve as a subtle hint to the names mentioned in note n.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hrm. MOS:GEO calls for the same name as the article title, but I think at least the state name should be incorporated here too, to clarify the political undertones involved. I'm still not convinced that this level of disambiguation is necessary, though; "Moscow Oblast" to a lot of people doesn't mean very much, either. It's like me saying Llanelli, Carmarthenshire, United Kingdom - I mean, yeah, that's a place in the UK, but most people outside the UK wouldn't be able to say where in the UK it is, with or without the intervening "Carmarthenshire"! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  To me, it seems fine that most people won't get it because some people will. There will always be people who won't get it. I think that, for example, in the Jefferson City example above, there are people from India, to name a country where English is the official language, that won't be helped by the addition of "Missouri." Having these subdivisions also makes a consistent format for places, and I think that consistency is a good thing (this text also has "Berkeley, California, United States"; we wouldn't want to lose "California," right?). And I must say I like how the article also mentions moscovium and ruthenium that are named after the Moscow Oblast and Russia, respectively, not to mention that this article is about an element that is named after Hesse, so there's another reason to have those names. It does genuinely seem better this way but this is most certainly not the hill I'm ready to die on, so I'll call for a third opinion. @Double sharp: would you lend us a hand?--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  In this particular case, because of the connexion to note o, I favour keeping the full names as R8R suggests. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm still not sure it's the best way of putting it, but I won't object on that basis. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• have only been partly characterized but they compare well should probably be have only been partly characterized, but they compare well.

  You're right; after reading your comment, I checked the rules on punctuation, and from what I've read, you're completely right.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Section heading Introduction to the heaviest elements should probably just be "Introduction" for consistency with other similar articles.

  I don't really know. I am with you on this one, but there have also been other opinions (see discussion on this page). Perhaps this will be discussed one more time at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, so I see. Perhaps a broader discussion at WT:ELEM is appropriate, although I still think ideally that discussion should be had separately to here, and here we should use the status quo until a change is made over there more broadly. DePiep and ComplexRational, any thoughts? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  I seriously understood that this matter was discussed & concluded at #Comments_from_DePiep. There, also the consistency was mentioned as in: these other articles should have the same change. Despite of this reopening of sorts, I claim established consensus. User:Naypta, did you see that sequence? -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  @DePiep: I don't think a consensus at one article's FAC is enough to change eighteen only loosely related articles, even if it were the case that a consensus in favour of that change were established here in particular. I am minded to suggest that such a decision should accept comments from a broader audience, including any interested contributors from those articles. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  The Hassium article was discussed there, and concluded. Now you introduce WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, which is not correct logic (and still: the arguments might well be valid in these other articles. IOW: your otherstuff argument flipped ;-) ). Now did you read the thread I mentioned, and how would you follow up on that one? -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  I most seriously think that the discussion has concluded, and if Naypta wants to reconsider the conclusion, the place to go is: there. (Not here, no two-place talks). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  @DePiep: Au contraire, this is a textbook example of WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, which explicitly states arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, and such edit-for-consistency was concluded in the original thread. However, in this thread you argue that that is not correct. Anyway, no need to reopen that talk on a different place, since at least that does not use the existing discusison &* conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If I may, can I suggest we leave it as it is and then re-negotiate this title problem at WT:ELEM when this FAC is over? This seems like such a small problem that is to be re-negotiated anyway--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I've struck this point on these lines - not because I don't think it's an issue, but on the basis of venue. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• I broadly agree with DePiep that the section Discoverers of transuranium elements prior to element 108 doesn't really seem to be relevant here. Per FACRIT 4, an FA should "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style" - I reckon this probably ought to be a link to another article, with perhaps a much smaller introduction linking it in in terms of its relevance to this article.

  Again, you see, the title of that subsection doesn't sum up what the reader is meant to take away from this section (if they don't manage to learn all of it, that is). If I were to summarize the subsection in two sentences, it would be like this: "Elements have been discovered by synthesis since 1940. There was a race between different institutes to discover new elements." Neither is really about the institutions themselves as the title suggests, so maybe another title could be better (I haven't come up with such a title so far), but speaking about content rather than titles, the content is actually important as an introduction into the story of discovery of hassium.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I read the content as well as just the heading, but I don't think that content necessarily belongs in this article. It's explicitly not talking about the actual subject of the article, but rather laying background for it; to comply with summary style, that background probably belongs somewhere else, with a brief mention given to it in either the lead or another section as appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'll take a few days to think it over. Meanwhile, @Double sharp: I'd also appreciate an opinion from you here.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I gave it some more thought and I figured you were right. I have yet to add the appropriate citations, but the text itself looks good.--R8R (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have added the appropriate citations.--R8R (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Couple of bits on no then-known fissioning nucleus showed similar parameters of fission:
  • no then-known sounds a bit strange to my ear - "no fissioning nucleus known at the time" would perhaps be a less awkward way of phrasing that.

    Good one; rephrased as advised.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Is fissioning nucleus a common term for a nucleus undergoing fission? It sounds a bit strange to my ear - I've heard fissile before for one that's capable of "fissioning", but never "fissioning" to describe the actual action. Then again, I'm not a physicist!

    Looks like it; this is indeed a term that is limited to nuclear physics.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• According to Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium should be known as - to a non-scientific reader (although I suppose they're unlikely to have read this far anyway!) the "should be known" here might be confusing, because obviously Mendeleev's nomenclature applies only prior to discovery. It might be worth giving it a rephrase to something along the lines of "Under Mendeleev's nomenclature for unnamed and undiscovered elements, hassium would be known as".

  Thank you; your suggestion is actually better. The original phrase has been with us since what feels like forever, and nobody really questioned it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although these recommendations were widely followed in the chemical community, most scientists in the field ignored them - two problems:
  • scientists in the field is ambiguous - which field? Clearly chemists are also "scientists in the field", if "field" is not disambiguated.

    I rephrased this a little bit to match the source a bit more closely.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Somewhat more importantly, the attached inline citation does not appear to support this (quite controversial) statement.

    Luckily enough, the statement is supported. See specifically the part between "LÖ: Did the system work then, or were these names and symbols simply ignored?" and "and the name you proposed for your element."

    I assume you're referring to However, neither side was interested in the systematic naming scheme in their scientific articles - trouble is, this isn't just testimony of what another person said, it's a journal, quoting someone, quoting something someone else said, about something which yet another person did. That's... a long chain for that information to follow, and I'm not sure how reliable it is as a source for that claim as a result. It could probably use at least an additional reference somewhere else to confirm it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Naypta: I think the new source I added (Greenwood and Earnshaw, published 1997, so the year hassium got its final name officially) supports this: "A systematic naming scheme was approved by IUPAC in 1977 but is not widely used by researchers in the field". Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

    In case we need any more sources, we could also use Wapstra 1991, p. 882.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• well-established nuclear shells, and the existence of these nuclear shells is somewhat repetitive; the second "nuclear shells" could probably be just "shells".

  Indeed.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• that 108 is a proton magic number for deformed nuclei—nuclei that are far from spherical—and 162 is a neutron magic number for deformed nuclei - there's repetition here, too; a rephrase to something like "that 108 is a proton magic number, and 162 is a neutron magic number, for deformed nuclei (nuclei that are far from spherical)" might be of use.

  I don't want to parenthesize the definition of deformed nuclei as I want to stress that this term is important in this text. Perhaps we could replace the second "deformed nuclei" with "such nuclei"; I hope that does the trick, but if not, please say so and I'll think more about it.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think a parenthetical would do the job nicely there, sure. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• further research is required, including more accurate measurements of - perhaps it might be worth clarifying here why the research is required; something like "there are currently insufficient[ly accurate] measurements of ... to be able to ascertain information about the interaction with silicon nitride" might work.

  Thank you very much for this comment. One of the things I like about Wikipedia editing the most is that it helps you train the art of writing. By writing texts, you learn to communicate with people more clearly so that they easily understand what you are writing to them and they don't have any questions you don't want them to have. I'll fix this one shortly.--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  I have clarified this.--R8R (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that makes some semblance of sense! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for dropping by, I will try to respond today.--R8R (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I have responded to most of your comments. Your comments have been great: I particularly like getting comments from people who are not very familiar with the subject at hand very well because such people tend to look at a text differently, and they can spot some things I can't. I hope your read wasn't too overwhelming, at least the first couple of sections. Thank you very much for your comments!--R8R (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Cheers! Some thoughts above where appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: may I ask you to strike those comments you consider resolved? It would help enormously to keep track of those comments that are yet to be resolved.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

R8R Sorted, cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I have responded to the rest of your comments. I did as advised with two exceptions: I kept the long location format after my co-nominator Double sharp has come along and said he was in favor of keeping them in this particular article, and suggested we leave the "Introduction" vs. Introduction to the heaviest elements" debate for a later discussion at WT:ELEM. Can I consider at this point I have resolved all issues you raised, or do you disagree or have any more comments?--R8R (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Looks good! Happy to support :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support)

Will review this in the next few days. HaEr48 (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• In general, the article is in good shape, well-written, pleasant to follow, with background info and link provided when necessary. Most of my feedback is on prose and accessibility for non-specialist

• Well done giving the necessary background info in the introduction section

  Thank you very much! I like how this introduction came out, too. It was first suggested to me by ComplexRational earlier this year; I would've never figured I could do this without him.

• if such a decay or a series of consecutive decays produces a known nucleus, the original product of a reaction can be easily determined: Is this because you can arithmetically calculate the sequence of "parents"? If yes, suggest adding "arithmetically" or some such.

  Sure.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• or one close to it: suggest "or another nucleus close to it", because to make it clearer what "one" refers to

  Agreed; done.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei result in greater electrostatic repulsion between them, but the greater mass excess of the target nucleus balances it: I guess for a non-specialist reader this needs a bit more explanation. What aspect of this approach causes the atomic numbers to be more equal? What aspect of the target nucleus makes the mass excess greater than the previous approach?

  As for "What aspect of this approach causes the atomic numbers to be more equal": nothing causes them to be more equal; this is something the researchers can deliberately select because each nucleus has one and only one atomic number. One could say a nucleus is defined by the combination of its atomic number and its neutron number (maybe I don't quite understand the question here?). As for "What aspect of the target nucleus makes the mass excess greater than the previous approach?": similarly to the previous question, mass excess of a given nuclide is a fundamental property of a given nucleus. One could discuss why different nuclei have different mass excesses and how and why the difference manifests itself across nuclei, but a detailed discussion of this is rather off-topic here.

  Did I answer your questions? It seems that nothing should be done about this, but I'm very willing to stand corrected on this.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. On rereading the article, I guess the answer to the first question should have been clear to me, part of the strategy of the older approach was to " to maximize the size difference". As for the second question, why does the newer approach have greater mass excess compared to the older approach? HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for this pointed question because the target nuclei in the newer approach have a lower mass excess. This is not very clear in the source; I guess I didn't pay too much attention when writing this sentence.

  As for your question: completion of a nuclear shell means more stability, i.e. more binding energy per nucleon (binding energy is what's holding nucleons in a nucleus together). More binding energy means less rest energy (you could say that each nucleon has the same finite amount of rest energy, and if some of it is spent on binding nucleons, then there is less energy left alone), and less rest energy means less mass (per the famous E=mc^2 equation). Since so much energy is needed to break the binding of a nucleus (to synthesize a new one, you essentially need to briefly break the target nucleus, and when its structure is broken, the nucleons that formerly constituted it will try to arrange themselves into a new nucleus, but now there are more nucleons from what you've hit the target nucleus with), there is less energy for excitation of the newly formed compound nucleus, which means the chance that this nucleus falls apart immediately is somewhat smaller.

  I will think how to make this clearer in the article.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have added a couple of sentences; please see if it's clearer now and if the prose I added is good enough.--R8R (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm sorry perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. I wasn't asking about the mechanics of how mass excess is related to stability, my question was how does cold fusion improve the mass excess? (as opposed to hot fusion) I asked because this sentence "More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei result in greater electrostatic repulsion between them, but the lower mass excess of the target nucleus balances it" gives the impression that the mass excess was one of the advantages of the cold fusion method, despite its higher electrostatic repulsion. But there was no explanation for why. Does this make sense, or was my impression incorrect? HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, your interpretation was correct. There was actually a sentence that explains the main advantage of this technique: "This leaves less excitation energy for the newly created compound nucleus, which necessitates fewer neutron ejections to reach a stable state." When I wrote my last reply, I added a couple of sentences that make it clearer hat it is that leaves less energy for neutron expulsion.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• these were assigned to ²⁶⁴108: What does "to be assigned to" mean here?

  As I have explained in the last paragraph of the introduction, after an experiment the scientists are left with some information on activity they have observed. Then they seek to figure out what was the cause of this activity. When they came to a conclusion what nuclide it was, one could say that this activity was assigned to that nuclide. I don't know if the reader could or should really be aided here, but if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see, that makes sense. Maybe the solution is use the same word "assigned" in the intro section? I had read the last paragraph you mentioned, but didn't realize that's what the "assigned" part refer to. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I thought about it and reworded the phrase in the description of this 1984 report; should be clearer now.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• GSI also proposed a name for element 108 that had been officially presented at the facility three weeks earlier: At this point, was the proposed name "hassium", or something else?

  Yes. I didn't mention the name because the section on naming starts right after this sentence.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Why not just mention it? Seems like unnecessary cliffhanger because hassium is only mentioned together with GSI in the fourth paragraph of naming. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I thought about it some more, and I figured it would be best to remove any mention of the name in this sentence. Looks good now, and the cliffhanger is longer there, either. What do you say?--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, looks better this way. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• and the existence of these shells provides nuclei with additional stability: Is the existence of the shells that provide the stability? Or is it the fact that they are "closed"?

  They can't be closed if they don't exist :) Generally, the answer is both: existence of these shells means some order in how protons and neutrons are arranged, which provides stability in itself. If a nucleus has the right numbers of protons and/or neutrons, then the shell/s is/are closed, which gives a nucleus even more stability. I think that if this sentence is taken in conjunction with the following one, it becomes more clear.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  I get that they can't be closed if they don't exist, but do they cause stability if they aren't closed? The rest of the second paragraph only mentions the closure, but if the mere existence have the effect too, this sentence is fine. HaEr48 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the mere existence has an effect, too.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• What's with the unreferenced ending in certain paragraphs? E.g. paragraph 2 of #Isotopes and paragraph 2 of #Cold fusion

  This question has been raised (and answered) during this review: look for the text "Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end" on this page.--R8R (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The earlier liquid drop model thus suggested" What is the thus referring to? Is it the theories that proposed greater stability of heavier nuclei, mentioned immediately before this sentence? But isn't instant spontaneous fission the opposite of the proposed greater stability?

  I will try to explain this here and I'll think how to explain this in the article. "Thus" can be easily omitted. The phrase "it thus appeared that nuclei with Z ≈ 103" also comes from this model. Some rewording is to follow.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have copyedited this part of the text; please see if it's good now.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Seems fine now. HaEr48 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Theoretical models predict ... : Are there names for these models? The earlier mentioned liquid drop model and nuclear shell model were also theoretical models, right?

  Yes; here, too, a rewording could help.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Same as above--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• This prediction is supported by the observed 11 millisecond: … I'm confused, is the low half-life due to the previously mentioned low barrier heights, or because of the low odd nucleon hindrance factor mentioned later in the sentence? Or are they the same thing?

  They are almost the same thing. Low barrier heights are caused by some reasons, and those include the low odd nucleon hindrance factor. If you have any suggestions about how understanding can be aided here, I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Maybe reword "much lower than expected" to something else? (or just extremely low)? The previous sentence ("Nuclides within this region are predicted to have low fission barrier heights ..") already sets the expectation to be low. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I changed the phrase to "because the hindrance factors from the odd nucleon were shown to be much lower than otherwise expected"; does this seem good?--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, seem clear enough. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• The isotope table has isotope with m in the number (e.g. 277Hs and 277mHs). Is the meaning of this explained somewhere?

  I added a small note.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because the last paragraph somewhat suggests that some Hs isotopes are among the most stable superheavy nucleus, is it possible to add the half lifes of long-lived superheavy isotopes of other elements as a point of comparison?

  I don't know; I'll think about it. The problem here is both how to formulate such a statement ("most nuclei have a half-life below a microsecond"?) and the relevance of such a comparison; proposal of what half-lives for some superheavy nuclei could be range by many orders of magnitude, and I don't know if fifteen seconds is impressive enough. I'll think about it.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious, how are half-life measured given the low number of atoms ever produced? But fine to leave out if this is too complex to explain.

  I'd want to explain this myself but I don't understand it well enough myself and I haven't seen an explanation anywhere (so I can't explain this in an article). But the general idea is that the convention in statistics says that a statement is considered true if it is 95% likely to be true. If you have, say, fifteen nuclei that lived something like a second, it could be that the half-life of this nuclide is a billion years, but it looks rather unlikely based on the existing data. That's a low number of experiments leads of a range of uncertainty: a statistician would say that the half-life is one second plus (say) up to 0.2 second or minus up to 0.1 seconds, and even that means that the probability that the actual half-life range is actually within those limits is 95%; there is also a 5% probability that the statistician's guess is wrong.

  By the way, if you ever hear a poll showed that the citizens of your country are likely to vote one way or another, the figures you hear always have a range of uncertainty and they are also always only 95% likely to be correct. (Sociologist's statistics, of course, is more complicated than this because their results, unlike radioactive decay, are not truly random, but the general idea is still true.)--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @R8R: Maybe a useful link for this: [3] Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

    Thank you, that's very interesting. I'm rather ashamed by how I wasn't very good at statistics at university. That was not my area of specialization but it was one subject that I wanted to delve into very much (though I lacked the time for that).

    I'll read the solution carefully later and see what I can do from there.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

    • IMO, depending on how much technical explanation is needed, it may be fine to leave unexplained in this article (to avoid too much digression). Outside this FAC, half-life might be a good venue for it? HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

      Yes, a complete explanation would be quite an overkill. However, I have added a note on the probabilistic nature of these values based on such small samples.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

      @R8R and HaEr48: Would it be appropriate to describe this as, and link to, a 95% confidence interval? I agree that a lengthy explanation is not required, but this seems to be the appropriate description (and technically accurate term) from what I understand about basic statistics. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

      Thank you for this question; it made me consider if this was indeed the case. I have found that it was just that and I have updated the article accordingly.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

      Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• as is the case for all 6d metals: Suggest a link to explain what these are, or use other descriptors (e.g. with atomic number in range ...)

  I can say "transactinides" instead.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of #Relativistic effects doesn't explain why/how spin–orbit splitting is specific to Hassium/6d metals, e.g. why doesn't it happen for lighter analogues

  I think the first paragraph explains it, doesn't it? "Relativistic effects on hassium should arise due to the high charge of its nuclei, which causes the electrons around the nucleus to move faster"---and I also say that the SO splitting is a relativistic effect.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see, so it's related to the fact that the electron moves faster? Maybe make the link more obvious in the 3rd paragraph? HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly.

  I don't exactly understand what you mean by that; could you elaborate?--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  For example, none of the explanation in the #3 paragraph of "Relativistic effects" is linked to the faster movement of electron. Can you add an explanation of how the high speed comes into the picture in causing the splitting? e.g. "It is most visible with p electrons, thanks to their high speed, which ... " (I don't know if this is correct though). HaEr48 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  The "Since the s and p_1/2 orbitals are closer to the nucleus" bit is explained in the previous paragraph; that paragraph also explains why this has to do with relativity ("This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn leads to contraction of the atomic orbitals, most specifically the s and p_1/2 orbitals."). In general, the indirect relativistic effect is more of a side effect of the direct relativistic effect from the second para rather than a thing of its own, hence the name.

  Does this explanation of mine make it clearer or does the text need some more accent on where relativity appears (like "This causes the velocity of the electron to increase to a value comparable to the speed of light")?--R8R (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  @R8R: Yes, I re-read and I think how relativity appears would be useful in the fourth paragraph. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have explained this.--R8R (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: Suggest explaining in terms of high speed/similar, which is easier to grasp for a beginner reader than "this effect is relativistic". HaEr48 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: did you see note y that I added yesterday?

Generally, the easy way to explain this would be to say that according to the special theory of relativity, both electric fields and magnetic fields are not separate but rather different appearances of common electromagnetic fields; depending on the frame of reference, an electromagnetic field can be more or less electric and more or less magnetic. A magnetic field can only interact with a magnetic field, not with an electric field, but depending on your frame of reference, the electric field can also be a magnetic field. The magnetic field I'm talking about here is the field created by the spin of an electron and the electric field is created by the charge of the nucleus; from the frame of reference tied to the electron, it can be also seen as a magnetic field. There you have two magnetic fields which interact, and that's what the spin--orbit interaction is.

I placed that note where I did in order to cover the splitting in the same note, and I couldn't do it before I had introduced the splitting in that paragraph. If you think that note y needs any corrections, clarification, etc., I'm all ears.--R8R (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Therefore, eka-osmium properties… : from the previous paragraph, I get that eka-osmium was Mendeleev's name for hassium, but what does "eka-osmium properties for hassium" mean?

  I'll think how to explain this. In short, though, the genius of the periodic table is that you can guess properties of an element based on those of its neighbors.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Rephrased this a bit and also clarified the eka- prefix when it is first mentioned.--R8R (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• The trend of the volatilities of the group 8 tetroxides is known to be...: Based on several paragraphs down, I supposed this is one of the few things that are known experimentally? If yes, suggest adding "experimentally" because previously we were told most of these discussions are theoretical.

  Agreed; done.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Link "volatility" when first mentioned?

  Good one, added a link on first mention (in Natural occurrence).--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• in the reaction ²⁴⁸Cm(²⁶Mg,xn)^274−xHs (x = 4 or 5): Maybe add a footnote to explain the meaning of this notation, for the uninitiated?

  Yes, I'll do it later.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I figured it would be better to add a more intuitive notation instead. How does it look?--R8R (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  That looks good, does the "List of hassium isotopes" need to be updated too? Or maybe it's fine because presented this way it's easier to guess what it means. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, the list doesn't need any update because that notation is easier to use there (you can omit the isotopes of hassium in question). When I read your comment, I didn't realize we also had reactions in the table. Now that I think about it, I could change back the notation back to the old one and add a note as you have originally suggested. I will also the new notation to that note for comparison, too. Will do later--R8R (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Added an explanatory note.--R8R (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• explain or link what "TASCA" is?

  I think there is no need for that, it's just a name for a new facility at GSI.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a bit surprised that a big proportion of the lead (about half of the longest paragraph out of three) is taken up by the credit competition and ruling. Might it be possible to shorten it, and instead give more detail about the synthesis approach?

  I absolutely agree with you on that we could mention the cold fusion in the lead section; thank you very much, I'll do it later. As for shortening the competition drama, I'm not so sure because it is an huge part of the story of these elements (to be fair, that is partly because there is not that much to tell otherwise).--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  I've edited the lead section to reflect both of your suggestions here; please see if it's good now.--R8R (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Definitely better, thanks! HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: I will likely claim this review for Wikicup points. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, HaEr48. I always write with common readers in mind, so a thorough read by a non-specialist is very welcome. You can definitely claim your points for this review, they are well deserved; I genuinely enjoy feedback like this review. I will try to start to respond to it tonight.—R8R (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The look labels I have added are meant to be notes for self.--R8R (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I added blue for my remaining actionable feedback. The rest looks good. HaEr48 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Support This is a very well-written article on a difficult topic, and the author have responded positively to all my feedbacks. I might still have minor questions about the spin-orbit splitting, but I'll discuss that outside this FAC. HaEr48 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers query Support

Hi, I don't understand "The combination of the two leads to that the". If it makes sense to experts, is there a way of rephrasing it for the rest of us? Similarly "The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives,[u] as well as the most were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products." begs the question, Most what? ϢereSpielChequers 22:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I agree, those two are very clumsy wordings. I changed the former to "As a result of the combination of the direct and indirect relativistic effects". As for the latter, two words went missing at some point, and the sentence wasn't that good to begin with, so I simplified it to "Lighter isotopes were usually synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei, whereas heavier isotopes were typically observed as decay products of nuclei with larger atomic numbers."--R8R (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, those changes work for me. Another question, I appreciate that small sample sizes make it difficult to measure half lives, but if there have been multiple differing measurements of the half lives are you sure we should take the latest measurement as opposed to quoting differing measurements by different scientists? If the data is pooled and differing measurements are due to more recent ones being drawn from more data, then perhaps the article could say that, and of course in that case latest measures and confidence levels make sense. ϢereSpielChequers 14:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: I don't recall exactly for the sources cited here, but in general, the more recent publications give values based on all the experimental data (including past experiments) rather than only the one described in the paper. That is indeed what gives rise to a difference, and makes the more recent values preferable. The only other difference I could see is that different publications express uncertainty differently. NUBASE gives a symmetrical error margin (a ± b), whereas most others give a 68% confidence interval (corresponding to an error of 1σ) derived directly from the combined dataset. (I presume there is not enough data to reliably use a wider confidence interval.) I chose to include both to avoid confusion from differing approaches or inconsistent datasets, but if you believe this difference in expression (symmetrical vs. 1σ) should be highlighted in a footnote, that can be done. ComplexRational (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Shifting to Support as an interesting and informative article. I've also proposed it as a suitable metal for one of our service awards. ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like we need a source review? And DePiep can you revisit? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "Because of this energy difference, the former mechanism became known as "hot fusion" and the latter as "cold fusion"". - source?

  Added.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• "However, having too many neutrons per proton, while decreasing electrostatic repulsion per nucleon that negates the binding energy, results in beta decay". - source?

  Added.--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• "This was intended not only to resolve any future conflicts, but also a number of ones that existed back then" - source?

  Added.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• "In superheavy element research, elements that have not been assigned a name and a symbol, are often referred to by their atomic numbers in lieu of symbols" - source? Check that notes include footnotes

  In this particular case, we're talking information that is plain trivial. These elements are indeed often referred to by their atomic numbers in lieu of symbols, and I can bring up a few example if you want me to. However, I looked for a source for this before this FAC started and I didn't find any. I presume that is because we're talking a convention that's very unofficial and informal in every possible sense, yet it's still in place. Nobody who comes this far needs an explanation for this, so nobody has written it, either. It really is trivial.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention: I did check the list of notes and I couldn't find any non-trivial unreferenced claims.--R8R (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I understand that these sorts of things may seem trivial to someone who's a subject-matter expert, but we can't assume every reader has that background. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  That's precisely my point: you don't need any background to understand it, the claim is trivial. There is common knowledge that, while being common, is not trivial, and I add references when I write it; I understand the difference between common and trivial. However, this is not what we have here. The very fact that there is a certain notation does not share any scientific knowledge; it is merely about a notation. I just spent an hour trying to find any source saying that there is this notation but I couldn't find any; at the same time, examples of this notation being used are not difficult to find.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• How does FN3 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

  The essentials of that thesis were published as journal articles; the article names those two articles.--R8R (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Is the material being cited supported by those journal articles? If so, why not cite them? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  I looked at those two articles and it turns out that there was a novel component in that thesis that isn't covered in either article but which we mention and use this thesis for that. However, I have learned that this thesis has been cited in the literature, which satisfies WP:SCHOLARSHIP ("If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties").--R8R (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when accessdates are included

  I added a few more so that each time link is given, a value for accessdate is given, except when the linked resource is either doi.org or Google Books (they may not contain the document itself but merely have an entry for it). The list of references should be good now.--R8R (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn5 appears to be a book chapter but is cited as an article

  Fixed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn9 should use "pp." and an endash in the title

  Fixed; thank you.--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN16 is missing publication date

  Added.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes N+1 a high-quality reliable source? (If this is kept that appears to be the correct work title)

  N+1 is a major Russian online popsci resource. It was twice awarded the prize founded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia alongside the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moscow State University.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, please change work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Done.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn18: the link in the work title is not the work actually being cited, and the date doesn't match the source

  I have corrected the date, but how is the link wrong? Works fine for me, and the title in the URL address is also rather suggestive.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  You want to cite a 1974 mystery thriller film? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't realize you were talking about that wikilink; I thought you were referring to the link to the article. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn19: work title is not a work - it should either be part of the publisher or left out

  Indeed, it should be left out.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn22 and others: there's a specific date provided by the source, why not include it?

  That is done for consistency. As far as I know, it is fine not to include exact dates unless they are of particular importance, and I'd prefer to have a better organized referelce list.--R8R (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  How does omitting detail improve the organization of the list? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  This gives a consistent degree of detail in the list. Like in most instances, all letters of the given names of authors are available, but I stick to only using the initial one so that on a rare case when the whole name is not available, it doesn't fall out of place.

  By the way, you mentioned below that I should be consistent in whether I include locations for publications. So it appears removing some locations is actually preferable to not removing them in order to achieve a consistent degree of detail (and I will do just that later ;)).--R8R (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn35: given work title should be listed as publisher. Ditto FN47, check for others

  @Nikkimaria: I honestly don't understand what you want me to do; could you please elaborate? Here's the revision of the article as of when you wrote this review.--R8R (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  The citation templates you're using have a parameter for |publisher= and parameters for |work= (and synonyms such as website, newspaper, etc). In these and other cases, you're using a parameter from the latter set when the former would be more appropriate. These cases should be changed to use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn41 is missing author

  Added.--R8R (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN46 is a dead link

  Fixed.--R8R (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• FNs 6 and 84 are both presentations but are formatted differently

  In all seriousness, I don't see that. Could you specify how?--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  Now 6 and 86: the former has the presentation title in quotation marks, while in the latter case it's italicized; the former has the conference/workshop name italicized and the latter doesn't; the former includes a publisher and the latter doesn't; the latter includes a presentation location and the former doesn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see; thanks for the explanation. These two should be good now.--R8R (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes Geokhimiya a high-quality reliable source?

  That journal was run by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR back when that article was published.--R8R (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications

  @R8R: Probably it's safer to omit them altogether, unless you can track down every one that's otherwise needed? I vaguely remember discussing this or something similar at the other FAC months ago. ComplexRational (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. I generally see little point in having publishers' locations in the online encyclopedia of ours. You can verify a book in a few clicks now, you don't have to contact the publisher across the continent so that they ship your book as you might have had to a century ago.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have removed the only location I found.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN141 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Expanded.--R8R (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: do you think I have addressed all points you raised?--R8R (talk)

Good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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) 24 August 2020 [4].

---

Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany

Nominator(s): ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A bloody fool rather than an all-out Nazi, seems to be the consensus. Edward VIII, not me, that is :) Something rather different from me, this will hopefully complement our already-featured article on the King, which, of course, could not give due weight to this curious—verging on the bizarre*—episode of his career.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Prost! ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*Literally gatecrashing, for example, courtesy of their driver being plastered. ——Serial ^# 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment on name change

Moved to Talk:Windsors' visit to Nazi Germany

• Oppose until a stable NPOV title is found --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The term "Nazi Germany" should be avoided if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why? It is the title of our article about that state, Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to bother Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany either. ——Serial ^# 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason the main article is so named (WP:COMMONNAME), it is a slang term avoided by historians. Actually, the term "Ex-King of Britain" bothers me more; it is a poor description of the King-Emperor. I would prefer "Duke of Windsor", which is accurate, unique and concise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There's currently a talk page discussion on the preferred name, Hawkeye7, where your input would be appreciated by all. ——Serial ^# 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

By my count, there are 15 books in the Nazi Germany#Bibliography section referring to the state as "Nazi Germany" in the title, so I would not say that the term is avoided by historians. But in any case, that discussion belongs to Talk:Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as current title discussion (including an appeal at WP:AN) indicates this does not have title stability yet. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If the FAC coords are wondering why Hasteur—who has had an account since 2007, and yet has never reviewed a FAC before (or, for that matter, commented at WT:FAC)—has suddenly decided to pop up and oppose now, I draw your attention to the fact that the last interaction between us resulted in some embarassment for Hasteur. I had accepted a nomination at AfC, which he disapproved of (" I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space") and promptly nominated it for deletion. The community did not agree. It was closed (speedily) by an administrator, who stated that sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous.

TL;DR: the word retaliatory springs to mind. ——Serial ^# 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for Assuming bad Faith SN54129... I am a editor in good standing and not under any sanctions. I read the Administrators Noticeboard. Are you trying to imply that editors who don't have experience in a specific area of wikipedia are prohibited from participaiting in direct contravention of what you claimed/said/wrote in the other case. TLDR: Nice ABF you have there. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Uh-uh. TL;DR: you would not have cared otherwise. Your oppose does not help the project (or indeed you "good standing"), whereas closing and implementing the talk page discussion would have. That you chose the one coures and not the other speaks volumes. ——Serial ^# 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise, Hasteur, it is as you say irrelevant how you got here, and my remarks were perhaps a little over the top and certainly over-personalized. Thanks for looking in, it's the more the merrier here usually. And usually much quieter... ——Serial ^# 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I accept your apology. I was simply expressing my view in light of WP:FACR (paraphrased) A Featured article is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The "abnormal" Request for closure piqued my interest. I didn't consider who was involved, simply looking at the topic and reading the "thesis" of the related Request raised enough concern for me that I did not consider the proposed featured article stable yet. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Hasteur. Any thoughts on this? The appeal to AN had the (eventual) result of moving the page back to its non-contentious original title, which, as it has now been arrived at by community consensus (rather than just my choice) would make impossible for any further move even should anyone want it. All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The article title appears to be stable. I think (possibly as part of the promotion to FA) that in light of the previous moves in addition to the charged nature of the page, we might want a preventative Move-Protect. Just spitballing, ideas to improve the article/wikipedia. My previous oppose is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Note for Coords and Bot ... I am making all the adjustments for the name change so the bot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• On "British government", you pipe to National Government (1935–1937) The Windsor marriage and thus the visit was after Baldwin left office, which at least our article treats as the termination of the National Government.

Changed link to [[National Government (1937–1939).

• "Windsor was a known admirer of all things German.[16]" Perhaps something could be said here about the heavy German influence in the royal family.

Excellent idea: added a footnote explaining the German roots of the family and the reasons for the new name.

• "One of Windsor's own supporters, Chips Channon—Conservative MP for Southend West—commented in 1936 that the Duke "is going the dictator way, and is pro-German".[24][25]" This seems a bit duplicative of what was said earlier in the paragraph. I'd also omit the "own". Be careful of tone: there is no need to pound the point home that going to Nazi Germany on a visit such as this was a bad idea, it is today self-evident.

I swung this around and broke it up a bit, some of it going into the historiography section, for example.

• Regarding studying industrial affairs, it might be mentioned that Windsor had at least the reputation of someone concerned with the problems of the working classes, "Something must be done".

Yes, fair point, again: classic quote the something must be done; apparently Balders tore him off a strip over it!

• "men such as Bedaux" You haven't yet established who he is.

The source names Bedaux, but we don't need to; changed to "associates", which conveys the general lacklustre nature of his advice.

• "Windsor was keen to restore his public image and standing," Isn't this similar to what you say at the end of the previous section, "This way, argues Adrian Philips, Windsor intended to rebuild himself a public position.[36]"

Tweaked it slightly, but I want to keep the sense that in the past, this is what he wanted to do, and was subsequently given the opportunity to do so.

• Nazi Germany is not linked on first mention.

Done.

• Le Meurice Probably does not need italics. Also, later, "Academy for Youth Leadership".

Done.

• "The Windsors' hotel suite in the Le Meurice became the focus for its organising, and many different contacts and visitors visited. " What is "it" in "its organising"? The tour?

Indeed, I've reworded.

• " In a telegram to the Foreign Office, the Duke stated[15]nIn accordance with the Duke of Windsor's message to the world press last June that he would release any information of interest regarding his plans or movements, His Royal Highness makes it known that he and the Duchess of Windsor are visiting Germany and the United States in the near future for the purpose of studying housing and working conditions in these two countries.[15]

— Edward, Duke of Windsor" You're saying who wrote it twice.

Of course, removed.

• There should be spaces either side of ellipses.

I have literally never read that before1 Embarrassing, but Done.

• "The first indication of this was on their arrival at Berlin's Friedrichstraße station on 11 October. The historian Susanna de Vries has described how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal" on their arrival;[51]" "on their arrival"/"on their arrival"

Lost the last arrival.

• "German media set great store by the Windsors' visit, and the Duke responded with full Nazi salutes.[33] " He responded to stories (?) with Nazi salutes?

Yes, that's daft isn't it; you're right about over-egging the salutes, so I got rid of this mention and found some interesting thing wrt German perception of the duke.

• "The journalist Andrew Morton suggest that the couple" Not sure if you were going for "suggests" or "suggested".

Suggests, as it goes.

• "The Windsors dined with his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the 19th,[49][note 14] which was attended by over 100 guests including." "his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be too royal-speak. We are also waiting to hear who the guests included.

Inserted a duke of. I think there was more in between the two points which has got lost, but the source doesn't actually list any anyway.

• "Prince Phillip von Hessen[23]" The spelling of Phillip seems at variance with our article on him.

I just went by the source.

• "Their telephones were bugged by Prince Christoph of Hesse, on the orders of Reichsstatthalter Hermann Göring, for the duration of their visit;[50]" I'm not sure what "for the duration of their visit" adds.

True, removed.

• the Nazi leadership was kept fully informed on events at every stage of the tour.[29]" I expect this is British English so should "was" be "were"?

Yeeeas...done.

• "This made particularly easy, argues the modern historian John Vincent, as the German government were funding the visit.[50]" missing word in early part of sentence, you are inconsistent in capping "German Government".

Standardised.

• "During the men's' discussion," I'd lose one of the apostrophes.

Done.

• "The couple were repeatedly greeted with the Nazi salute;[29] the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views.[32] " Some awkwardness in sentence. I also note you've mentioned him making Nazi salutes before. If you are going to place such emphasis on this, you might want to footnote that this was hardly unheard of, for example the English football team in Berlin in 1938, nor greatly controversial at that moment.

Excellent point. I've reduced the number of times I mention the salutes to just this one, per weight, and added a footnote pointing out how common it was, incl. the football reference. Cheers.

• "Lord Halifax" I would at least mention he was a cabinet minister.

And linked.

• "captured by the allies" Should allies be capped/linked/both?

Both.

• "Another interpreter present, Paul Schmidt, later described his memory of Hitler's and the Duke's meeting:[31]" You at least imply there was no interpreter present for the meeting between Hitler and Windsor. This bit comes as a surprise. And I don't see any need to have Schmidt sign the quote that follows.

Removed the sig; not sure how to get around the presence of the interpreter. Indeed, it struck me when I ws writing i that it seemed odd for them to need an interpreter; but Windsor would have spoken classical German I suppose, and Hitler probably the argot of Vienna (?) so maybe. On the other hand, he could have been there more as a witness or minute taker; but unfortunately, the source uses "interpreter".

• "Gauleitung" this may confuse the reader, with no link.

Linked.

• "Baldwin's government attempted to manage the public relations issues surrounding the visit, " Atop the greasy pole, for all the good it did him, was Chamberlain, by the time of the visit for some five months, I reckon.

Yep. Already changed that final photo but forgot about this mention!

• Reactions, I would assume, should cover the reaction in the British press, surely. Did Chamberlain, or the FM (Eden) have anything to say?

I'm leaving that for now—will require researching.

That's it for now. Hopefully these can be cleared up. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Always good to see you Wehwalt, and thanks for these suggestions, particularly maintaining NPOV etc, they've led to some interesting additions. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Holding off on a re-read until the opposers are happy or until you ping me again, since I imagine there will be changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Support I've made a number of minor changes. I would still suggest the following:

• Consider moving the mention of Chamberlain up in the text, perhaps to where you mention Number Ten. He still seems an afterthought and the reader would be excused if they thought Baldwin was still PM.
• You might mention that former Labour Party leader George Lansbury was among those who visited Hitler.
• An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those extra thoughts, Wehwalt, they're useful. Lansbury especially, as it shows it wasn't just the nobs that went over  :) and Chamberlain, well I forgot to point out that he became PM in May that year, so frankly Baldwin had nothing to do with it. Which makes it close on to being clarification of teh century! All the best, ——Serial ^# 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Moisejp

Very interesting topic!

• Be careful of consistency: First World War / Second World War vs. World War One vs. World War I. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Although royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that": Could I suggest "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that"? Otherwise I'm not sure that it's a complete sentence. Using "Although" in this way is okay in spoken English, but I'd argue it's not totally correct in written English. Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Moisejp thanks for this points, which I've addressed. You're definitely correct in the first and probably in the second :) if you can think of anything else that would improve the article, let me know! Cheers, ——Serial ^# 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serial. I'll try continue this review soon. I was in part holding off until HJMitchell's issue was resolved, and I see now it has been. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, apprecaite your coming back. I've addressed your suggestions—hopefully—often by the simple means of stealing your suggestions  :) cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lead: "disrupt the first year of George's reign": First mention of George, I think. Does he need more of an introduction? Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Good idea: I've added a sentence introducing him as King at the beginnig, which allows him to be called George now.

• Royal and governmmental view: "The royal biographer Sarah Bradford suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring." Is "not only" correct here, or perhaps it's a leftover from a previous "not only...but also" construction? By itself it feels incomplete. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and also caught by Harry Mitchell below.

• "The Duke had a ("genuine", says Middlemas) sympathy[46] for the cause of improving working conditions." I'm torn but feel overall the extra value of "genuine" here may not be great enough to offset the extra resulting wordiness. How would the following be: "The Duke was sympathetic to the cause of improving working conditions: a few months earlier, for example, he had declared—in what the historian Michael Bloch calls a "celebrated remark"—that "something must be done" about unemployment." Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a bit random, so have removed and tweaked per your suggestion.

• 11–23 October 1937: "Ley and a welcoming delegation—which, although a private visit of a guest of the GLF, included von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer—met them on the platform." This sentence also feels slightly wordy to me, and I wonder whether the inclusion of "although a private visit of a guest of the GLF" adds enough to warrant the extra twists and turns. If it could be removed, then the sentence could be greatly simplified to something like "Ley and a welcoming delegation including von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer, met them on the platform." Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Adopted your suggestion, cheers.

• "Also waiting was Ogilvie-Forbes, who presented them with a letter informing them of the inability of the Embassy to provide them with services." / "This contrasted with their treatment by the UK resident in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes, notes Bloch. Forbes had been instructed not to receive the royal couple, give them rooms or in any other way assist them." These details feel possibly repetitive since they are in such close proximity with each other. If there's a way to merge them together, that could be nice, but if there's not, maybe it's okay.

No, you're right: I've merged the second mention into the first and moved the footnote up.

Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Horcher's, the finest gourmet restaurant in the city". Could be subjective? Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was :) but yeah, completely unencyclopedic, so removed.

Any thoughts Moisejp? There's no rush of course, but just a reminder that we're still going strong here  :) ——Serial ^# 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to jump back in soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Footnote 10 (minor comment): I'm not sure what "In the event," is supposed to mean here, and whether it may be a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing's too minor, Moisejp. Thanks for that—yes, it was a bit colloquial I agree, so have removed it. Apologies if I was rushing you! Please, take all the time you want. ——Serial ^# 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the article. I'm ready to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've given to review this, Moisejp, and am very grateful. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose. Tone is far too flowery for a neutral encyclopaedia article. I've only thoroughly read the lead but that read like an editorial piece. For example, we have statements like it may be that he saw himself in the role of peacemaker, The government suspected, correctly,, the highlight of their tour, and lack of good advice he received rather than outright Nazi leanings in Wikipedia's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how he may have seen himself, that the government was correct, or that the meeting with Hitler was the highlight; we just summarise the facts from the reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Where the sources draw conclusions about things like motives, those should be included with in-text attribution. I'm not seeing so many problems further down the article, but I am seeing a lot of linking of commonly understood terms and Easter-egg links, and a lot of places where the prose could be tightened to better meet 1a. It's a fascinating bit of history and I'm glad to see it getting some attention but I think there's work to do yet before it's of FA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for this; a question though. Would you mind if I gave your review one-tenth of the attention I have given other reviewers, or would you consider that very rude of me indeed? ——Serial ^# 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it rude, but I would be more inclined to come back and offer a full review if I saw that you were noting and addressing my preliminary concerns. I tend to be thorough in reviewing a relatively small number of FACs rather than spending a little time across a lot of articles, so there would be little point in investing several hours in reading and reviewing if the nominator and I were not going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that dropping a bald oppose like that is the subtlest or surest way of ensuring we see eye-to-eye.

Having said that, your points undoubtedly have merit. So: I have gone through and removed (four?) overlinks (honeymoon, unemployment for ex.). There may well still be possible overlinking, and I'll discuss that happily, but I am averse to removing apparently obvious links that may not be so obvious outside of the Anglosphere.

Your concerns wrt to the contents of the lead are more tricky, not the least because this is all fully-sourced material (often direct quotation) from the article body. So d you think it needs citing? That would probably need a consensus, per CITELEAD.

I'm currently giving it another prose run, mostly looking at run-on sentences, etc.

All the best, ——Serial ^# 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Meh. Forgot to ping. ——Serial ^# 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think @HJ Mitchell:'s oppose was valid at the time, but since then the lead has been greatly improved. Thanks Harry for highlighting. I just gave a once over; my changes were mostly small stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is much better now and I've struck my oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To follow up, one remaining thing; "had tea with Hitler" seems like trite - it was a formal and highly politicised occasion. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Windsors' political views A little work is needed here for clarity. You refer to him as "Windsor" and "the Duke" but the section starts with events before the abdication and the new title.

Difficult...the "Background" section establishes his changes of name/title. Having said that, a tweak in the order and calling him PoW might do it?

• in her autobiography she refuted the suggestion is "refute" definitely the verb you want there?

"Denied" is better. Ironically, with what's to come, it's seems out of lace here and seems better forwarded to a footnote.

• suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring. Looks like you've left something dangling from a previous edit?

Indeed, as also caught by Moisejp  :)

• Note 10 contains a massive run-on sentence that's very difficult to parse.

Split in two and generally shortened.

• You use the verb "argue" a lot (20 times in 4,500 words), often with the same sentence structure ("historian John Smith argues")

Reduced down to two usages. What's your opinion on false titles? This accounts for my (monotonous) sentence structuring when it comes to quotes, opinions etc.

• Ley replied "'it is where they store the cold meat.' In a horrible sense that was true", I think you're missing an opening or closing quote mark between the quotes, and I'm not sure the second half adds any value.

It's one quote (double quote marks) with a quote inside (single quotes)?

• What does note 25 have to do with the visit? Ditto 26, 28, 33, 34 (the first sentence of which could maybe go in the body), 35, and 37.
• Austria was shown as annexed to Germany Is this really relevant?

Personally, I'd say pretty emphatically, yes. Mainly because it's one of the few times we actually have an indication the sort of encounters they were having: he met all these important people—von R., Speer, Goebels, Hitler etc., but we rarely get a hint of what they discussed. But with Goering, funny story from Simpson.

For what it's worth, I could probably have mined other similar anecdotes from their autobiographies, but wanted to avoid using them as much as possible. Whereas this anecdote, although from the Duchess, comes straight from a RS.

• Note 27: I would mention in the body that the salute was not unusual and scrap the stuff about football as off-topic.
• Suggest unlinking "risqué jokes", "sight-seeing", "interpreter" (which is not linked on first mention), "summit", "forcibly taken over", and looking for other similar links further up.

Done.

• Liebensraum is linked twice.

Thanks, thought I'd caught em.

• Note 29 should be shortened and incorporated into the body.
• Note 30: The duke's 1966 comments could go in the aftermath section; the rest is off-topic for the visit.
• Note 31 should be incorporated into the body. The duke's version of what was discussed is directly relevant.

All things being equal, I totally agreed with this, and have done so!

• Historiography: This gets a bit choppy with too many sentences along the lines of "historian Smith [verb] suggests..."

Tricky...it's a load of people giving their opinions, which has to be directy attributed inline. Also, re. sentence structure, see my comment above wrt false titles...

• Do we need three relatively short block quotes in Historiography?

Not if you say so. I was going by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE which suggests quotes of 40 words or more might be blocked off, but admittedly they were all pretty close to the edge (and indeed, in one case was a bout two short!)

• Churchill, for example, wrote to the Duke, then in Paris, Is the duke's location relevant?

No, gone.

• Does the NYT quote in "later events" really need a block quote?

See above for reasoning, but I've trimmed it so it's now moot and inline.

• 37 explanatory footnotes in 4500 words is far too many, and a lot of these are very close together (some a sentence or two apart; in one instance you have two literally next to each other). Many could be culled (starting with the ones I raised above); those that are directly relevant to the visit should be incorporated into the body.

I'll be addressing this, obviously.

• "However" used to be frowned upon at FAC and should be used with caution. You have eight instances in this article, most of which I suspect could be culled.

True; reduced to two, if I can count right.

• The writing can be a little verbose and there are places where it could be tightened. A thorough copy edit for concision could probably cull a couple of hundred words without any loss of meaning. Some quotes could probably be culled; obviously historians' opinions are important, but some could be rephrased into your own words to help with the flow (eg, "genial mood" probably doesn't need in-text attribution). I'd suggest varying your introduction to quotes as well; they almost all follow the format of This was not, comments Morton, and but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach,.

I've reduced the number of quotes—particularly the short ones which can be rephrased—substantially. See above, again, re. false titles for the reasoning for the quotes' lead ins. Happy to be advised on other methods though obviously.

Very well-researched and put together, but more work is needed on the prose, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough review, HJ Mitchell, appreciated. I've addressed most of your points, nearly always incorporating them, although, as I say, those that relate to footnotes require careful consideration. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Quick reply. I don't have a strong opinion on false titles. I tend to use them where the concision doesn't cause ambiguity but there are ways of avoiding them while still varying the sentence structure. If you've culled a dozen footnotes without any great loss I suspect more could go; war memorials don't really lend themselves to footnotes but if you look at some of my history articles (eg British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and my current project, Death of James Ashley) you'll see that I do make use of them, but for side details that would clutter up the prose. I'll have a look at the prose etc and the point-by-point on the footnotes in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Twelve footnotes, HJM—calm down, calm down  :) anyway, I look forward, with pleasure, to implementing any actionable or quantifiable suggestions you might present. All the best, ——Serial ^# 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes

The elephant in the room, eh. The good news first: I've removed eight footnotes and cut 3,316 bytes from them, so what remains should be leaner and tighter.

Conversely, it seems that we have different—perhaps fundamental—philosophical approaches to the role and purpose of footnotes; maybe we write articles on very distant topics. Illustrating the difference in our respective approaches—the difference, not right or wrongness—I had a look at both our last ten FACs: over the course of yours, you have used four footnotes. Mine? About 210. That's multiple reviews in which multiple reviewers accept—if not agree—the use footnotes play in contextualising. I'll go to each one in this article shortly, but briefly, a footnote is useful for illustrating the relevance of the cited material without distracting the flow of the prose. For example, individuals (important ones only, of course): who are they and what have they done to be part of the story? Places: why (if at all) is something happening in a certain place relevant? Dates: does something integral to the story continues in its own, less relevant but yet related path? Most importantly, to provide context that presents alternative, relevant, interpretations which again would be distracting in the main body; to attempt to answer/fulfil obvious questions that may be thrown up to the reader—even Randy!—in the course of the narrative; and to clarify, and possibly resolve contradictions in the sources.

This is especially important in an article like this, in which it is impossible to avoid the overarching hypothesis of the duke and duchess' Nazi sympathies, but in which, when put in context, it becomes apparent that they were very much not alone. And this isn't an academic or ancient argument: he's still remembered for it today. These footnotes, by putting the event in the context of the time, are ensuring a difficult to achieve neutrality and one which would be harmed, I think, by their removal. Having said that, the extent to which I've trimmed them hopefully indicates the depth of consideration I've gave your suggestions, and in many cases, I went with them. But I'm afraid I couldn't accept—at face value—a stand-alone statement that x-amount of footnotes in a y-sized article is too much; all things being equal, everything should be considered on its merits.

Anyway, that's my stall HJ Mitchell, and I hope it isn't an offensive one to you. ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• As of revision [5], analysis of footnotes:

1. Replies to the question: who had she married?
2. The source in the text says he was acting against his Cor. oath: this points out that, actually, he never took one, so the reader is left to draw their own conclusions (presumably, off the record, that Cadbury is referring to the spirit rather than the letter of the oath).
3. This in response to an above reviewer: for NPOV purposes, it emphasises that "Germanic sympathies" shouldn't be misinterpreted, as the family was still very German, culturally.
4. Important to point out that these allegations are clearly fictive, but it would be out of place to say so in the lead.
5. Answers the question, well when did she get a state tour?
6. Contextualises King G's being "horrified", Europe being on an edge etc.
7. Clarifies that there is an alternative interpretation of his intentions.
8. Answers the question, how did his friends try and help?
9. Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
10. Explains who Bedaux was and why he is important to the story.
11. Ditto, Weideman, and that he had a previous, if second-hand, link to the duke.
12. Contextualises a conspiracy theory; viz. that the author is popular but unreliable professionally.
13. Notes a pre-existent# link between Ley and Bedaux for the reader to consider.
14. Explains why Hitler believed what he did.
15. Answers the (rather obvious!) question, if he was called Edward why did his cousin call him David?
16. Explains, briefly, why he was royal but she was not.
17. Direct quote from a primary source illustrating the govt's position in detail, which would be too much for the text to bear.
18. I'm finding it difficult to see, personally, how the opinion of Hitler's chief propagandist on the article's major protagonist is not relevant!
19. Demonstrates the links between Windsor, his brother and their cousins. Again contextualises his thoughts as part of a broader canvas.
20. Explains background.
21. Expands upon Ley and provides context for historians—and the duchess'—opinions.
22. As I suggested above, it would be out of place in the article to point out that, actually, what G. said came to pass very shortly.
23. Again, this was suggested by another reviewer, pointing out that, actually, Hitler's Nazi salutes were not as unusual as we might think today. Everyone, including lowly beings as football players, did it. Essential NPoV context.
24. You suggested moving this into the body: not a bad point, although the line about him spending most of his time there helps explain why they met him there rather than Berlin, say, which after all, was the centre of their tour.
25. Contextualises Halifax's trip.
26. Again, for NPOV reasons, contextualising the duke's opinions on the communist threat by noting how common it was within the British establishment.
27. Background on why Bedaux—and, therefore, Windsor by association—was disliked in the states.
28. Alternative interpretation, unnecessary in the body, for the US government's view.
29. I don't think explaining why an island in the middle of nowhere was on the duchess' mind is unhelpful to the reader...

Did some more cutting along the way, as it goes, as having formulated my reasoning beforehand (above) focussed and my approach. Cheers, ——Serial ^# 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• 4 should probably be shortened and moved into the body.

Moved the Ribbentrop reference into the body; notes on the sourcing should be separated unless issues with the sourcing are under discussion.

• 5 doesn't seem relevant to this visit, though you could move it into the aftermath section if you felt it was important.

Moved.

• 6 should be shortened to a few words and moved next to the sentence it supports. The reader doesn't need chapter and verse on why it was a delicate time; if they're unfamiliar with immediately pre-WWII European politics, you've given them a link to an article with more detail.

You'll enjoy this: I've got rid, as it effectively repeats material already in the background.

• 7 should go; he wasn't being "of service to His Majesty" on this trip so it's of limited relevance.

Yeah why not.

• 8 should either go or move into the body; it's not a major detail

Moved.

• 9, although interesting and expanding on a point made in the body, has nothing to do with the visit and so is out of scope for this article

I still believe it Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.

• 10 should be shortened and moved to the body because you mention Bedaux's businesses in the aftermath section (and the "second and final" confiscation would be confusing to a reader who hadn't been reading the footnotes as they went.

Done.

• 11: the explanation of his connection to the duke is a good use for a footnote but is the (alleged) espionage directly relevant?

Well, it was intended to show that he was a professional spy, rather than just on this one occasion. But, fair enough: removed.

• 12: The first sentence is fine but could easily be removed or added into the body. The rest is off-topic and I'm not sure an encyclopaedia should be discussing such outlandish claims (if the duchess was still living, a claim like that would be oversighted). Also, MI6 wasn't known by that name until later; I'd stick with something like "British intelligence" because I'm not sure it had a common name at the time.

Suggestions actioned. Re OS: it was a—pretty effective!—illustration of precisely why Higham is considered unreliable: but I agree it's unnecessarily lurid and tabloidy.

• 18, 19, and 20 are fine as footnotes but they're very close together. Is there any way they could be combined or one of them cut or incorporated into the body?

Moved 18 into body. Merged 19&20; also shortened the resultant note considerably.

• 21 is about Ley but has nothing to do with the visit. The reader's understanding of the visit would not be harmed by its absence.

H'mmm.

• 22 I don't think is on-topic but I'd agree to disagree.
• 23: I still think the football stuff is off-topic. That the salute was not unusual can be mentioned in the body.

OK, removed the football stuff  :)

• 25: I see what you're getting at by providing context but this is almost background to the background. If Schwoerer's opinion reflects the consensus I would just add it, unattributed, to the body. If it's an outlier, it should go.

Moved to the body. It doesn't sound a particularly wild claim—unofficial official meetings have rather a long tradition, particularly in diplomacy.

That's potentially another dozen or so footnotes that could go, which would bring the total down to about 17. Even that is more than I would have used had I been writing this article, but it's less overwhelming and keeps the article on-topic (criterion 4 of WP:FA?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HJ Mitchell, all useful suggestions and generally actioned. I think your suggested compromises—moving material into the article body—is a useful one that I'll certainly bear in mind for the future. I still believe them to be an essential weapon in the struggle for criterion 1b—neglect[ing] no major facts or details and plac[ing] the subject in context. ——Serial ^# 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D

I don't think that I'll review fully, but would note that "Even so, says Vickers, Hitler made the Windsors "travel a long way to see him",[25] as he was at his Bavarian retreat known as the Berghof" suggests that this historian was ill-informed. The Berghof was more than a "retreat", as Hitler more than a third of each year there, and foreign visits to it were a significant element of Nazi propaganda (see Bombing of Obersalzberg#Background). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. To clarify, "retreat" was my word, not the authors. And to be fair, I can see their point: Everywhere the article mentions the Windsors' as going—Berlin, Karinhall, Pomerania—are all in the far northwest. The furthest south they (seem to have) ever gone was Essen. And that's still >800 KM from the Berghof. Having said that, it's not particularly encyclopedic information anyway, so I've got rid of it. That also allows a couple of sentences to be shortened. Also, although I already mention Halifax and Lloyd George visiting Germany, your suggestion re. the number of guests he received at the Berghof is well-made, and I've added a bit highlighting that anyone who was anyone was probably seen there at some point. Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated. ——Serial ^# 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg needs a more extensive FUR, and would suggest using a different fair-use tag
• File:Oscar_Nathaniel_Solbert.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image include details of research done into authorship, and what's the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Neville_Chamberlain.jpg
• File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for not getting on to the images sooner, Nikkimaria, I had my hands ful somewhat :) Right. Here we go.

1. File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg: stronger FUR applied ([6]), but not sure what other fair use tags there are?

1. The "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the event depicted, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. You could replace it with a generic {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. [NEW] File:Vincenzo Laviosa - Duke and Duchess of Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg: PD CoO/US.

1. When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Created "About 1934"; no word on publishing date (if there is one, of course). If that takes this out of the running, this one seems to have been released under a CC licence?

Would need a more specific copyright tag on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I swapped it out for the Yugoslav one? ——Serial ^# 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes - this one has a Flickr tag which states "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". Can such information be determined? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. [NEW] File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg: PD-US
2. [NEW] File:Oscar Nathaniel Solbert.jpg: Tricky one. Research indicates that the original was made under the auspices of Bassano Ltd. They merged with Elliott and Fry in 1965. According to the NPR, The National Portrait Gallery owns all the surviving negatives (But then, I guess they would say that, wouldn't they?). A further cause for concern is that it was uploaded by a serial copyright violator on en.wp, Elisa.rolle, who has been blocked several times as a result. That makes me extremely wary of accepting anything at face value. Frankly, unless you think that what I've done adheres sufficiently to the {{PD-UK-unknown}} research requirement, I'd willingly pull it.

Done.

1. Think this ought to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Swapped for File:Charles Bedaux.png.

The uploader of the source image for that one has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns...

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

:D Right, nominated t for deletion too. Have removed but not replaced.

1. File:Duc et duchesse de Windsor avec Hitler (1937).jpg: PD in France; is there anything we can do to use this?

1. When did it enter the public domain in France? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

14 November 1937?

It was published on that date - I'm asking when the copyright expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooops, 2012.

Okay, so the five-point test would suggest that it's still under copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

1. File:Neville Chamberlain.jpg: Chamberlain seems to have no free images at all, almost. Bizarre. can I use this, would you say?

1. Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate any advice you could give Nikkimaria, and apologies, again, for keeping you waiting. ——Serial ^# 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've made a few changes. ——Serial ^# 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And again, NM...sorry about the repeated pings. Slow but sure wins the race! (Hopefully) ——Serial ^# 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much! ——Serial ^# 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: For some reason I thought I'd resolved this, but now I look at it I think not. Could we approach it a different way—you tell me which images are incorrectly licenced, and I'll remove them. Much simpler  :) ——Serial ^# 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg. File:King_Edward_VIII_and_Mrs_Simpson_on_holiday_in_Yugoslavia,_1936.jpg should have a more specific tag. File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg is not incorrectly licensed but the FUR needs work - what's currently in the purpose of use parameter would be better suited to the replaceable parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks @Nikkimaria. Got rid of those first two: neither were under a CC license that I could find, indeed the latter is under some wierd "The Commmons" thing (slightly misleading title!) in which they palm-off "no known c/r restrictions" as a thing. The last one, I've adjusted the FUR as you suggest. What think ye? (Possibly the last time I have to ping you...) ——Serial ^# 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I suggest using full face portraits of both of them.

Excellent idea, should've thought of that. I've used this one of them together from just a couple of years earlier.

• "Having abdicated the British throne in December 1936, his brother Albert has taken the throne as King George VI." This sounds clumsy. Maybe "He abdicated the British throne in December 1936, and his brother Albert became king as King George VI."

Used that, thanks!

• "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of the Duke's lack of judgement and good counsel, rather than sympathy with the Nazi regime." But he was getting good counsel from the govt and allies such as Churchill and Beaverbrook, and he chose not to listen to them. In the historiography section you quote one historian acquitting him of Nazi sympthies and one condemning him for them. This does not seem like a consensus.

I deliberately avoided suggesting there was a consensus, I hope (note, tend to...), but it's a fair point about counsel: I've gone for "...tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received"?

• "Even had Simpson converted to Anglicanism, both her previous husbands were still alive." This seems like a non-sequitur, as you have not said that her religion was an issue, or what it was.

Fair point; I can't even remember why it's important if indeed it is. So removed it and recast the sentence.

• "Windsor's great-grandmother was the daughter of a German princess". His great-grandfather was German.

That's absolutely true of course, and I admit my original sentence might have looked a little forced: but that was because the source wrt the family's Germanity was Propopoulos, and he only mentions Victoria. But, via a different source, I've added Albert (which pf course conveniently emphasises their German-roots even more!)

• You are inconsistent whether to capitalise "king". I think it is correct to capitalise when it is short for George VI, but not in "believing that, as King, Windsor would have strengthened Anglo-German relations".

Check.

• "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that "in his farewell broadcast Edward had said: 'I now quit altogether public affairs', but almost in the next sentence: 'If at any time in the future I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.'" I am not clear what point you are making here. He said that he would always serve his majesty but then undertook the tour against George's opposition, so why the "however"?

There was a reason, I think there had been a later "although" which has since been lost. Anyway, well caught: removed.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch". You should give his full name and link on first mention.

Done.

• "Bedaux has been described by Bloch as an "enigmatic time and motion tycoon".[15] John Vincent suggests that Bedaux planned" Why the past tense in the first case and present in the second?

Yes, thanks; I intended all modern opinion to be in the present and those of contemporaries in the past. Have adjusted a few more occurrences (also answering your point below, there!).

• "This led him to suggest that the Duke should "head up and consolidate the many and varied peace movements throughout the world"." Suggested to who?

Clarified it was to the duke.

• "although says that at that stage, ot was still only" Typo for "it"?

Absolutely, cheers.

• "The author Hugo Vickers has suggested that Edward" In this and other cases you are inconsistent whether to use past or present case when quoting historians. I also do not see how it helps the reader to describe someone as an author - everyone you quote must be an author!

See above for tense. True re. author; have changed to biographer and journalist.

• "However well-intentioned, says Bloch" Does Bloch think that the tour was well intentioned? Is that the opinion of other historians?

No, not really; he implies that it was done for the best of reasons (i.e. the working class, etc), but I admit it's a bit of a reach to draw any personal intentions from that.

• "Deborah Cadbury suggests that it was at a 1936 dinner that Hitler may have first learned of King Edward VIII's sympathies." In the lead you say that he did not have Nazi sympathies. Do not comments like this belong in historiography rather than only quoting historians who acquit him?

I'm tempted: although it seems slightly too detailed for a general overview of his politics to mention a specific occasion. I've adjusted the lead to mention his pro-German sympathies, but I think it's important to emphasise that being pro-German (which he was: while on the tour, he regularly, reports one RS, "slipped into his mother tongue, German", for example) did not necessarily equate to being pro-Nazi (which is really unknown, although I suspect that, if there is any kind of historiographical consensus, it's that he was the former rather than the latter (notwithstanding that, like others, his fear of communism outweighed his dislike of Hitler)). If you think the Histogy section is too slanted towards "letting him off the hook", then I can probably find some more negatively-inclined press (I added Russian reactions to the "Reactions" section, and were pretty clear in their belief that his entire bloody family were Nazis!!)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking in here, Dudley Miles: I've implemented most of your suggestions (although apologies for my ?turgid? replies!) ——Serial ^# 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Serial Number 54129 as other reviewers are active at present, I will hold off in order to avoid duplicating their comments. Perhaps you could ping me when these other reviewers have finished. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: well, things seem to have calmed down: Harry hasn't edited for a couple of days, but hopefully will look back in. Thanks for what you've done so far, in any case. ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the period, but I am concerned at the very different view of Edward's attitudes in this article compared with the FA article on him and the DNB one. You say "The Duke had been sympathetic to Germany since he was a youth, on account of his family's German origins" and quote an "RS" above (but not in the article) as saying his mother tongue was German. This is not correct. The other articles say he was taught German and French by a tutor and say nothing about his German origin or being pro-German. The DNB article says that he was desperate for a foreign tour, supported a negotiated peace with Germany and refers to his "non-political naïvety". I think you at least make clear that the idea that he was influenced by his origin to be pro-German is one view, not an undisputed fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

H'mmm. I read our FA, DM, and, notwithstanding that WP:OSE, I'm not surprised they differ. Frankly, I'm glad they do. That passed FAC over a decade ago—when this passed as one—it's full of unsourced material, and is pretty lightweight in its coverage of his early years. So it's not surprisng, I venture, that this article focusses on his "Germanness" more than that: here, it is integral to the context of the article, whereas there it is one of just many personality traits.

Having said that, I agree that we can't be sure, with historical hindsight, what his personal views were, especially as a "youth", and that since his own "Germanness"—such as it may have been—is only touched on in a footnote in the body, while his German tutor, etc., is mentioned inline. That makes mention of his supposed-Germanness undue in the lead, so i've tweaked it to say merely he was sympathetic in this period. What think you, Dudley Miles? ——Serial ^# 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just noticed another issue, which is that the article cites books without page numbers. The issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... I do not see how citations of electronic books without page numbers can be acceptable as it is impossible for readers to check them, even if they have access to the source. Ealdgyth have you come across this issue in your source reviews? What is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Messed up ping to Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That would've come up in the source review anyway Dudley Miles. I looked for a policy on it, with no joy. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to have established a firm consensus; and while page numbers for a printed book are essential per WP:V., an electronic source can be accessed via the ctrl + f function I guess. ——Serial ^# 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers. Using ctrl+f assumes that 1. the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. 2. that you have used the same words in the article as in the book 2. that the words are uncommon enough that they do not give many hits. Trying again to ping Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Butting in re e-books; I normally use the chapter title; I think that's about as close you can get, and seems absolutely fine. E books do not have page numbers, but are still absolutely RS under the normal conditions. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fine with books which have short chapters, but some have chapters with 30+ pages. Looking at online discussions, there are students with e-books complaining that when lecturers ask them to comment on pages in a book, they cannot find what they are supposed to be writing about. E-books are OK for reading, but they are not suitable for referring readers to specific comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of references is to verify the claims in an article. If the particular format makes it tedious to do this, then that hardly makes the material used any less valuable. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment with the |loc= parameter, which seems the closest we currently have for addressing this issue. I urge the FAC community to grasp the mettle on this and codify a guideline to operate under. Until that happens—with all respect to everyone here—whatever we (I) do now will be what someone likes / doesn't like, which will satisfy few and annoy most... ——Serial ^# 10:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, {{Cite ebook}} has obviously been considered for service in the past, although it's only ever redirected to {{Cite book}}. Time to change that perhaps. ——Serial ^# 10:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: With regard to "WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers", it should be clarified that WP:V actually makes no such requirement; the relevant section specifically allows for non-paginated in-source locations: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). ——Serial ^# 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: who might also find this useful  :) ——Serial ^# 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

True, I did not read it carefully enough. However, the reference to "sections" covers divisions of web pages. It does not appear to cover ebooks, which do not comply with the requirement to cite sources "precisely", even if chapters are specified, except in books with very short chapters. Many books have chapters with over 30 pages, and some are very long. Michael Lapidge's Anglo-Saxon Literature 900-1066 has a chapter of 52 pages, Simon Keynes in Kings, Currency and Alliances has one of 47 pages and Alfred Smyth's King Alfred the Great has one of 72 pages. In such cases, chapters are not "such divisions as may be appropriate", and are no better than uncited statements for readers with paper copies of books. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: If you're suggesting an RfC, I'd fully support clarifying the FAC (and, for that matter, GA and PR too since it affects them) approach to e-sources. ——Serial ^# 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(taking off coord hat here, just as a plain reviewer) I'd say that the current footnotes to entire ebooks are not enough for verifiablity. Using the loc parameter should be good enough, although whether it works with sfn is an open question. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find loc= in Template:Cite book. What is it for? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

See §3.5.6. ——Serial ^# 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah I have worked it out now. In sfn you can use loc=, in cite book it is quote=

Continuing on from my comments above, loc= in sfn or quote= in cite book can be used with a quote to allow another ebook reader to find the correct location of the citation with ctrl-f, but it is no use to someone who has the paper book. Similarly page= is no use to someone who has the ebook. I think we have to face up to the fact that there are now two separate classes of readers, e-book readers and paper book readers, and the citation formats of each class are no use to the other class. I am thinking of starting an RfC proposing that there should be two classes of FA, Standard FA and E-book FA. Ditto for GA. (E-book FAs and GAs could still use citations with pages for books not available as e-books.) This is the only way to prevent disputes over whether sourcing is acceptable. WP:V would need to be revised, as it seems to me to currently rule out citations to e-books. Any comments Serial Number 54129, Ceoil, Ealdgyth? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea Dudley Miles, and as I said above, I'd support anything that clarifies the current—opaque, to say the least!—situation. The brutal fact is that the issue is going to become more frequent as time passes; give it a few years and dead-tree books could be confined to university and deposit libraries, who knows. But certainly, e-books are here to stay, and we have to acknowledge that and find a way of working with them. The current situation—that a reliable source would fail a FAC because of its format is a frankly bizarre one: but I judge you right in your reading of the letter of the law. If you go ahead with an RfC, or know when one runs, I'd appreciate a ping!

Incidentally, I've cited the e-books in this particular candidate as requested, by means of chapter/paragraph. All the best! ——Serial ^# 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: No rush, of course :) but did you have any further views? (On RfCs generally or this article particularly!) ——Serial ^# 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Ha. I will quote you Meryl Halls, managing director of the Booksellers’ Association at [7]: "I think the e-book bubble has burst somewhat, sales are flattening off, I think the physical object is very appealing." In addition, it is very unlikely that it will ever be economic to produce e-book versions of the great mass of older books with limited sales.

2. Adding the paragraph number goes a long way to solving the problem, but I think very few people will understand the symbol you use, and accurately counting paragraphs up to 50, or even more with long chapters, will be a pain. How about also using the loc= field to give the first few words of the paragraph to make it easier to tie down the correct one, and also explaining your system in note 1. Readers of real books should then be able to find the correct paragraph without too much difficulty.

3. I do not think it will then be necessary to take the issue as I suggested above to RfC, but if you agree that the system in the previous paragraph solves the problem then it might be worth recommending it at RfC.

4. Re n. 56 Unknown ODNB author 2004. Previous versions were by Philip Ziegler and his name was probably omitted in error. I suggest emailing DNB about it.

5. I am not sure you need any more input from me as you already have 3 supports, but I will look at the article again if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

1. I hope she's right! Still, they'll certainly remain with us, so I wonder how many times we'll (not us personally, but you know) be having this discussion in future  :)

2. Thank you. I've added a explanatory guide to the references. I agree it's backbreaking work to count paragraphs—it took me most of yesterday to do so. You might be right about using the first words in the loc field: I'm not wholly convinced though, mainly as I see an opportunity for confusing, rather than aiding the reader, who would, after all, still have to check the opening words of every paragraph to find the one they were looking for. I might return to the question in the (not so distant) future and undertake the project, but it would be far too disruptive to do so now. Interesting though.

• I did not make myself clear. I think that a paragraph number would be very helpful, but with a large number it would be very easy for the reader to miscount. Having the start of the paragraph as well as the paragraph number would make it easy for the reader to confirm that he/she is at the right place by just checking that the paragraph found by counting starts with the correct words. Quoting the first few words of the paragraph will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs. There would also be a need to allow for cases where the ref is to several paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs, although, as you said previously, Using ctrl+f assumes that...the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. Anyway, thanks for looking in, DM, your reviews are appreciated as always; I think we're all done here. Cheers, and stay safe! ——Serial ^# 09:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

3. No, but as I said, I'm sure this is going to keep occurring, particularly in more "popular culture"-orientated nominations, perhaps. (In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already—I'll look into that, see how it's been addressed in other noms (if it has been, of course)). You might be right, though, an RfC might be OTT if there's already an established procedure.

4. Ah, it's tempting the to assume Zeigler it is then. Annoyingly it's not listed under his contributions, either. Funnily enough, I emailed them when I wrote the thing to ask them—of course, they never replied. It's hard to imagine they are that inundated with messages! I'll give em another go, or a tweet from a twit perhaps  :)

5. Ah! Well, all things being equal, I'd like consensus to be as clear as possible...our coords are overworked as it is  :) would you mind looking it over once again? Pace of course, to our discussion above. Cheers Dudley Miles, all the best to ye. ——Serial ^# 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• "The historian Jonathan Petropoulos hypothesises that the British government were aware that they could not prevent what was, officially, a visit by a private individual." "hypothesises" is an odd word here. OED defines it as "To frame a hypothesis or supposition", which seems very theoretical for something the govt must have known.

He suggests, would be better.

• "The scholar Susanna de Vries describes how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal".[89] Cadbury also says the Duchess—dressed in royal blue—appeared regal to their welcoming party." Why "also"? You have not quoted Cadbury before in this context. And you do not need to repeat "the Duchess".

I cut mention of Cadbury and merged/shortened the two sentences.

• "They were greeted by Ley, who kissed her hand and called her "Your Highness"[91][note 15] and presented her with a large box of chocolates." "and...and"

"who kissed her hand, called her "Your Highness" and presented her with a large box of chocolates", better?

• You say what happened outside the station, then what happened on the platform. This seems the wrong way round.

Good point, so moved Ley and his atmosphere to the next section.

• "He was seen, says the journalist Andrew Morton, as Modern, progressive, vigorous, and accessible. Even his mock Cockney accent with a touch of American seemed more down-to-earth and unaffected than the disdainful patrician tones of a man like Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. He remained an intriguing international celebrity, his marital turmoil only enhancing the iconic mystery surrounding the man." This seems to be about the international view, but in the context "He was seen" refers only to the German view.

I've kept the bit about German media liking him here, but moved the comment re. cockneyness, etc., to the background section where it acts more like an overview of the man. Thoughts?

• "heavy program" Presumably this is an Americanisation of the spelling of "Programme" in a British newspaper.

Indeed! And although I wouldn't usually alter a quote, I've taken the liberty of doing so, as elsewhere Boyd (or their editor) has Lloyd George, I think, "saying" "color".

• "Pathé caught the moment they emerged from the station..." This appears to be about their arrival in Germany. Should it not in the correct place in the article?

Yes, moved to the preceding section.

• "historicist". OED define this as a believer in historicism!

Oops, Freudian slip  :) he was a researcher, at least.

• You say that Ogilvie-Forbes met them on the platform, but in the letter you reproduce he says it was at the hotel.

Yes, good point, and one I'm not sure what to do about: the sources say he was at the station (although apart from the German delegation, obviously). I wonder if he attended as a personal favour/out of respect to the duke, and then made an official visit to the hotel?

• "press on with his policy towards the east" This seems euphemistic. How about something like "territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe"?

Yes, done.

• "where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel, where the Duke received" where...where

"where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel; the Duke received a number of personal guests."

• NSDAP. What does this mean?
• "In these aspirations, the Duke was in the company of a large swathe of the British ruling class: apart from Lloyd George and Lord Halifax". "apart from" is ambiguous. Presumably you mean "as well as"?

Yes, bizarrely that reads as if LG and Halifax hadn't visited!

• "Another wrote that" Who?

Unknown correspondent stated.

• "Roosevelt wrote to Windsor expressing hope that the tour would eventually go ahead, but Morton believes this a "conciliatory" gesture from the President." I take it you are saying that Roosevelt was disingenuous? You could be clearer.

Tweaked.

• This is a good article, but I am still concerned about the emphasis on his Germanness. I raised this before and you replied that the WIki article on him is unreliable, but I also cited DNB and you did not reply on this. You say "Windsor was an admirer of Germany. This was as least in part due to his upbringing, suggests King, noting that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native, and the walls of the royal residences of England were lined with portraits of his Hanoverian ancestors"." DNB does not mention a German heritage and says "However, from other teachers David learned French and German (and later he also became a fluent Spanish speaker)." This is an authoratative source, but I cannot find any evidence that King is. I cannot trace any reviews of the book and I have never heard of Kensington Publishing. Do you have evidence that King is a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To avoid being misquoted, and in the interests of precision, I'd like to emphasise that neither I nor (I hope!) the article mentions his "Germanness". I don't think he was German, and we're definitely not trying to say that; what he had was German heritage through his family background, and I don't think any source disputes that.

The Edward VIII article is, strictly, not reliable anyway per WP:WINRS; but especially so as, coincidentally, it was nominated to have its FA-status reviewed at the same time. It's true that ODNB doesn't emphasise his heritage, although I note it mentions him having relatives in Germany.

As for King, well, it's this chap (crummy article though), and Kensington Publishing has an article here which lists various—in wiki-terms—notable authors. I don't see anything to set off alarums; King isn't making—or being used to support—any particularly radical claims: although I'm always happy to tweak the language if you think it will help. Cheers, Dudley Miles! ——Serial ^# 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

1. There is nothing in the King article which shows that he is a reliable source. 2. The article on Kensington Books lists mainly romantic and horror novelists, plus Gerina Dunwich, who is described as "a professional astrologer, occult historian, and New Age author, best known for her books on Wicca and various occult subjects". It is not an academic publisher. 3. It should be possible to find reviews of a reputable biography. I cannot find any of King's book. 4. DNB says that Edward was taught German by a tutor. You quote KIng saying that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native". This is a radical claim and is disproved by your article, which states that Schmidt was the translator at the meeting between Hitler and Edward and Forwood accused him of mistranslating. This shows that Edward was not fluent in German and King is not an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dudley Miles, I swapped out that quote from King, but luckily have reliable sources for e.g his fluency in German (not shown by Paul Schmidt's presence at the Berghof, and now clarified in the text) and his ancestry. No-one has anything to complain of now, unless they bought a Charles and Di teatowel in 1981 :D ——Serial ^# 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha, Dudley Miles, I found another source, this one explains your question above re. the diplomat meeting them at the station and Pgivie-Forbes visiting his hotel: the former was only (deliberately) a Third Secretary, reflecting their understating of the visit. Good news! ——Serial ^# 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine now, apart from the citations of King. I think you should delete him from the sources and find other refs where he is cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: yeah, I have done now so: everything was more or less sourceable from scholarly texts, except for one sentence I removed completely. ——Serial ^# 18:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Cheers Dudley Miles, we got there in the end  :) thanks as ever for the in-depth review...and almost the source review! ——Serial ^# 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Have been following this almost edit by edit since the nom, and I hope helping with the ce. The visit is fascinating, obv for all the wrong reasons; my god the wrongheadedness and hubris. The page brings all this out excellently, well done to the nominator. It is now at a point where I can support, though I see it is continually improving from the feedback above. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Very kind, Ceoil, and I hope you know I appreciate your copy edits—you always leaver the place better than you found it. Take care of yourself! ——Serial ^# 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Airborne84

Comments coming. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this. Comprehensive. Sources look good. Thanks for your efforts. Comments below.

• Could you briefly introduce Robert Ley in the lede? E.g., "the couple were chaperoned by Robert Ley (2-3 word intro)". The name without intro gave me pause as I tried to figure out who he was.

I recast this, to read The Duke and Duchess were officially invited to the country by the German Labour Front, and were chaperoned for much of their visit by its leader, Robert Ley; better?

Better, thanks.

• "Ley's behaviour was reported to Hitler". By whom? If it's known who did it, this would be welcome info, I think, for the average reader. I found myself wondering who it was. If it's not in the sources, OK.

Unfortunately, it isn't, but I found another sure which provides an eyewitness account of the gatecrashing and have swapped out that sentence. A quote from Sopple: still doesn't say who grassed on Ley, but mentions Göring, etc.

No problem. This works fine as well.

• "The tour may have given rise to later suspicions that, on in the case of a successful outcome to Operation Sea Lion—a German invasion of Britain—the Duke would be appointed a puppet king." There's a grammar problem in there somewhere. Is the word "on" extraneous?

Indeed! Gone.

• "Vickers, similarly, suggests that episode such as the tour have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi:" This passage needs a slight copyedit.

It was pretty bad that. How about that while the tour may have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi...?

Much better, thanks.

• In your sources, I think this one is missing a "W": "indsor, Duke of: From Mr. Ogilvie-Forbes (to Mr. Harvey)".

Well spotted!

• Also in the sources, English-language titles of works are rendered in title case, so "Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot" and similar should be adjusted.

I've changed that; I couldn't see any others, but if I've missed any, could you let me know? I don't think so, but.

The only other one I saw (Unknown ODNB author) doesn't appear to fall under the listed WP:MOS works for title case, so I think you're good.

• What makes the Context section near the end different than the Background section at the beginning? I.e., why couldn’t the Context material be combined with the Background? I'm not saying it needs to be, I'm just wondering about the rationale. The context section actually addressed another of my questions about the German background, since there was some passing German context in there (as well as throughout the article). Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point: I don't know. And because I don't know, and no-one else has noticed, I've moved it into its own "Political context" section of the background. How does that look?

Very nice. The background is comprehensive and sets the stage well for the reader. This actually solved another concern of mine that I won't bring up now. Something else to consider would be to swap the last two subsections in the Background section. Then, that section would start broad, narrow a bit to Political context, narrow a bit more to the British Royal and govt. view, and then narrow still more to the Windsor's views. You'd have to study it a bit more than I did to see if that would work well—my initial look at how the transitions would work within the section and to the next section seemed like it might work fine. However, to be clear, my support does not rest on you making this change. Just something to consider. Airborne84 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Airborne84, taking the reader from the general to the particular: I've done that. Appreciate the support  :) All the best. "See" you soon! ——Serial ^# 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for flying in, Airborne84  :) let me know if I've addressed your points satisfactorily. I've noticed your low-level copyediting, by the way—much appreciated! "Many hands make light work", as they say  :) ——Serial ^# 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Unknown ODNB author — this is not the best way to format it imo. I would omit the author and use |ref=CITEREFODNBdate, or alternately |author=ODNB (which would match TNA)

Done.

• Center of the Web—as this is an edited collection (apparently edited by George Constable [8]) you need to cite the chapter and the author of that chapter.

Negative edited collection. It's available at Archive.org (you shouldn't need an account for such an early page as this); the authors are "the Editors of Time-Life Books"; George Constable is the big-time editor of the entire thing (over the Exec-Editor even) (or possibly a general consultant, according to our article), and apart from them, an entire page of editors and consultants. I doubt there's room on the template...

Hmm, you're right.

• Primary sources appear to be used minimally and appropriately. (Although Speer was so mendacious I would have probably just left him out).

You know dat. I had to go and wash my hands afterwards. But he was following on neatly from the other nazi views. Having said that, I've found a RS that bacs the quote up independently.

• NDE—this publisher is so obscure I can hardly find any info about them online. Why do you think it is RS?

Not so much the publisher, but the author, a respected German historian, etc., and while NDE is bizarrely obscure, if I'd cited the German electronic edition—an imprint of Random House—the French edition, published by JC Lattès, the German print edition, by Heyne Verlag. Anyway, you get my drift. Although I agree that it's odd no Eng-lang edition seems to have been published in—for example—London, only Canada and South Africa, as far as I can see. Perhaps they're trying to put a bit of work the colonies' way.

• BBC News Inconsistent date format

Done.

• pp. 122–186. not verifiable.

Meant to be 182-7, done.

• p. ch.5 §72. should use |loc=

Done.

• Other sources appear to be at least marginally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Err, right! Cheers Buidhe, hope you're well. ——Serial ^# 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Above issues are resolved, however another has appeared: "Williams 2020, p. 230. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

D'OH. Thanks Buidhe, totally forgot to add the source). Unbelievable...done now  :) ——Serial ^# 12:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Carabinieri

Hi, I've started by looking at the sources. There are several statements I've been unable to verify:

• "The couple and their entourage—which included the Duke's cousin Prince Phillip von Hessen[116]—travelled around Germany on Hitler's personal train, the Führersonderzug," Could you provide a quote for the claim that Philipp (that's how Morton spells the name, as does our article, is this a typo?) was part of the entourage and rode on the train? I can't find this.

Thanks for spotting that typo; the word you want is condiment.

Thank you.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." Could you provide a quote for this assertion? I'm having trouble counting to 31.

Very funny!

The closest thing I was able to find is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'". That's not the same thing as saying that she would have been friendly to Germany.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if anyone reads that to mean anything other than "a good Queen to Germany", then they're reaching a bit, as that entire section is regarding how good he would have been for them; and no-one is suggesting, I imagine, that Hitler had much concern for how good a King he would be for Britain! Still, I could tweak it, if you would prefer.

The section is about Hitler and the Windsors being impressed with each other. It also says that, according to the interpreter, Hitler thought the Duke of Windsor sympathized with Nazism. There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'." The part about keeping the institution intact is referring to the British government's decision not to make documents on the visit public. The way this quote is presented makes that unclear. Also, as far as I can tell the Prime Minister that Urbach is referring to is Churchill and not Chamberlain.

I think not; although I agree that it would read much more clearly if the words [of the day] were inserted after "the Prime Minister".

The source Urbach gives is a memorandum sent by Churchill in 1940. Also, in that paragraph she is writing about the suppression of documents on the visit so it makes sense that that would have happened later. Using this quote in the article doesn't make sense to me, since it's about said suppression which isn't mentioned. Urbach doesn't say anything about the Prime Minster 'working against' the tour.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense to me, as they are discussing the Duke's behaviour in the late 30s, when Chruchill was in his wilderness...having said that, I'm not so invested in Urbach (!!!) as to insist on her quote staying in.

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying that Urbach is indeed referring Chamberlain? Then why is she referencing a memorandum written by Churchill in 1940? Are you also disputing that "did everything to keep the institution intact" is a reference to the British suppression of documents related to the visit? If you are, what do you make that quote out to mean? And where does Urbach say that the Prime Minister worked to stop the visit?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,--Carabinieri (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, ——Serial ^# 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding more issues:

• "The political background to the tour was tense. In the east, Japan was on the verge of invading China. In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany". These sentences have two sources. I'm not sure what Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman is supporting at all. All they say is that Germany and the Soviet Union were on the rise. Buchanan discusses what Roosevelt thought of the situation in Spain in 1939, but doesn't say anything about the balance of power being disturbed in 1937. Neither of the sources mentions Japan (the chronology is a bit confusing as well, the Japanese attack on China started several months before the Windsors' tour, so by that it was no longer "on the verge"). Neither source ties any of this back to the Windsors' tour.

They will not tie back to the tour, as they are not intended to. They provide standalone background. Although the reference to Japan was a hangover from a now disused source, and has been removed, good spot. ——Serial ^# 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" I don't know what Berman is doing here. Lobo-Guerrero seems to be about the insurance implications of the appeasement policy so I'm really sure that's the best source here.

I think the sources and the article's text-source integrity probably need to be vetted more closely. Just looking at the background section a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me: for example, Wallis's marriage history and the technical legal details of the coronation oath could easily be trimmed. There are also way too many quotes. Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".--Carabinieri (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The sourcing has been thoroughly examined by multiple editors already; I think it's as, if not more likely, that you are misreading the sources (you appear to have done this a number of times already, as well as admitting you won't count to 31?!). In any case, I suggest you oppose now, as I am intending to hat this thread. Likewise, your views on quotations—that is, your interpretation—are your own, but no other editor has complained, so I won't be considering this point actionable. Thanks anyway! ——Serial ^# 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? I have given you multiple instances where you misrepresented sources and this is your response? Please substantiate your claim that I have misread sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sources often do not say what you think they say; that's why you cannot find what you are looking for! All the best, ——Serial ^# 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please substantiate these claims.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Confusing Churchill's discussion of Chamerlain with Churchill himself; not recognising the value of a piece titled the Broken Balance between the World Wars in a discussion regarding the, err, European balance of power. For example. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nominator has indicated that they intend to ignore anything I write. I'm also uncertain about the status of this nomination since the nominator has blanked the page. I suppose I'm mainly writing this for the FAC coordinators' benefit. As I have indicated, I do not believe this article meets the FA criteria. The main issue is that there are discrepancies between sources and content referenced to. I've only checked a few of the sources, but I've found enough issues to where I'd be uncomfortable with this article being promoted unless all of them are vetted more carefully. Here are a few examples:

• "In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany" There are two sources for this sentence. The first one, Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman, mentions that the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was upsetting the balance of power in Europe, but doesn't mention the Spanish Civil War at all. The second source, Buchanan, says that in 1939 Roosevelt was worried the Nationalist victory in the Civil War might upset the balance of power in Europe. It doesn't say anything about what the situation was in 1937. There is broader issue as well. None of the sources for the first paragraph in the "Political context" section tie the events they describe to the Windsors' tour of Germany. The article links them ("The European political background to the tour was tense"), but that is not backed by the sources.
• "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" This again is backed by two sources. The first source, Berman, is about something else entirely and doesn't mention appeasement at all, at least not on the pages that are cited. These pages are about Dutch and French socialists' economic policies in the 1930s.
• "Charles Bedaux, whom Bloch describes as an 'enigmatic time and motion tycoon'." The source for this is Bloch 1988 (Secret File of the Duke of Windsor). I only have access to a different edition of the book, so I might be wrong, but in this edition Bedaux is described as "the French-American time-and-motion tycoon" and then the "expansive time-and-motion tycoon". This quote does appear in Bloch 1983 (The Duke of Windsor's War), albeit with hyphens as "the enigmatic time-and-motion tycoon" on page 155.
• "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" the source does not give any indication that Solbert was acting on behalf of the German government.
• "The German side of things was organised by Hitler's adjutant, Captain Fritz Wiedemann, with final preparations discussed at the Paris Ritz in late September." and "It is more likely, she says, that these rooftop restaurant meetings involved men such as Wiedemann finalising the itinerary and other minutiae" These two sentences are referring to the same event, so it's more than a bit confusing that they are in different paragraphs as if they were distinct events. Also, Cadbury, the source for the second sentence, only says that Wiedemann was probably involved not "men such as Wiedemann".
• "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." The sentence is referenced to Morton 2015. The closest thing in the source is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'".
• "The general consensus among later 20th-century historians is that the visit reflected poorly on Windsor's judgement" I'm not sure where this is from. The next footnote cites Powell who doesn't say this as far as I can tell. If this is based on Wikipedia editors' summary of the historiography, then it's original research. This claim is repeated in the lead as "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received", which has the added problem that it's obvious that no pre-modern historians commented on an event in 1937.
• "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'". The paragraph in Urbach's book this is referenced to is about the so-called Windsor Files, information about Windsor and his views about Germany compiled by the German government. They concern this particular tour but also his behavior in general. The British government tried to prevent publication of the Files after the war.

The part of the sentence about the Prime Minister trying to prevent the tour has no basis in Urbach's book. Secondly, Urbach is referring to Churchill and not Chamberlain. The nominator has insisted I'm wrong about this. I've looked at the source every which way, but I don't see how it can be read as referring to Chamberlain. Urbach is discussing Windsor's behavior in general before he was sent to the Bahamas, not just this tour. Moreover, the source Urbach cites is a memorandum written by Churchill, not Chamberlain. Thirdly, the way the article presents the Urbach quote makes it unclear what "did everything to keep the institution intact" is referring to. She's talking about the suppression of the files, but this is not made clear in the article.

There are also some inconsistencies in the bibliography:

• The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor is listed as having been published in by Little, Brown in 1988. As far as I can tell, Little, Brown didn't publish this book until 2012, so I'm not sure what edition is being used in the article. The ISBN leads to the 2012 edition, so I'm guessing that Little, Brown is correct but the year should be 2012 (possibly with orig-year 1988).
• Merriman's book actually consists of two volumes, so the bibliography should specify which volume is being used so that the page numbers are unique. Additionally, the ISBN given in the bibliography is actually that of the first volume ("From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon") which is certainly the wrong one.
• Radclife is not used in any footnotes.

Since I've found these issues by only checking a small fraction of the sources, I think all of the sources need to be thoroughly vetted before the article can be promoted. While this is the biggest issue with the article in my estimation, there are several more. The article delves into several extraneous details and uses far more quotations than I think can be justified based on our guidelines (Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".)--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, at first glance, impressive, and there's certainly a couple of minor things I could address if I was inclined; but, a closer eading indicates that, in the vast majority of examples, you're (presumably accidentally) misreading either the sources or what I say; if it was only the one, we could work off that, but both? Sorry, that would waste both our time. As I said, I was concerned at the start when you said you were unable to count to 31: I hoped to see signs of improvement in the review, but that was not to be. All the best, ——Serial ^# 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, wrongly accusing a guy of working on behalf of the Nazi German government is such a trifling matter. Kudos to you for not being inclined to correct that.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article at no point suggests that he was "working on behalf of" anyone, but as an example of you misreading and misrepresenting, again, what I have said, that's a good'un. It's also an aspersion: I'd be inclined to correct 'that, if I were you) In fact, as far as core content policies go, your insinuation that somehow the article in its current state is in breach of NPoV is laughably insecure, and I wonder at your chutzpah. As I said, I'd have been happy working on your sensible recommendations, such as they were: but separating the wheat from the chaff in your comments, as I'd need to do, is a wholly unwelcome task. Also, an unnecessary one, when multiple reviewers have examined this article and its sourcing in detail, and there is no consensus whatsoever in favor of your allegations. ——Serial ^# 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says that he was communicating on behalf of the German government, the source does not. It's as simple as that. I did not claim that article violated NPOV, but there are multiple instances where it misrepresents sources...Carabinieri (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're literally looking at another article to me. Who'se misrepresenting sources?! He was not "communicating on behalf of the German government", and none say he was (except for Martin Allen, who I do not consider an RS and have not used). This is getting bizarre. The article explicitly says he made a minimum of speeches (etc) and was used by the German gov't (he clearly was), but not that he willingly did so himself. In fact, there's plenty of discussion as to the opposite? ——Serial ^# 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" How would you interpret that other than as saying that Solbert was communicating on behalf of the German government?--Carabinieri (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about Solbert. I assumed you were talking about Windsor whom the bloody article is about. ——Serial ^# 14:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to address your actionable issues—for instance the ISBN/2 volume note was well-spotted (as I only have the 2-in-1 version). The minor formating, presentation points you raise might be mior, but that's certainly no reason not to address them. Cheers! ——Serial ^# 13:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr Kay

• Support on all criteria, including source and image review and spot check. Four trivial comments, which you can feel free to ignore, and don't need to respond to: (1) Personally, I might have bundled the four cites at the end of neither his family, government, Church nor people would support the marriage. (2) There is a quote from Petropoulos that includes at the Hess's home, while I did check the source and it is accurately quoted, I believe that if this was correct grammar it would be either at the Hesses' home or at Hess's home. One way out is to drop the words from the quote. (3) The quote from Crawford no sense of his own is given twice. (4) I believe the ODNB article was written by Ziegler. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay: No, let me. I appreciate you popping in—our resident expert, so to speak. For what it's worth, I've addressed three out of the four pints you raised—each is good—except for the Ziegler. Is our own knowledge sufficient to make that claim do you think? I mean, I'm sure you're correct, but is it strictly verifiable? Incidentally, you also don't need to reply here if you don't wish  :) but it would have been rude of me not to have, in my book. All the best! ——Serial ^# 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if I am a resident expert, we now have two! Ziegler was credited as the author ten years ago, but I see that his name has been removed. So, as the ODNB currently stands, you're correct that it's anonymous. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I have had this watch listed since it was nominated, thinking that for once I would wait for the dust to die down before having a look. But the dust declines to settle, so I will have a poke at it anyway, concentrating in particular on what seem to be the contentious bits. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Definitely one for the dust buster, Gog. cheers, ——Serial 18:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "most viewing it as in bad taste". Optional: → 'most viewing it as in poor taste'?

Done.

• "both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received." Optional: → 'both the Duke's lack of judgement and of his disregard for the advice he received'.

Done.

• "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany, itself intended to be the first of many other countries" The construction of this sentence - especially but not only the comma placement - doesn't really work for me.

How about Solbert suggested that the Duke take a tour of Germany, which was later intended to precede that of other countries?

Do we need "later"? If not it is fine; if we do it still looks a bit tortured.

@Gog the Mild: That's true; the only thing that stops me—almost instinctively—from removing it, is that it might then imply that Solbert was suggesting a world tour with Germany as the opening leg, whereas the idea to visit other countries seems to have been a (*ahem!*) later idea. In other words, Solbert suggested the tour of Germany, but not necessarily any other countries. But perhaps I'm reading to much into it; what d'you think?

I think you are right. Maybe something like "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert had suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany; this later came to be seen as the first of several planned international tours'. Not necessarily those words, but something clearly separating out the two ideas. What think you?

@Gog the Mild: Good suggestion, I'm thinking ...Solbert had suggested the Duke take a tour of Germany; this was soon intended to be the first of several planned international tours. ——Serial 21:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Go for it.

• "It also, according to the modern historian John Vincent, demonstrates ..." I fail to see what "It" is referring to.

Probably a hangover from sth now removed. I've recast to say The German government was funding the visit, which, suggests the modern historian John Vincent, allowed them to choreograph it.

• "This was the most modern factory in Germany". Sounds PoVy to me; you happy saying that in Wikipedia's voice?

Done: tweaked to remove the subjectivity of modernity (!!!) and replaced with why the D. would have gone there in the first place (Mercedes HQ).

• "Cadbury says how "Göring's face wrinkled with amusement, observed Wallis." Perhaps you could recast this?

Mmmm. moody. Perhaps, Cadbury quotes Wallis: "Göring's face wrinkled with amusement... The Austrians would want to be part of the Reich", he had said. Wallis noted that "the moment passed, the statement left unchallenged" by the Duke?

Fine.

• "In his diary, the Earl of Crawford summed up the political establishment's views on the Duke". It may be worth inserting 'British'.

Replaced "political" with "British", as I guess the latter rather implies the former does it not.

It does; fine.

Apart from the trivia above, that all seems fine. All of the FA criteria seem met (bar number three - I haven't looked at the images). So, time to look at what others are objecting to in detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Harry's comments, I am aware that I am now looking at a version of the article that differs from that which he was commenting on, possibly significantly so. Speaking just for myself:

• I do not find the language flowery.
• I do feel that there are occasions where you have not given in line attribution but should. I have flagged up one above, my fifth comment, but on a skim can't find any other glaring cases - I assume that this has been tightened up since Harry made his comment.
• "the prose could be tightened": well, if I were writing it, or even giving it a comprehensive copy edit, I would tighten the prose, but I have, frequently, read worse "professional" prose and it gets over my personal bar for "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"; I assume no one is suggesting that it is not engaging.
• I find the current level of footnotes a little high: eg is number four an "unnecessary detail"; I completely fail to see the point of number nine. On the other hand, I would have thought that number nineteen was germane enough to earn a place in the main text - which is almost PoVy without it. If you have culled 12 then I quite see Harry's point. I write, as you know, as an inveterate user of multiple footnotes in my FACs. As the article stands, I personally feel that it passes my not too broad, not too tight test; there are things which I would remove or promote in the footnotes, but none which I feel merit an oppose.

On this, I removed #s 4 and 9; parenthesised #19.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

eBooks are mentioned by Dudley Miles. I have had issues with these, which I have so far ducked by persuading someone with access to the paper text to do the donkey work for me. WP:V seems a red herring as it says nothing about pages numbers; your suggestion of using "|loc=" to give the prose in the text which is relied on by the cite so that it can be searched for via cntl+f seems an entirely reasonable approach to verifiability to me. I note that this wasn't the case when Dudley made there comments. Is it now? If not, I would be inclined to agree with Dudley.

Rather than WP:V I think that the pair of you mean WP:CITE; a guideline which states "Citations for books typically include: ... chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate". (My added emphasis in all cases.) It also states "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." Your proposed use of "|loc=" would seem to me to meet "you can use other means of identifying the relevant section" and so close the conversation.

|loc= inserted throughout, plus paragraphination. Wish I'd waited for the sodding library to open though!

I have drafted a proposal to deal with ebooks User:Dudley Miles/sandbox. I have not followed it up as I am busy with other projects and I am not sure whether it is too complex, but you might like to see whether there is anything you find useful in it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Carabinieri has opposed on the basis of a lack of fidelity of the article to the sources cited. There seems little alternative, if I am to form a view on this, to examining the cases which they have flagged up. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Cite 108 b: To read "the Prime Minister" in Urbach as anyone other than Chamberlain seems to me to be a strained and unnatural reading of the text. The cite IMO fully supports the text.

• Cite 146: I feel that the nominator is stretching here. I see where they are coming from, but I agree with Carabibieri's "There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen [Wallace} or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne." Suggest "would have been a friendly queen to Germany" → 'would have made a good queen'.

Done.

• Cites 18 and 19: I fail to see Carabinieri's point. The sources support the claim - which is, anyway, a 'statement of the bleeding obvious'. The objection that the sources do not tie this back to the Windsors seems, to me, irrelevant.

• Cites 21 and 22: another statement of the bleeding obvious. Berman: " the rise of the Nazis next door made all democratic forces aware that France was entering a new and dangerous era." Oh come on, you can find better support than that. I also note that the book doesn't mention the word "appeasement" once. Lobo-Guerrero just about supports the claim, but Carabiniero is correct that "Lobo-Guerrero seems to be about the insurance implications of the appeasement policy so I'm [not] really sure that's the best source here." and that "Berman, is about something else entirely and doesn't mention appeasement at all, at least not on the pages that are cited. These pages are about Dutch and French socialists' economic policies in the 1930s."

Yeah...that's a bit bizarre. I mean, citing 1930s Britain's policy of appeasement is kind of WP:SKYBLUE. Have replaced the citation with one from a book dedicated to the topic.

• Cite 75: "on behalf of the German government" has been removed per Carabinieri.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been unable to access a copy of Powell to check if it supports "The general consensus among later 20th-century historians is that the visit reflected poorly on Windsor's judgement". Any chance of quoting the text in Powell which supports this, and/or giving additional/alternative cites at the end of the relevant sentence?

He's very inexplicit, and may only be referring to a few others, so expunged.

I don't feel that the sourcing has any more flaws than many FACs might have if one really picks at them. That said, some of Carabinieri's points are entirely valid; and the point at which one feels that the identification of more than one problem with sourcing undermines one's faith in the sourcing generally is liable to be subjective. Having discounted some of Carabinieri's comments, and SN having already addressed others, for me that point has not been reached.

Re Carabinieri's "a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me". This seems a little unreasonable to me. Almost any reviewer is going to find almost any article either a little broad or a little over-focused for *their* taste. The test (IMO) is whether completely extraneous information has been introduced, or important issues have been overlooked. All of the examples which Carabinieri points out seem to me to be arguably relevant to the article. (Personally I would go further, and say that they are fine, but there is always a subjective element and I claim no more than the average degree of perspicacity in this regard.)

That's it from me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gog the Mild, appreciate that perspective. And thanks for looking in, as always. Cheers! ——Serial 13:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you have trouble pulling my actionable comments out of that screed of opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Wilco :) thanks again! ——Serial 10:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've addressed you suggestions and other remarks, I think, hopefully successfully. Let me know what you think, they're my most recent edits there, (A),(B) and (C). All the best! ——Serial 18:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good. Just my one niggle above. ("later" etc.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Having reread all of the contributions above, and giving especial consideration to Carabinieri's comments, I believe that this article, as it currently stands, meets all of the FAC criteria and so am supporting its promotion. In particular, from Carabinieri's closing comments on 7 July, I am happy, having looked hard at them, with the sourcing, the quantity of quotations, and the amount (if any) of "extraneous" detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2020 [9].

---

Lost in Translation (film)

Nominator(s): NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost in Translation is a 2003 film written and directed by Sofia Coppola. It stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson. This article has just undergone a peer review. Thanks to all for any feedback offered. NTox · talk 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by MaranoFan

Resolved comments from MaranoFan

"befriends another estranged American named Charlotte" - It might be beneficial to readers to mention here that Charlotte is a woman. Done. NTox · talk Might also be good to introduce The Virgin Suicides as a drama film. Done. NTox · talk "After 10 weeks of editing, the production sold distribution rights for the United States and Canada to Focus Features" - "the production" seems a bit vague, does this mean a production house, Ross Katz or Coppola? Mention them instead. Clarified. NTox · talk "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, including" - Not sure if the word "including" is necessary considering all four nominations have been listed. "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards, Best Picture, Best Actor for Murray, and Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Coppola; it won the latter." sounds right as well. Good catch. I went ahead and removed "including" and used a colon in this case. NTox · talk The opening sentence of the "Themes" section is a description of it given by Coppola, after that it's a bit unclear whose opinion is being expressed. Are these critics or Coppola? This should be clarified like you've done for Professor Geoff King's comments. Good point. For this material, anything not attributed in text are widespread views of critics and scholars. To bridge the gap between them and Coppola, I specified that the director's description is a perspective shared by commentators. NTox · talk The words "the shot" are repeated four times in the Narrative section, could be substituted with "the scene", etc. to decrease repetition. Thanks for pointing that out. I alternated this a bit with "image" to reinforce the visual focus of the commentary by sources. NTox · talk "She described the story as "very personal" from the beginning" - "the beginning" could be clarified, did she give this description before she finished writing the story? Good catch. For clarification, I removed the "very personal" piece and reworked that sentence a bit, especially since the later parts of the section already discuss the personal components of the film for the director. NTox · talk "Among the first images included was her friend Fumihiro Hayashi's karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" - This should probably be rephrased, something to the effect of "Among the first images she included was of her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen". Done. NTox · talk The first sentence of the Development section seems to reiterate information better presented in the prior section. Removed reiterated content. NTox · talk Is there a reason Murray refused to sign a contract? Good question. No reason has been definitively given in the literature. In all, it's not so much that he 'refused', but the impression is that he is simply reticent to sign contracts. He has been reported to have not signed for roles in other films as well. NTox · talk "Johansson accepted the role without an audition" - I think what's noteworthy is that she was given the role without an audition, there's no reason Johansson would want to audition when she could get it without one. Might be more effective if changed to "Coppola offered Johansson the role without an audition, which she accepted". Done. NTox · talk --NØ 11:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC) @MaranoFan: Thanks very much for taking the time to read the article. I appreciate your comments and have made improvements based on your suggestions. I hope you're having an excellent week. NTox · talk 06:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Support - With all of my comments being addressed and other improvements. I don't have access to any of the book sources used but I will assume good faith about them; A source review will probably take care of any concerns there. I would like to invite you to my current FAC if you feel like commenting there later. Good luck!--NØ 07:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I saw this film for the first time recently (and then went on to take a look through this article!) so I am pleased to see this here, and hope to be able to find time for a proper look through. Right now (as when I first looked at the article a few weeks ago) I am pleased to see some good engagement with scholarly work. I note that it is not standard to include chapter titles in references unless you are citing an edited collection of some kind (as is, for example, your Acord source). The Lucy Bolton source, for example, seems to be a monograph, so you should just cite the book as a whole in the bibliography, noting the pages in the individual citations. The chapter title isn't needed anywhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks so much for your comments about the article. I appreciate your attention to the scholarly dimensions of the content and greatly look forward to your feedback after another read-through. I also appreciate your advice about the book chapters; I have just removed a couple of those that are not part of collections. Thanks again and I hope to see further of your thoughts soon. NTox · talk 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• "tried to recruit him for up to a year," Why "up to a year"?

Good question. Coppola has given conflicting numbers in interviews. She has said it took her five months, eight months, and also a year to recruit him. Let me know if you recommend a better way to tackle this. NTox · talk

Ok, understood. Let's see if other reviewers pick up on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I note a few quotes in the lead. Quotes without citations always make my eyes twitch, but WP:REFLEAD is perhaps not completely clear on this. I leave it to you.

Thanks for pointing that out. Since WP:REFLEAD seems to indicate that there is no clear rule and the use of citations here should rely on consensus, I'll leave those quotations as is for now but am not opposed to adding the references in if others feel it would be better. NTox · talk

That's fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• "many actual places of business" Odd phrase. I was initially just going to remove "actual", but I realised this might not work for you. I wonder if it should be rephrased?

Deleted 'actual'. NTox · talk

• "Lost in Translation was nominated for four Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director for Coppola, Best Actor for Murray, and Coppola won for Best Original Screenplay." This doesn't quite work. If you're going to list the four, you need to list the four and separately talk about the winning one, or put a note about the one that is won in brackets.

I reworded this sentence a bit. Feel free to let me know if you think any further copyedits are necessary. NTox · talk

I made some tweaks.

• Perhaps the plot section could make a bit clearer the age difference between the two of them. Is it worth mentioning Charlotte's husband's friend?

I added a bit more context to the plot section, especially about Kelly. I agree it is best to mention her there. In terms of Bob and Charlotte's age difference, I did try to communicate that by referring to Bob's 25-year marriage and to Charlotte as a young college graduate, but let me know if you think there is a stronger way to say this. NTox · talk

• "Like her performance on screen, Coppola saw" Coppola is like her performance on screen? This needs rephrasing.

Good catch. Rephrased. NTox · talk

• "the identity of which he is already defined" Do you mean by which? I'm not sure this makes sense. A couple of lines later there is "as a frenetic environment of which he is overwhelmed". Can you be overwhelmed of an environment?

'By which', yes. Fixed. Thanks for catching that. NTox · talk

• " In the short days they have between them" What does this mean?

Changed to "In the little time they have together". NTox · talk

Better! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Professor Geoff King of Brunel University London" I'd say we're probably more interested in his expertise than the university he currently works in/worked in when he published the book. Do we use titles? WP:CREDENTIAL seems to suggest not.

Good call. I removed the university reference and briefly described him as a film scholar who wrote a book about the film. Let me know if you think this works. NTox · talk

• "University of Vermont professor Todd McGowan" Ditto. "Lucy Bolton of Queen Mary University of London" (no job title); "Professor Steve Vineberg" (no university). "Wendy Haslem of the University of Melbourne"; "professor Maria San Filippo"; "Todd Kennedy of Nicholls State University"; "feminist Laura Mulvey" (she's a famous scholar of film studies and a professor -- but here she's only "feminist"!); "Nicholas Y.B. Wong of The Education University of Hong Kong"

Thanks for pointing to WP:CREDENTIAL above. I went ahead and removed the 'professor' titles and the references to universities and colleges. I gave more description to Mulvey and Luce Irigaray, as well as Geoff King, as stated above. For the remaining academics who don't have quite as much prominence in this context, would you recommend adding descriptions for them in text, or do you believe their names alone are acceptable, combined with the existing footnotes of their work? NTox · talk

I would lean towards introducing them. "the film historian", "the literary critic", whatever. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• "its slightness of plot action" What does this mean?

Rephrased. NTox · talk

• "evoke [their] impressions" I assume the "their" refers to Bob and Charlotte, but I initially assumed you were talking about the obstacles.

Clarified. NTox · talk

• We don't say "panties" this side of the Atlantic -- is it not a little informal? If not, no objection.

That does seem to be the standard term in the U.S. (I note that Wikipedia's article also refers to them as 'panties'). However, I can understand how it may sound informal. Let me know if you have further thoughts here. NTox · talk

• "has often been compared to" Says who? It isn't obvious what your source is for this claim.

I added a note with citations of commentators who have made this point. NTox · talk

Ok, that's all for now. Please double-check my edits; you had a few commas that worried me a little! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks again for taking the time to read the article; I greatly appreciate your comments. I made some edits based on your suggestions and responded to a few points above. Thanks also for the copyedits you made to the page itself. I want to note that I did tweak [10] slightly as to emphasize the connection between the short script and the improvisation Coppola allowed [11]. Also, I modified [12] a bit to reinforce that Coppola saw the karaoke performance of her friend in real life previously [13]. Don't hesitate to report if you believe there is a still a stronger way to communicate these. One question about [14]: since the period is in the original text of the source, should it not be inside the quotation marks? Let me know if I'm misunderstanding the MOS. Thanks again for your feedback and I hope you are having an excellent start of the weekend. NTox · talk 07:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going to post that that part of the MOS is widely misunderstood, but I now see that it's been updated since last time I read it. Nonetheless (looking for the first time at the updated version) I think it still calls for punctuation inside quotemarks much less than lots of people think. Here's a crucial sentence: "If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark. When quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark." So it's not just a matter of whether the punctuation is in the original source; it needs to be in the original source and you need to be quoting "a full sentence" rather than a "sentence fragment" or "single word". So If I am quoting my own comment above, it would be I said "that's all for now". or I said "Thanks, that's all for now." Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've finished reading through the article now, and I think it reads really well. I did make some more changes which I invite you to review. I had a very quick look at Google Scholar, are there seem to be a good few articles that are 1) Primarily about LIT; 2) Widely cited and/or in journals from major publishers; 3) Not cited in this article. As such, I wonder if there may be a few more things to pull in. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks again for your comments about the article and your copyedits to it. I also appreciate your advice about punctuation around quotations. In relation to your comment about Google Scholar, I did conduct a reasonably exhaustive review of the literature about the film before writing the article, during which I read the academic articles you are referring to. It is my evaluation that the points being made in those articles (which were excluded from the Wikipedia page), while in my personal view are very interesting and valid, are generally not representative of the broader focus and discussion about the film in the total literature. While Google lists a fair number of cites for a couple of them, those cites seem to appear in articles that are primarily about such topics as general film theory rather than about LIT itself (the excluded pieces are broadly uncited in the articles that explore the film directly, or they were published later). Overall, there was therefore a concern about giving them undue weight. In relation to the other points you brought above, I think I have addressed everything you mentioned, including now adding descriptions for the commentators cited throughout the article. Thank you for your advice and feel free to let me know about any further thoughts you have about the article's current state. NTox · talk 00:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a very compelling article. I'm watching the page to see if other reviewers identify any problems I may have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some details in the infobox/lead need sourcing - eg the Japanese release date and the direct quotes

Done. NTox · talk

• "In the bonus features of the film's 2004 DVD" - can we have a full citation for this?

I believe you're referring to a citation of the DVD itself, where folks can verify the bonus features. Added. Let me know if this is not what we are looking for. NTox · talk

• FN3: what makes this a high-quality reliable source? FN4? FN46?

Thanks for the questions. About FN3 (now FN8), this was a source I found cited by several academics in scholarly journals. Effectively, it is a transcription of an interview with the film's director, so the reliability of course is more simply contingent upon whether or not we believe the director's words were transcribed faithfully (the source also indicates the author was permitted in the interview with a group of journalists). I wouldn't use it to support any kind of research or commentary. Feel free to let me know what you think. About FN4 (now FN9), I did check WP:RSP prior to including it and saw that the publisher is effectively listed as reliable depending upon context. I decided to include it because the source indicates that the author is listed as a member of the San Diego Film Critics Society and the source is also effectively a transcription of an interview and is not used to support any other commentary. Replaced FN46 with a stronger source already used in the article (FN33). NTox · talk

For FN3, what do we know about the author's background? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The author is described by an art store where his work was sold as a filmmaker who has screened at various film festivals including Palm Springs IFF. He is also characterized as a contributor to The New York Times and a contemporary artist who has curated or shown work at various museums including the Walker Art Center. NTox · talk

• FN7: page? Ditto FN26, check for others

Unfortunately, I only have HTML text copies of those sources (now FN12 and FN31), so I do not have page numbers. I note that academics who have also cited these sources have also omitted page numbers in their bibliographies, so I cannot piggy-back from there. The same applies to the other stories by The Hollywood Reporter. It is possible they were never published in print (only online). NTox · talk

Where did you get these HTML copies from? Are they available online? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Many years ago, I added some material to this article and I had downloaded the HTML text of the Hollywood Reporter articles when they were accessible online. There now doesn't appear to be any record of them. I have searched extensively in search engines, on the Hollywood Reporter website, and at the Internet archive services, and have come up with nothing. NTox · talk

• Be consistent in whether you include publishers and ISSNs for periodicals

Good call. In truth, I would prefer to remove the ISSNs as they don't seem to be necessary. Would it be acceptable if I went ahead and removed them? NTox · talk

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed. NTox · talk

• FN41 is returning an error

(Now FN44) Unfortunately, I am unable to reproduce the error on my end, or at least I don't see it. NTox · talk

• FN59 is missing publication date, and the link provided matches the publication details of FN60

Thanks. Added the date for FN60 (now FN61). For FN59 (now FN60), the article does not contain a date, but it does appear on the same web page as the former article. Since the two articles are written by different people and appear to be distinct, I have kept the date out, as I am not sure it was published at the same time as the former article. Let me know if you have a thought here. NTox · talk

• FN79 is missing publication date. Ditto FN80, check for others

Added dates for FN79 (now FN80) and FN80 (now FN81), as well as a couple others found. NTox · talk

• Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed repeated sources. NTox · talk

@Nikkimaria: Thanks so much for your comments. I made some corrections and responded to a few points above. I appreciate your time greatly. NTox · talk 02:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from HĐ

Kudos for improving the article--it looks much more informative and in shape than the last time I checked out the article less than a year ago when I first saw the movie. Will be happy to give my support after I've checked for any remaining issues with the article, HĐ (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: Thank you for your initial kind words. I look forward to any feedback you provide. NTox · talk 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here are some prose issues that I've found so far after reading up to the "Production" section:

• I think it's better to explain "run-and-gun" because it's a strange term for the common, non-enthusiast person
• Ditto with "indie-style"

Thanks for the advice. I should note that these are quotations of the filmmakers ("run-and-gun") and an indie film scholar ("indie-style"), so I suppose the idea was to convey their own characterizations of the situations they describe. Do you think it would be more effective if we described those situations in our own words? NTox · talk

I think it's okay to replace the quotations i.e. "indie style" → "promoted largely through word of mouth before its theatrical release" or something like that. In my opinion, the lead should usually avoid quotes, with a few exceptions like iconic/historic statements, which is not the case here. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that feedback. Replaced. NTox · talk

• "One such reading is made by Todd McGowan"; "Another reading is posited from a feminist perspective by Lucy Bolton" Can these be changed into something like "... is from Todd McGowan", because as far as I know passive voice is often discourged?

Good call. I made a change to active voice for those statements here Let me know if you have any thoughts. NTox · talk

Sorry to butt in, but can you make or posit a reading? You can offer or defend one, certainly. propose perhaps. I'm not certain, but those are certainly not words I would use. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Not a problem. I have seen 'posit' used in this way before, but I am not opposed to modifying it. See [15] or feel free to make an edit there if you prefer. NTox · talk 16:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• "which offers an empty promise of gratification" I'm not sure what this means

For this scholar, the idea is that all of the "excess" attractions of Tokyo profess to offer folks like Bob and Charlotte all of this fulfillment and satisfaction, but that is all essentially nonsense. NTox · talk

Thanks for the explanation. HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• The rest is fine writing. I really enjoyed reading the "Narrative" subsection. HĐ (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: Thanks for the encouragement and your thoughts on the article so far. NTox · talk 05:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Coppola spent many years traveling to Tokyo" Does this mean that Coppola travelled to Tokyo on many occasions, or she spent many years living in Tokyo?

Interviews indicate that she traveled to the city on many occasions. Clarified. NTox · talk

• "Among the first images she included was of her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen", which Coppola saw him perform earlier" → by "earlier" do you mean around the time she was writing the script, or the time when she felt lost wondering around Tokyo? Also I think non-notable person names should be omitted (I'm not sure though), and it can be replaced with "a Japanese friend of hers"

Thanks for the tips. She saw the karaoke performance during the period in which she worked in Japan. Clarified. I did leave Fumihiro Hayashi's name in as I believe in this context he is somewhat significant--he is one of the few actors in the film, previously listed in the article's Cast section, with enough significance to have been given 'billing' status by the production (reserved for prominent actors of a film) on the film's poster. NTox · talk

• Full names and wikilinks to Coppola, Murray and Johansson can be included in the caption (not a case of overlink imo)

Added. NTox · talk

I've finished reading through the article, and the prose is great! I can see someone will express concerns over the lack of scholarly sources, but that's not a major problem to me, since I also personally find items on Google Scholars not really helpful in adding substance. Well done and good luck with the FAC, HĐ (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@HĐ: I appreciate your comments and your support. I made some revisions and responded to some of your points above. I should note that most of the Analysis section actually is based on scholarly sources--overall, the goal was to provide the appropriate balance between all of the commentary and types of sources that discussed this film. I appreciate your time and thank you again for your feedback. NTox · talk 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the image review list to get one... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Damien Linnane

I was a little nervous taking on this review, noting the current 'C' class status of the article. But I think you've really hammered home the fact you technically don't need an article to be a GA before it is nominated for FAC. I'm really impressed with the writing, especially the Themes section, and also your utilisation of notes. Here are my concerns. Feel free to discuss instead of making changes if you disagree.

• "The screenplay was short and the director ..." Usually I actually like elevar but I don't think it works here. I'd just use her last name instead of 'the director'.

Done. NTox · talk

• 'she described it as "a huge relief"' - I'm not sure if this needs to be a direct quote. It's not an unusual or unexpected reaction. Personally I'd considered just wording it in a manner that doesn't require quoting at all.

Done. Let me know if you think a further change would be better. NTox · talk

• "Coppola whispered names in the photographer's ear—such as "Roger Moore"—and Murray improvised reactions" - can you make this clearer? You've lost me. Why is she whispering actors names? Is it supposed to be an example of a completely random things to whisper? Or in this instance is it a prompt for him to imitate that actor?

That is a compelling point. I rephrased the sentence for clarification. NTox · talk

• "but it prompted the restaurant owner to feel disrespected and disconnect the crew's lights" - this needs rewording. How about "but it prompted the restaurant owner to feel disrespected; he subsequently disconnect the crew's lights

Done. NTox · talk

• "had numerous discussions about shooting on video" - is there a good wikilink for 'video' in this context? Personally I have no idea what the difference is between shooting in film and video, so I find this confusing.

Good point. I wikilinked to Digital cinematography. The difference essentially refers to the medium to which the content is recorded. Shooting on film means the content is recorded to a film strip, whereas shooting on video means it's recorded to storage like a hard drive. NTox · talk

• "rating the stock at ISO 1200" - what does that mean? Is it customary to talk about cameras and film using terms the average person would probably not understand? That question isn't rhetorical; I'm honesty curios.

On reflection, I believe this is unnecessary technical detail. It is now removed. 'Rating' film stock basically refers to the extent to which you consider its sensitivity to light. If you rate it high, you consider it to be sensitive, so you will shoot with less light. If you rate it low, you consider it to be insensitive, so you will shoot with more light. NTox · talk

• "challenge he felt in songwriting for a movie" - would 'film' be more appropriate than 'movie' here?

Thanks for catching that. Changed. NTox · talk

• "and then it was expanded again" - would "though it was expanded again" work better here?

Done. NTox · talk

Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thank you for evaluating the article and for your kind words and suggestions. I have made changes to the article and left responses above. Let me know what you think and feel free to make an edit to the page directly if you feel it necessary. Thanks again for your comments. NTox · talk 07:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Changes look good; happy to support. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the graph. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the advice. The graph is now scaled up a bit more. Let me know if that and the rest of the images now pass your review. NTox · talk 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2020 [16].

---

Iwan Roberts

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Something of a journeyman Welsh footballer, and certainly held in high esteem, nay legend status, by Norwich City supporters, the push on this article has been a joint effort between the two nominators, one of whom is not a Norwich supporter so was able to introduce some balance. It's been a long time in the making, we first started expansion around nine years ago, but we're hoping to finish the job properly and push it over the FAC line. Both Dweller and I will do our utmost to address every comment and query raised here, and we both thank you in advance for your time and effort. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kosack

• Hugman's lists a single cap for Wales B. If you know the year of the match he scored in, could be worth adding to the infobox.

  Indeed, added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "started at Watford where he started as a", slightly repetitive with started perhaps.

   Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Link Premier League in the second paragraph of the lead.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "one of the greatest goal scorers ever to pull on a Norwich City shirt", I don't see this quote anywhere else in the article so it needs a source.

  Great spot. Page is defunct, so I cut it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Link available for Tom Walley.

  Oh, good spot, thanks.  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know when he made his professional debut?

  I just spent an age and couldn't find the answer anywhere. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  29 March 1986 according to this site, which I trust. Repeated here on the site of the now-deceased Watford historian Trefor Jones. So he made his professional debut before he got a pro-contract. HornetMike (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fab, thanks, added. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Worth having the full team name for "future Norwich manager, Glenn Roeder", as the first mention of City in the main body?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "There they lost to Peterborough" > Peterborough United?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comma by ref 16 but appears to start a new sentence afterwards?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Link the first mention of hat-trick in the Leicester City section. It's currently linked at the start of the Wolverhampton section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Stoke > Stoke City?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "due to the arrogant, ungrateful and violent mentality and behaviour of many of their supporters", I know you have "in his book" but it sounds a little like this is written as fact, rather than his opinion. Perhaps this can be made slightly clearer given the rather damning nature of the quote?

  Yeah, agreed on this. HornetMike (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

   Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  I can't see any obvious difference here? Kosack (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Kosack, yeah, the change isn't so obvious, see the humungous cite, that includes a long verbatim quote. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• As a newspaper, does Eastern Daily Press require italics?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "However, Walker was sacked at the end of the season", two consecutive sentences starting with however is slightly repetitive. This one would be fine without it I would say.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Link Nottingham Forest, the first mention of Carrow Road and Birmingham City in the Norwich section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the opening two sentences of the Gillingham section there is a double mention of joining Gillingham that reads oddly.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 13 has an author available.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 34 doesn't seem to be accessible, even the archive link.

  Works for me, albeit incredibly slowly. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I believe succession boxes were ditched for listing the captaincy of players sometime ago. Not a deal breaker for me, but someone else may bring it up.

  Happy to fall in line, sucboxes... suck. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what stood out to me on a run through, nothing much for me to really complain about. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Kosack. We'll get stuck into that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, cheers Kosack. I've done the easy ones and left a few scraps for Dweller so he feels like he's still involved..... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack, I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I'm very busy IRL. All your comments should now be addressed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, real life takes precedence. I've had another read through and picked out a few more things:

• Link Liverpool in the early life section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Tom Walley is linked in the quote in the Norwich section but is mentioned before this, in the early life section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd agree that the Watford section feels a little light. The club suffered relegation in a season he featured pretty prominently in, but his appearances dropped dramatically in the second tier. Even if we can't provide too much context, these are probably worth mentioning.

  I've added some more detail into the Watford section now if you'd like to check that it meets with your approval? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Huddersfield section mentions his side suffered a defeat in the 1991-92 season play-offs, but the career statistics table indicates a promotion (Third Division (3) > Second Division (2))? I'm assuming the table is wrong for the Premier League breakaway?

  Yes, error in table tier due to Prem break. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Leciester > Leicester

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Was Roberts one of the substitutes brought on in the Midlands derby?

  No. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• with eleven goals > 11 goals?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Roberts scored just four goals in most of a season", I'm not really understanding what's meant by this sentence.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "During the 2002–03 season, Roberts captained the Norwich City team", this paragraph goes back to including City in Norwich's name. Is that necessary by this point?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Roberts scored twice as City won 3–1.[54] Roberts described..." Double use of Roberts in quick succession is a little repetitive.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "He failed to be selected for Wales again until 2000", failed to be selected sounds a little odd and reads a little like it was down to him playing badly. What about "He was not selected"?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "including a single appearance and a goal for the Wales B team" is the second "a" necessary here?

  I changed it to "one" goal. I think it reads ok. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Roberts scored 24 goals and Bellamy 17", I'm assuming this is a typo as the career statistics table has his best season for Norwich as 23 goals?

  Dweller need you to check the book. Probably Iwan mis-remembering. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I can confirm the book says 24. Could be one is disputed. Could be he got it wrong. Could be our other sources are wrong. I'm not sure what to add. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• "fellow Welsh former International legend Danny Gabbidon", legend?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's probably about it for me. Kosack (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack I got to your list, only two things remain, (1) Watford career - we're both still a bit perplexed, there was very little to write home about his time at Watford, is there anything critical missing? (2) Iwan's version of how many goals he thinks he scored, Dweller will need to check the book. Cheers for all your comments! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've checked point 2 and posted about it above. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosack and I've done point (1) with a little bit of helpful guidance from HornetMike on things that could be included. I think that's everything, please let me and Dweller know if there's anything else you'd like us to address. Cheers for all your helpful comments. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me, happy to lend my support. Nice work both. Kosack (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by HornetMike

• It's definitely lore among Watford fans that Roberts lost his teeth at Vicarage Road. Sadly I can't find a cite! It's not even mentioned in this interview which you thought might have addressed it (might have a bit of useful Watford stuff - Colin Lee? Although is that also mentioned in his book?).

  Teeth added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the Watford section there's a full-stop that goes straight into what looks like the second half of a sentence ("before moving...").

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether Midlands should be capped in "midlands derby" - the article about it on here caps it up.

  I'll fix that, thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a way you could combine the things Wolves fans spat at so you don't get repetition of the phrase within a sentence? Also maybe worth mentioning who Jack Hayward was?

   Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's going on with the paragraph that begins "He played eight games in Division One before finally breaking his league duck ..." - the first few sentences don't make much sense to me.

  Yeah, it's a direct quote but I would be tempted to re-write it into prose because it's mainly a statement of statistical facts, and perhaps only quote the "good heart" bit, what do you think Dweller? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Phoo yuck, I really didn't do a good job there. I've tidied it up and hopefully it's far better for it, thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would lose the quote about "the flourishing talent" of Craig Bellamy as it's unclear where it comes from. You could say he was 19-years-old (he's a July birthday, so was for all that season) to denote he was youthful.

  I've attributed the quote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry to nitpick, and feel free to disagree, but reading now it almost makes Craig Bellamy sound like something existential! I'd personally still lose the quote, but up to you! HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I reduced the quote to just "flourishing talent" but I don't think this is existential. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say "first four years" rather than "four years so far".

  Adjusted per your recommendation. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• "but misses by Phil Mulryne and Daryl Sutch proved costly" - given it was a penalty shoot-out they were immediately costly, I think "proved costly" better suits a scenario where a miss might be of no consequence (and possibly occurred some time prior to the conclusion), whereas in a shoot-out a miss almost always hurts you.

  Mild re-wording done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Did Roberts formally give up the captaincy after 2002-03 or did he just gradually lose it by virtue of not playing much? If the former might be worth mentioning?

  I don't know of anyone who "formally" gives up being captain. Unless they do something particularly stupid. Perhaps Dweller has something on this, but I would just class it as business as usual to give the captaincy to the most appropriate person at the time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know. I've not seen anything in the sources. IIRC (which I may not!) in those days, the captaincy of NCFC was fairly informal, not like the ridiculous situation these days when Norwich have an official fifth captain or something similarly stupid. It's not like cricket captaincy that's actually important. Anyway, rant aside, I don't know of RS on this I'm afraid. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ha, yeah, I always remove anything beyond vice, the rest is unverifiable! What I meant here really was perhaps not so much did he himself give it up, did Norwich name someone else for the following season (sometimes clubs announce it), or did it just drift over to someone else by virtue of Roberts not playing much? HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  There are no sources that I have found which expand upon this relatively minor issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• In 2003-04 it says Roberts was no longer an automatic selection for the first-team, but then I noticed he only missed five league matches. Did he make most of his appearances from the bench? If so, would it be worth articulating that?

  Indeed, 2/3 of his appearances came in the last 20 minutes or so... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I added some text around that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thinking about it, is "automatic selection" wording we should definitely use? Obviously there are players in every squad who you'd expect to start if fit, but if you take the term literally you could conceivably infer something different. Might "regular starter" cover things better? I don't know, might be overly pedantic! HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Regular starter indeed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know how long he served as Gillingham caretaker manager/what the results were like?

  List of Gillingham F.C. managers (I know, not RS) says one game. Which they lost. The source in the article only mentions one game. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe something ChrisTheDude can help with? HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  OK, This confirms that John Gorman quit as Gills manager on 30 November and this confirms that Stan Ternent was appointed seven days later. this says that Roberts was caretaker for the only game in that seven day period (Soccerbase or similar can be used to confirm that the team only played one game in that timespan), although This confirms that he was actually one of a committee (for want of a better word) asked by the chairman to fulfill that role. Hope this helps...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  BTW thanks for bringing up "happy" memories of that godawful season ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning the following: Graham Taylor's departure in 1987 (given he's mentioned as a reason for joining Watford), his breakthrough season in 1988-89 when Watford reached the second tier play-offs (so I suppose you'd have to mention in passing our relegation the previous year too!), that he dropped a division to join Huddersfield, that he moved up a tier when joining Leicester, that in moving to Wolves he missed out on a return to the Premier League, that he reached the play-offs with Wolves, maybe that he remained in the same tier in moving to Norwich/Gillingham/dropped two tiers when joining Cambridge (but I wouldn't want the prose to become too clunky).

  Expanded the Watford section... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thing all those divisional moves are covered in prose now with the exception of Wolves (you can infer he stayed in the same tier with Norwich as it says he made his debut against Wolves). WatfordArchive says that Roberts started (and was subbed off) in both 1989 play-off matches, don't know if you want to mention that? HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well only if "watfordfcarchive.co.uk" is agreed to be RS which per the source review, it was not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Similarly, any point in putting footnotes in the season stats to clarify that the Second Division became the First Division which became the Championship/the Third Division became the Second.

  No I think now we have the level in the table in parentheses, we don't need to try to cover the nuances of league nomenclature in this (and thus possibly tens of thousands of) BLPs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• The prose switches between saying Premier League and Premiership, while the stats table uses the former. I think whenever he played in it, it was called the Premiership?

  Prose (other than direct quotations) uses Premiership now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what I think about the book section. Had it been published post-retirement I'd say it should be sub-section of his post-playing career, but it wasn't so I can see why you've felt the need to have it as a headline section. I don't really think it justifies a mention in the lead, but then I can see why you might feel it does given it has its own section. I suppose an alternative might be calling the post-playing section "media and post-playing career"? If you do keep a main book section, I think it would better titled as simply "autobiography", the praise is fairly standard review stuff and it may be semantics but I always think you need to hit a higher bar to cause "a controversy" (as opposed to something containing controversial comments) - hope that (and the rest of it) makes sense! HornetMike (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I dithered a bit about the placement of the section. It did attract headlines because of the ban and its perceived unfairness, both on Gillingham and in contrast to the treatment of more feted footballers. Agree about retitling the section, but it's not actually an "autobiography": although it includes significant autobiographical detail, it does so in the framework of a season diary, which is why we've found awkward gaps [pun intended]. I think I'll have to change it to the book's title. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good stuff. thanks, we'll get stuck in. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

HornetMike I think we've addressed and/or responded to all of your comments above. Thanks once again for your very helpful and constructive review. Let us know if there's anything else you find. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC) (and Dweller)

Sorry for the delay in response, thanks for looking through all that. I've added a couple of (probably overly pedantic) in-line comments and some quibbles to follow, but looks good to me, happy to support. HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is it worthwhile having the "nicknamed the Hornets" in order to use it as a one-time second-mention in "He scored nine goals in 63 league matches in total for the Hornets". I think using Watford in that sentence is fine, the word isn't being used too often.

  Nick removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• "...Taylor left the club to join Aston Villa. He broke through in the following season..." The second sentence returns to talking about Roberts when the previous one was talking about Taylor - as such, should probably say "Roberts" rather than "he".

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Accidental cap O in Roberts at the start of the Wolves section.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a cite for there being much speculation about his post-Norwich career move?

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Of all teams Roberts could have made his debut against, it turned out to be Ipswich, Norwich's local rivals." The first part of this sentence seems a bit lively for Wikipedia! I think you can just say "on debut he was booked after five seconds against Ipswich, Norwich's local rivals" and people would get the picture.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Wales section said he was leading scorer for Huddersfield in the first division, but they were in the third. I might also be inclined to say two and half years rather than "more than two" and you could perhaps mention Malcolm Allen was his former Watford teammate, but neither are essential.

  Fixed division issue, other suggestions not adopted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

HornetMike cheers. Would you mind changing your header to reflect your support just to give the co-ordinators an easier time? Thanks. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

Hello guys, its been a while. Lets see if I can remember how this place works.

• Would expect to see his international career addressed in the lead.

  Added a sentence. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Losing his teeth - presumably occurred playing football?
• Roberts went up and down divisions a few times in his career, and its not always clear what level he was playing at. For example his Watford debut was in the top flight, moving to Huddersfield was a step down to play more.

  That's a great comment. The Rambling Man, what do you think of adding a column in the table in the Legacy and career statistics section, that states what tier of English football each season was at that time? It's confusing even for English football cognoscenti, must be a minefield for anyone else. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't add a column, but I added some information in parentheses in the table and a sectional footnote. Is that enough m'lord? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  I like it. What do you think, Oldelpaso? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• The section about Wales is a bit disjointed, perhaps because his international career itself was. It'd be good to have some passages that put it into context. Was there a run of form that prompted call-ups? Injuries to regulars?

  I'm not sure I'd call it disjointed, indeed if it was scattered through the domestic career it would be a nightmare to follow. I'll have a look to see if there's anything in the contemporaneous press about his form/selection. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Playing style is always bound by what's in the sources for a journeyman. That said, there's a reference to him being part of a "big man, litte man" partnership, but the only place his height is mentioned is the infobox. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Height is mentioned in the prose now, as part of another reviewer's comments to alleviate the use of citations in the infobox. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Girth Summit

Sports articles are not my usual bag, so some of my comments below might well be out of step with our norms - feel free to disregard any that are tosh.

• Since the condition of his teeth is a significant-enough part of his persona for him to refer to it in the title of his autobiography, I wonder whether that could be expanded upon slightly - as Oldelpaso says, I assume that it happened playing football, but it would be nice if we could confirm that.

  Teeth covered! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Norwich City section, second paragraph - He'd -> He had

  Gah, avoid contractions. Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Are we generally OK with phrases like 'clinically taken headed goal'? That seems a bit figurative/journalistic to my eye.

  No, replaced with "header". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is it normal to use nicknames - like the Canaries - to refer to the names of teams without explaining who it refers to?

  No, that's been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Gillingham and Cambridge United - perhaps link 'booked' to Penalty_card#Yellow_card?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Link Craig Bellamy on first mention

  Appears to have been done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it from an initial read-through. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I think we've covered your comments, could you let us know? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Looking good. One more thought - do you think we should distance ourselves a bit further from Roberts's description of Wolves fans, perhaps with the insertion of a 'what he describes as' before the stuff about their arrogant etc behaviour? I realise we start the sentence with an attribution, but since the comments are so strong I wonder if we should be extra careful in our wording? I'll leave that to your discretion, I'm happy to support this for FA. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks, I'll talk it over with Dweller as I share your concerns on that one quote. Would you be able to change your section heading to say support if possible? Cheers, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, done. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P

Of course! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% familiar with BLPs at FAC, but I'd assume it's pretty much the same as the regular BLP policies, so if I see anything I'll bring it up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Watford as a trainee - trainee? I've never heard that term used in football before. Was he never an amateur? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's a common term in association football in the UK. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• overcame a weak start - how so? You mean he didn't score many goals? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well this is expanded upon in the main body, "weak" here covers the fans' perception of his general performances, including not scoring many goals. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• two goals in his final game as Norwich achieved promotion to the Premier League and he was elected to the Norwich City F.C. Hall of Fame. - this does make it feel like he was elected the moment after his final game? I'd rephrase. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since retiring as a player, Roberts, who speaks fluent Welsh - considering he is Welsh, is this even worth mentioning? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sure it is, many people born in Wales don't speak fluent Welsh. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the citations in the infobox could be put into prose - specifically the full name and date of birth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  All have been moved. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• To me, signing a contract at 18, and within two months scoring a goal against United seems pretty incredible. Was there no feedback about his debut? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not really, United weren't that great at the time. Anyway, I've added a bit more detail around tehe goal. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The watford section seems a little light, he did make 63 appearances there, afterall. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Watford section has now been expanded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• , Peter Withe:[12] - not sure we need this citation, as it's duplicated at the end of the sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• [16][17][18][19] - could we maybe bundle these citations? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Bundling doesn't work when those references are re-used elsewhere in the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe worth describing/linking "derby". Especially as the first use is very close to Derby County. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• The first para of Leicester doesn't make much sense to me - why does he regret not scoring the hat-trick (more notable than any other win)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not for us to say, it's his opinion. I guess he wanted to score a second-half hat-trick to win the game? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• As recently as 2017, this achievement is still recalled in a chant by Leicester City fans. - any expansion on this? I don't get the relevance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  I guess the relevance is that fans still sing a song about a single (quick) hat-trick that was scored two decades ago makes it notable? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1993–94 play-off final, which Leicester won - perhaps mention the score, this is a very significant match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Added score, opposition and improved the link to an article which (eventually) be a lot better than it currently is...! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• but Roberts was top scorer - I'm asuming he was the top scorer for the club - not the league, right? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, added. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, to that point, how many goals? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Added that too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Although it was reported that Roberts had recovered from injury, - what injury? He wasn't swamped by performers, right? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  The source doesn't mention that. The point I guess is that it was unusual that one of the better players was fit and available for selection but didn't even make the bench. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• one hat-trick for the club in a match against their local rivals West Bromwich Albion in the Black Country derby,[29] and, overall, scored 12 goals in 33 games - perhaps say that he scored 12 goals in 33 games in the season, including.... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thus re-worded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is that all that happened in Wolves? I think this could be expanded somewhat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wolves section has now been expanded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Walker was sacked at the end of the season, and Roberts blames himself for this happening – a result of his lack of goals.[31] Roberts himself has ascribed his slow start to his lack of physical conditioning. Walker left the club shortly before the end of the season and was replaced during the summer by Bruce Rioch. During pre-season training, Roberts weighed in at 15 stone 3 pounds (97 kg), with a body fat ratio of 16–17%, when his "fighting weight" should have been "just under 14 stone with around 13 per cent body fat." - is this cited to the ref after the next quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Aye. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• "in partnership with the flourishing talent of Craig Bellamy" - did Roberts say this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, that was the EDP, thus attributed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Roberts was known for scoring a high proportion of his goals with his head. - perhaps "proportion of his goals as headers" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sort of. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• playing up-front with Bellers - playing up-front with [Bellamy] - not everyone is making that connection. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski I believe we've addressed and/or responded to all of your comments. Thanks for your review! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I think so, I'm happy here, unless someone drags up something major I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review: pass

Formatting and consistency

• Why do some book sources use short citations, and others long? See "Bellamy 2013, pp. 46–50" compared with "Hugman, Barry J., ed. (2005). The PFA Footballers' Who's Who 2005/2006. Harpenden: Queen Anne Press. p. 348. ISBN 1-85291-662-1." – Be consistent.

  If a book is used more than once with different page(s), it appears as a short citation, if it's used just once, it appears long. That's consistent. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  But "Bellamy 2013" is only used once? Harrias ^talk 11:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Addressed now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Mark ref #5 ("Diary of a footballing nomad") as |url-status=dead so that the archive link is the more prominent. Actually: ref #67, "Roberts, Iwan (10 May 2005)" appears to be the same as ref #5, but with a working link and more details.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Add a publisher for ref #8 "Bodell, Tom (24 September 2013)".

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Give Matt Rowson author credit for ref #12 "Iwan Roberts scored his first senior goal 28 years ago today when Watford beat Manchester United"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #25, "Ross, James M." has a last updated date at the bottom of the page, add this as the date of publication.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #33, "Former Player Remembers: Iwan Roberts", add the author details.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason ref #35 quotes the article, where most other references do not?

  Not really but I don't see any harm being done here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #39 needs a space after the full-stop at the end. Ideally, it would be split into its own "Notes" section, but that isn't a requirement.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent about whether you list Centurycomm as the publisher for Soccerbase; some references do, and other don't.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Close the quotation marks in ref #46 (Roberts 2004, pp. 35–36)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #51, "Roberts 2004, pp. 62–3" the page range should be "62–63"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #63, "Roberts joins Gills", looks like WalesOnline should be added as the work.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #66, "Roberts makes 'bitter' Gills exit", and ref #70, "Roberts makes 'bitter' Gills exit" are the same.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #68, "Iwan Roberts – In Focus", Andrea Thrussell appears to be the author.

  Indeed, that's already there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ummm, it's not. Oh, I see. This (now ref #67) is a duplicate of ref #2, but with missing details. Merge needed. Harrias ^talk 11:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: This one is still outstanding. Harrias ^talk 14:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Harrias done now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #69, "Cambridge United Potted History" says that it is from "15 July 2007", but the archive date is 13 days earlier, "2 July 2007", and the last updated date on the page itself is "6 December 2006".

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #83, "Hodgkinson, Mark (22 October 2004)" doesn't work, just goes to the Torygraph home page for me.

  Indeed, that's deader than dead. Dweller may need to locate a new one. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like it is this one? Again, a subscription tag will be needed. Harrias ^talk 14:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Lovely, replaced and padlock added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #84, "Gaustad, John (2 October 2004)", add |url-access=subscription tag.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, you also need to do that for all the BNA references.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #86, "Iwan hoping for Town party too!", I'm not sure where "icHuddersfield" comes from? Looks like "YorkshireLive" to me?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref #97, "Rollin (ed.). Rothmans Football Yearbook 1994–95" is missing a lot of details, but I assume it is the same book as ref #31?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Davage, Mark; Eastwood, John; Platt, Kevin (2001). Canary Citizens." seems to be listed, but not used?

  Hidden for now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality and coverage

• What makes wfc.net a reliable source?

  As TRM says just below, HornetMike's expert say-so - see above, 08:54, 20 July 2020 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll rephrase this. To me, this looks like a self-published source, or at least one with no clear editorial oversight. As such, I need convincing that it meets the FACR 1c requirement for "high-quality reliable sources". Harrias ^talk 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Commented out and rephrased article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes "Watford Archive" a reliable source?

  HornetMike, you recommended the use of these, would you be kind enough to explain to Harrias why they can be considered RS? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hi, Watford Archive is the site of the now-deceased Watford historian Trefor Jones, who wrote several books on the club (see Watford F.C. cites). The database behind wfc.net was created from Jones's match research, its focus is therefore a bit narrower. I can see why you might not fancy wfc.net on my say so, but I think Watford Archive definitely stands up on its own. HornetMike (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  As above for this one. Harrias ^talk 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Commented out and rephrased article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes "My Football Writer" a reliable source?

  It's a credited extract from the book, with the approval of the authors. I think it's reliable for what it claims. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Add information on the extract into the citation to make this clearer. Harrias ^talk 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Added a "via" and a first/last. If you want something different, could you let me know explicitly please? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes "Good news for Norwich" a reliable source?

Not convinced it is. It's a Norfolk Christian news website. It's a fairly minor claim. We could remove the claim altogether if you prefer, I find nothing else on it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If it can't be cited elsewhere, then it should be removed, yes. Harrias ^talk 08:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Harrias ^talk 07:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias I've done the "technical" ones bar one dead link, Dweller can make the cases for the RS queries, and hopefully find a replacement for the dead one. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias okay, first pass done (apart from the RS), ready when you are for any more "technical" issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That looks to be it on formatting and consistency, I think it is mostly waiting on the RS queries. Harrias ^talk 15:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias I think your comments have been adressed. Do let me know if there's anything else, cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I'm happy that this meets the FA sourcing criteria. I can't remember if I said, but obligatory notice that I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias ^talk 13:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Harrias --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

More formatting from Noswall59

I hope you (TRM and Harrias) don't mind if I chime in with some further formatting queries.

• Refs 1, 9 to Hugman (2005): shouldn't these be Harvard style as per the logic above?

  I'm going to revise these all I think, and use {{sfn}} instead. I'll let you know when I'm done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

  Just a note that refs #1 and #9 are different books, so discussion above about Harvard style need not apply. Harrias ^talk 13:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• All of the books are missing publisher locations; I don't know whether this is necessary

  There are lots of fields in the {{cite book}} template that aren't filled in, I think what's there is what's required to be able to suitably identify the source in order to verify each claim. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 74: remove rogue asterisk before the author's name

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• it's normal practice (and certainly easier for navigation purposes) to have a sub-header for the citations and another for the books cited (i.e. bibliography)

  I've seen it both ways in FAs, but it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• in some footnotes, the article titles are in sentence case, but in others each word is capitalised (e.g., refs 10, 51, 56, 66, 80, 88, 44, 33, 32, 25 all have mixed capitalisation or capitalise each word in article titles).

  Usually follow the source unless it's all capitalised in which case it's reduced down to sentence case. It's primarily to ensure avoidance of linkrot so I see no major issue. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Should 11v11 simply be cited as 11v11 rather than 11v11.com (the BBC is not cited as bbc.co.uk)?

  Not wed it, removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikilink Express and Star (other paper names and websites are wikilinked).

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why are some websites italicised and others not (e.g. Soccerbase, but not BBC Sport)?

  Convention really. I've always considere BBC Sport to be a publisher. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wikilink WalesOnline to Media Wales#WalesOnline

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 35: there are nested double quotes; use double quotes then single quotes. There is also an asterisk after the word "blooming" which appears to be rogue

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 39: needs a space before "Roberts".

  Done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure Harrias will mention this (unless I'm being ignorant about the quality of this source of course – football is not my forté), but what makes 11v11 a reliable source?

  It's published by the Association of Football Statisticians and is considered reliable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC).

Noswall59 cheers, I've responded to all the points above, one major outstanding issue which I won't be able to address until this evening. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man thanks. I've just made a few minor tweaks. All looks good to me now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC).

Image review—pass

Image licensing and placement are suitable, no issues (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, buidhe --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I think we're done here? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@Oldelpaso and HornetMike: How are things looking to you? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We have tried this (I pinged HornetMike on 30 July and Dweller pinged Oldelpaso on 28 July), but both are pretty much semi-retired, Mike has made 250 edits in the last 2.5 years while Oldelpaso took more than seven years to rack up his last 250 contribs... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

TRM... oddly enough, I did see the pings, but yes, it's just part of being a coord to do my own pings. Sometimes pings from a coord get more response than ones for other editors. I appreciate your attempts to help out ... and mostly they work fine, but please do let the coords do their own pings and other stuff as they see fit. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No need for exasperation, I don't see a good reason why any one ping is more likely to have an impact than any other to be frank, but hey. Another week's wait I guess. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to wait another week. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am hoping it won't be more than a day or two. Assuming that my sinuses don't make me sick again. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2020 [17].

---

Siamosaurus

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is on a mysterious genus of semiaquatic dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of what is now Thailand. If it passes review, it will be Wikipedia's fifth spinosaurid FA, probably our longest article on an animal known only from teeth, and the second FA on a dinosaur tooth taxon after Dromaeosauroides. Though fragmentary in nature and potentially dubious, hope you'll find this an interesting read and a good example of how much we can glean about ancient life from even the tiniest pieces of fossil material. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Thanks in advance! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I had my say at the peer review. Incredible how much that can be written about a bunch of teeth. Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing, maybe it's an overstatement to say "Annotated skull diagram of the closely related Spinosaurus", considering their distance in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, PaleoGeekSquared, might be in order to notify projects or ping potential reviewers about this nomination, since it is getting a bit far down the list... FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Woah, hadn't even realised this had been here for one and a half months already, probably due to the length and technical nature of the article. - perhaps Casliber, Lusotitan, or IJReid would be willing? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Lythronaxargestes and Dunkleosteus77? FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

My hands are a bit tied with Mosasaurus but I'll see what I can do... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi. I'm not familiar with palaeontology articles, but approaching the subject from a Thailand viewpoint, I wish the History of discovery section would provide a bit more background to help place the fossil within the context of the early discoveries from Phu Wiang during the 1980s–90s. I understand that S. suteethorni was the first ever dinosaur species described from Thailand? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point, if it was indeed the first dinosaur genus named from Thailand (the species but not genus "S." fusuiensis was named before at least), I think it would also warrant mention in the intro. And if fusuiensis was the first species named, that would of course also warrant mention, but we can only do this if there are sources that state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"S." fusuiensis wasn't from Thailand, though? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good point again, I guess my mind got confused after the articles were merged a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked the naming dates of all other Thai dinosaurs and this does seem to be the case; the first bones discovered were of Phuwiangosaurus, but Siamosaurus was the first formally named. I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to locate sources explicitly stating this though, the best I've been able to find is that Siamosaurus is the first reported spinosaurid, which is what is already in the lead and article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Siamosaurus suteethorni model.jpg and File:Siamosaurus suteethorni sculpture Phu Wiang Dinosaur Museum.jpg are marked disputed accuracy at Commons.

Since I was the one recommending to tag them as such, I might as well explain. Images tagged as anatomically inaccurate are still usable in sections about historical or cultural significance. They are not to be used in other sections, though, unless to specifically illustrate outdated ideas. Also pinging PaleoGeekSquared, have you seen the comments above? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• All other images are correctly sourced as appropriate and available under a free license. buidhe 07:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Impressing article, so much for a few teeth!

Look like it's been quiet here for some weeks so many thanks for the review! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• palaeontologists Rubén Molina-Pérez and Asier Larramendi in a 2016 book – I think we have to be more careful with selecting reliable sources. See my points on this particular book here, would be great if you could provide your thoughts there.

I agree that such books, unless cited or mentioned in the scientific literature, are best reserved for uncontroversial info. I've read the Theropods book myself and it seems to have some very speculative or questionable content, such as the section on the running speed of various extinct theropods and dinosauromorphs. I think the size estimates can probably be kept though as long as there's not that many others available and its clarified in text what the type of source is, which I've just done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The size estimates may be an edge case and I do not have a strong opinion on that. But I fear that systematic decision regarding Siamosaurus? fusuiensis that this book made has to be removed. It is not really relevant since it has no bearing on science (it is not a book that can be taken serious and be cited by scientists in the first place). The theropoddatabase, the personal website of Mortimer, is another difficult case, maybe a bit more unclear; the systematic decisions published there are also not cited in the scientific literature at all. I would therefore also argue to exclude them, as systematic decisions are always highly controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Siamosaurus sp. – sp. should not be in italics.

Yeah, realized I was accidentally doing that in multiple articles, looks like I missed one! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• A Siamosaurus tooth found nearby indicates the skeleton may belong to this genus, though this could also represent evidence of scavenging. – Here it is crucial to state if this is a tooth crown or a complete tooth with root. If it was a scavenger, I expect a tooth crown (the root got resorbed and the crown fell out when it was replaced by a new tooth), but if it was from a skeleton, I expect a complete tooth (which fell out, complete with root, only after the death of the animal).

That would definitely be helpful! But I checked the sources again and unfortunately it is just stated that it was a tooth and not really clarified beyond that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• such as a skull or body fossil – body fossil has its own meaning (the opposite of a trace fossil), and the skull is a body fossil.

Reworded to "such as a skull or postcranial skeleton", is that better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Viewed distally (from away from the centre of attachment) – this is misleading. Distal view means the view towards the centre of attachment, as you are looking at the distal end. Just as "anterior view" means "front view".

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• since ceratosaur teeth differ in cross section – can this be more specific? E.g. "are more narrow"?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Spinosaurus aegyptiacus from Egypt, whose fragmentary fossils had been destroyed during World War II. Like Siamosaurus, this African genus – This refers to S. aegyptiacus, which is a species not a genus.

Changed to "taxon". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• that since crocodilian teeth are usually more strongly recurved than spinosaur teeth, they cannot represent the same taxon – I can't follow, which taxon?

Changed to "they can be distinguished from each other". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• may have spread from west to eastern Laurasia—the northernmost supercontinent – "western"? Furthermore, I would use "northern" instead of "northernmost", since it is the only northern supercontinent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm adding this to the urgents list for a third comprehensive review and also to the source reviews list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: how is the source review looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN35 appears to be a children's book - is there no better source supporting this claim? Ditto FN36

Given how obscure this dinosaur is, published size estimates are few in number so these are the best and only good sources I could find. Their authors include dinosaur expert Don Lessem and palaeoartist Jan Sovak (who has illustrated works by scientists such as Phil Currie); and palaeontologists such as Darren Naish and David Martill, so they should be sound in terms of reliability. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why size estimates would be published uniquely in children's books? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not particularly, size estimates can be found both in popular books by palaeontologists (like those by Gregory S. Paul[18] and Thomas Holtz[19]) and journal articles[20][21], so usually it just depends on what might be available for that particular animal. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• What makes theropoddatabase.com a high-quality reliable source?

The author, Mickey Mortimer, has co-authored published, peer reviewed-papers. However I've just removed the second instance where this is cited, since systematic decisions on the assignment of fossil material should probably be reserved for better sources. So this ref is now only citing uncontroversial information that I haven't found anywhere else (the note about the paratypes). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• News sources that have a full publication date, should include that date in their citations

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Internet Archive, if credited, should be credited using |via= not |others=

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• If publication locations are to be included, they should be in the |location= parameter, but this should be consistent

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN13: if no other source has reported on this, don't think it warrants inclusion. However if the citation is kept it needs reformatting

Citation kept as it goes into a bit more detail on Phu Wiang Museum. Reformatting done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Why does that warrant inclusion? (Now 11 and 13 are the same) Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to clarify! FN11 notes that Siamosaurus fossils are housed in Phu Wiang Museum; FN12 mentions fossils are also housed in Sirindhorn museum, as well as the sculpture outside the building; and FN13 mentions the Siamosaurus model inside Phu Wiang museum. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fn12: don't duplicate information between publisher and author parameters

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN9: don't duplicate work title in article title

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN14: can you verify the publication title?

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN17: who hosts this conference?

Added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• be consistent in how you format conference proceedings

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Not fixed. For example FN16 include publisher and location while FN28 includes neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added the location name, but the publisher (SVPCA) would have to be a duplicate of the journal title, which is a required field, so let me know what I should do in this case or if I should use another template. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I see you've added SVPCA, which is fine, but I'm still seeing inconsistencies - for example in FN17 you've shoehorned a bunch of content into the publisher parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've entered the correct publisher and moved that content to a work= parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes ResearchSEA a high-quality reliable source?

Reliable news platform sharing scientific research, turns up numerous hits on Google Scholar[22][23]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Which of those hits do you believe demonstrate its reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Among others, these papers[24][25][26], which cite articles published on ResearchSEA. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• What makes PalArch's a high-quality reliable source?

Reputable Dutch science journal, also heavily cited on Google Scholar[27]. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Which of those hits do you believe demonstrate its reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Same as above[28], and it's also been cited in multiple recent featured dinosaur articles with no doubts about its reliability, including Gallimimus, Dilophosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Segnosaurus, and Irritator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• FNS 31 through 33 should use more specific titles and |publisher=Sirindhorn Museum instead of |website=

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done - "instead of", not both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit stumped on what to do here, could you please clarify? I see only templates for websites, journals, books, news and just the simple basic form, But nothing for 'publisher'? My brain kinda melts when it comes to citation templates so sorry if it's a dumb question. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a separate template, it's a matter of which parameters are being used - each of those templates includes a separate parameter for a publisher versus a work title (website, journal title, etc). Right now both are included in these citations, and what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it, thanks. Removed the 'name of website' parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• How does FN34 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that theses can be used as long as they have undergone sufficient academic rigour, in this case the dissertation was supervised by professors Dr. Thomas Martin and Martin Sander, two respected German palaeontologists. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

What about FN61? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Advised by palaeontologist Gilles Cuny[29][30], professor of palaeontology at the University of Lyon; and Prof. Kumthorn Thirakhupt[31][32][33] at the biology department of Chulalongkorn University. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN37 is missing author forenames and language

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Stopping here and oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Answered all comments Nikkimaria, feel free to give the article a look over if needed to check if any of these were missed. Some were done by Jonesey95 so I've crossed off all the ones they fixed as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Replied to further comments Nikkimaria, with two template-related questions above. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN36 is missing language

Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include accessdate

May I ask which other sources need that parameter? Is it only used for sources that might not be permanently available? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It's only required for web sources that do not include a publication date. You can choose to include it in other circumstances, but you'd need to be consistent. For example, if you chose to include it for newspaper refs such as FN7, it would need to be included for all newspaper refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, removed access dates where not necessary then. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn52: what kind of source is this? Citation does not seem complete. Ditto FN67, FN68, FN69, check for others

Removed unecessary parameters, added missing ones, and changed templates in these citations. Let me know if I missed anything. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Are FNs 67 and 69 meant to be the same source? They are quite differently formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't look like they're the same source though? 67 is "Late Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Continental Ecosystems in SE Asia" and 69 "The phylogeny of Tetanurae (Dinosauria: Theropoda)". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at "The biogeographical significance of the Mesozoic vertebrates from Thailand". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Found it, removed duplicate. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN50 seems to have an incorrect title

Are you sure? Seems to match (I'm assuming it's "Integrating palaeoecology and morphology in theropod diversity estimation: A case from the Aptian-Albian of Tunisia" that you're talking about). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology Programs and Abstracts that's the issue - the source link does not have this as a publication title. (Also this ref is missing pages). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed with a better formatted version of the source from Ichthyovenator. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn60 is missing pages

Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

That page range is too large to be useful. Possibly the two instances of this ref should be split? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Took a look through the source again and managed to find a lower range of pages containing the cited information (140 to 160); hopefully that's better. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN71: that "Special Publications" source has been referenced elsewhere but formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I've checked for other instances of "An early 'ostrich dinosaur' (Theropoda: Ornithomimosauria) from the Early Cretaceous Sao Khua Formation of NE Thailand" but I can't seem to find any duplicates. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Search for "Special Publications". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I found four "Special Publications" references on the article with ctrl + F and they're all separate sources from what I can see. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but from the same publication - why is the publication formatted differently? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it! Fixed and added series= parameter. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Answered further comments, Nikkimaria, with some questions. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support

• The fourth paragraph of history lacks a citation at the end

Looks like I'd accidentally removed it at some point. Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph of classification seems to be written backwards, with specification of the SMK as the first definitive asian taxon coming after the discussion of Ichthyovenator

I've moved Ichthyovenator's discovery to the end of the paragraph. Hopefully that works better now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• As per above, the subject of discussion beginning with "Milner and colleagues" is never specified so without checking the source I assumes it was all saying that Ichthyovenator was the first definitive asian spinosaurid.

Good catch. Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not going to hold this against the writers, but I feel as if this entire article is likely to implode if a definitive review of the material is ever published. Either Allain ea in future will support this taxon and its various assignments, or the article will need to be completely recomposed. I won't oppose because of this but I am skeptical of the longevity of this article, which seems to be a composite of all southeast asian spinosaurs under the guise of Siamosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If, say, the skeletal elements are moved to a new genus, I guess the only consequence for this article would be that it would get shorter? At currently 84,244 bytes, if it only focused on the teeth, it would still be a sizeable article... FunkMonk (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it would just mean a serious revision, but unless an Amphicoelias happens it should be updated to the same quality. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this, especially since Buffetaut is yet to publish his reassessment of the genus. The whole situation is very similar to Richardoestesia and, even if the genus is valid, it's probably doubtful that all of the teeth referred to it belong to the same taxon. Either way, I'm certainly up for restructuring this article when/if the time comes. If it takes a particularly heavy hit, at least much of this information (such as the history of research & palaeobiogeography/ecology of Asian spinosaurids) can still be used in articles such as Spinosauridae. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 08:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That's enough to satisfy me, having read the article through now I think it is very comprehensive and I'll give it my support. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [34].

---

First Battle of Newtonia

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here goes my first FA nomination, with many thanks to a pre-nomination FAC mentorship by User:Gog the Mild. This was a smallish scrap on the fringes of the American Civil War, mainly noted for the role Native Americans played on either side. In the end, this battle had no real lasting effect of any sort, as the victors abandoned Missouri without a real fight less that a month later, restoring the status quo. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• PM's suggestions about improving the number of sources cited to clarify that a statement is more widely supported are good ones and should be followed. I think you should cite the Tucker source as well.
  • The Tucker source from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Landis' Missouri Battery, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to, is about a specific brigade that was in Mississippi at this time, so it doesn't include information about this battle.
    • Nvm, Spencer Tucker found by Peacemaker67. I hear Tucker as a source, and I assume a book by Tucker I used in a lot of other articles. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• All the sources look reliable enough for what they are cited for.
• Could you cite another source to verify the occurrence of Second Battle of Newtonia?
  • Yeah, I'll sling in Kennedy.
• Who wrote the summary in the National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form? US government employee or someone else?
  • I found the four preparers in the back of the document, hidden amongst some lists and maps. I've added their names.
• I checked some of the online sources. The only issue I found was:
  • "The Civil War Trust has acquired and preserved 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" -> source says "The Newtonia Battlefields Protection Association preserves and interprets the Matthew H. Ritchey home and 25 acres of surrounding 1862 and 1864 battlefields." The website does mention "saving" 8 acres in the heading, which is more clearly explained at the link, although not mentioning the Civil War Trust. Also, what do they mean by "saving"? To improve verifiability, it would help to cite a different page(s) of the website where these issues are explained. (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: - I've replaced the previous citation with a citation to the saved land page and accompanied that with a citation to one of the "About us" pages on the group's website that kinda explains what "saved land" means. Is the current setup sufficient there? Hog Farm _Bacon 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • The added page helps explain, but it doesn't support the text because it states that land is sometimes acquired by the trust and sometimes made into a conservation easement. So we would need another source to verify that the eight acres were acquired. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
        • How about "The American Battlefield Trust has participated in the preservation of 8 acres (3.2 ha) of the battlefield" for the phrasing? I'm not finding information on the exact details of the group's actions here. After looking in the article history, I think that sentence was added by an apparent SPA that likely had an undisclosed COI with the organization, as that user's contributions consist of adding information about the organization's work in various battlefield articles.
          • Yes, or alternately "organized the preservation", that is supported by the source. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Done
              • @Buidhe: Any further sourcing comments? Hog Farm _Bacon 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The encyclopedia entry Tucker et al. is attributed to two specific writers, it should be attributed to them while the editors are credited as such. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment

Is the second infobox necessary, given that we already have a separate article on the historical district? I think the article would be improved by its removal, keeping in mind summary style. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: - Removed as no longer necessary. It's a relic of the previous state of the article, as the historical district was a redirect until I expanded it in March or April

@Buidhe: - I've fixed the Tucker issue. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Lead and infobox

• The First Battle of Newtonia was battle fought on September 30, 1862
  • Done
• for advance force link Vanguard
  • Done
• suggest moving the NRHP template to the last section, and add a Missouri location map to the military conflict template with a pog for the location of the battle
  • Done, although the NRHP template does break into the references section now.
    • That really isn't a problem. I moved it up a bit, a trick I use a bit to save space. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'll see what I can do to tweak the appearance of the loc map in the infobox. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• is Edward Lynde not notable?
  • Probably not. Never made it above colonel, and this was one of his most influential moments.
• is there a name for "A large Union force"
  • Blunt's division. Added.
• add the casualty figures to the lead
  • Done
• None of the "Units involved" in the infobox are mentioned in the body by those names, if not proper formations, then decap brigade
  • All were pretty ephemeral except for Shelby's. I decapped the other two and referred to Shelby's brigade by it's common name at first mention

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Body

• Bearss is not an adequate source for the high-level first para of the Background section. Find academic sources and use them to summarise the period from Lincoln's election to the beginning of the ACW.
  • I found a source that I think'll work, and I should have access to this journal full-text through my university, but the log-in part of the website is down. [35] is a link to the source. I have no idea when my university's library system site will be functional enough for me to access this.
    • Because my knowledge of the origins of the ACW is sketchy, I pulled out my copy of The Oxford Companion to Military History (2001) p. 35, and while it is a generalist WP:TERTIARY source, is is reliable, and the ACW entry is written by British ACW specialist Brian Holden-Reid. It is very clear from the entry that the ACW resulted from disagreement between North (anti-slavery) and South (pro-slavery) over slavery, that "states' rights" is really just Confederate "code" for their defence of slavery, and the war was precipitated by the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the South and the Southern states rejection of the result. Also that the idea that slavery was a positive good was popular in the South by 1860 and many there considered that it was an integral aspect of a unique Southern culture which could only be protected by independence. I don't think the current wording is sufficiently clear on these points to meet Featured Article expectations. I think it is entirely acceptable to use Holden-Reid as a source for this high-level material, and am happy to email you a scan. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Please do. As a southerner, I'm aware that the causes of the war are very controversial (the Lost Cause is still alive and kicking; I was actually taught a form of it in school growing up). I really think the idea of having a non-American source for this background is an extremely good idea, as having a source more aloof from remaining scars of the war is probably more neutral. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Send me an email. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Scanned and sent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Many thanks. I've taken a crack at revamping the high-level background information. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Looks great. 06:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• say that Lyon was the commander of the federal St. Louis Arsenal
  • Done
• "This claim was soon disproved." doesn't sit right. It may have been true, as the Confederates were in Arkansas, perhaps "Even if true, this state of affairs was short-lived."
  • Done
• for "spearheaded" link Vanguard
  • Done
• "Colonel James Totten's division was expected to leave Springfield on September 29" to join the two brigades?
  • Not explicitly stated. Should I just remove this?
    • If it doesn't have any bearing on the battle or its aftermath, yes. But what was the "a much larger Union force" mentioned in the Aftermath? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Nvm. It was part of the larger force. I've tried to clarify that in the aftermath now. Wood doesn't have an index, so it's hard to find things.

Down to Opposing forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Union cavalry consisted of the 6th and 9th Kansas, the 2nd Ohio, and 3rd Wisconsin Cavalry Regiments. Infantry regiments present at the battle were the 10th and 13th Kansas, and 9th Wisconsin Infantry Regiments. Artillery came from the 1st and 2nd Kansas Light Artillery Batteries and the 25th Ohio Battery,[22] fielding total of 12 cannons.[23]"
  • Done
• "Three of the cannons were 3-inch rifles and two were mountain howitzers." do we know what sort of guns the rest were fielding?
  • This came up in the ACR. Not that I've seen, I can give Wood another perusal.

Down to Battle. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: - It may take me awhile to find an article in a good, scholarly journal for replacing Bearss with that one paragraph. Most of the military history journals I can access through my university are absolute garbage, a lot aren't even peer reviewed. *:( Hog Farm _Bacon 01:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• just to maintain the sequencing of the previous sentence, I would go with "The patrol to Neosho participated in a small action, but the men sent to Granby saw no Confederate soldiers."
  • Done
• "two regiments of Shelby's cavalry" which regiments?
  • Clarified
    • "5th Missouri Cavlary" has a typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Oops. Fixed.
    • @Peacemaker67: - I need to do some more research here. Bearss indicates that the 5th Missouri Cavalry was sent to Newtonia on the 29th and remained in Newtonia. However, Bearss later states on page 304 that the unit was not at Newtonia initially on the 30th, and had to be sent to Newtonia later. Wood has the same ambiguity, which may be because Wood uses Bearss 1966 as a source. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• do we know which gunners went with Lynde? presumably not the howitzers?
  • On the 29, the howitzers. Bearss was vague, but Tucker was clearer there
    • Could you add that then? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• suggest "the regimentTexans occupied the abandoned town"
  • Done
• do we know how many companies Salomon sent to Lynde?
  • The 150 men, no. I've tried to make Jacobi's strength clearer. Which specific point are you asking about
    • when you introduce Lynde's force in the Prelim action subsection, can you add that it included the two mountain howitzers of Company F? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• So, Company F of the 9th Kansas also had guns? These should be noted alongside the guns listed in the Opposing forces section. Also, in the note, just use "Company F", not "Company "F"", Company F (and F Company) are commonly used in military articles.
  • Done
    • Can you note when they are introduced, that the Company F guns were also mountain howitzers? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Peacemaker67: - The third sentence of the prelim section is "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry and two mountain howitzers.", with a note mentioning Company F of the 9th Kansas Cavalry. Is this not satisfactory? I'm not sure what would need to be done otherwise.
• The details of the battle need more sources, it is almost completely Bearss' version of events (however eminent he may be within the NPS) which isn't enough to ensure we have a neutral and academically-consensus description of what went on. There must be other reliable sources on this battle.
  • @Peacemaker67: I may wind up having to withdraw this. Of the sourcing I have available to me, Gerteis gives only a brief overview, Kennedy gives only a couple paragraphs, and Wood is published by the History Press, which specializes in hyperlocal history and isn't the most scholarly source. Foote only gives a brief overview. O'Flaherty has a strong pro-Shelby bias, and uses John Newman Edwards for a lot of his battle description, so I don't want to draw on him much. The Official Records are primary source battle reports, and one side's "pickets were driven in" is the other side's "drove the enemy a sizable distance", so that isn't very helpful for piecing together what happened. I'll probably withdraw this tomorrow, since I don't think I can do a whole lot with the available sourcing beyond what's been done, except for some chronological materials or relying on Wood heavily. As far as I'm aware, Wood is the only full book-length treatment of this battle. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't do that. It is fine to use Bearss, but not just Bearss. We need corroboration of the details of the battle from other reliable sources. There is an entry covering details of the battle in Spencer C. Tucker's American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection on pages 1400–1401, so that should be used to bolster Bearss. If you can't access both pages via Google Books preview, ask for copies at WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd add that you can (and should) use Wood to corroborate details from Bearss where they agree on a detail. It would be better if sentences (or every few sentences) were individually cited to two sources at least, particularly anything that might be challenged, like the success of a charge, who routed and when etc. This isn't needed with every fact, (like the presence of a regiment), but in the case of possibly controversial information it would give reviewers the assurance that this is not just a reflection of Bearss' views, and that other sources had been accessed and relevant details included from them. Where sources differ, compare and contrast what they say, don't pick winners unless one source is clearly far more reliable than the others that vary. This is very important at FA, to ensure that criteria 1b. (comprehensiveness) is met. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Does this still apply if Wood uses Bearss as a source fairly faithfully, even to the extent of perpetuating apparent contradictions in Bearss? Hog Farm _Bacon 00:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Well, I wouldn't use Wood to perpetuate contradictions, and if Bearss contradicts himself, you need to highlight this using notes, if they are contradictions between the reliable sources, you should compare and contrast them in the article, but if Wood is clearly relying on Bearss for something and the material in Wood is identical, there is little point in including Wood. However, Tucker needs to be used where possible to add detail and reinforce Bearss. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
            • I also found out that Gerteis' battle description is largely based off of O'Flaherty. So essentially, the print sources are a bunch mainly using the same two.
              • Tucker? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Working.
                  • IMHO the Battle section is now adequately supported by sources in addition to Bearss now, so I'm happy with this one. Just suggest that you put the cites in numerical order, ie [23][27][32] rather than [23][32][27]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• "Salomon sent the 6th Kansas Cavalry" but the last we heard of them, they were attempting to cut off the Confederate skirmish line, so surely they were already committed?
  • Clarified that the morning bit was only 45 men, and that it was the rest of the regiment in the later action
• weren't the 3rd Indian Home Guard already part of Jacobi's force?
  • I've clarified that only 50 men were in the morning, and that the rest was sent.
• "The Confederates were aware that additional Union soldiers were coming" I was under the impression the Union troops were retreating?
  • Rephrased
• the September 30 subsection is a bit confusing, with units being part of Jacobi's force earlier in the day and being recommitted later by Salomon. In general, we need a bit more granular information about the movements of the various units, particularly the Union ones, their retreat and return to the fray.
• "3:30 in the afternoonp.m."
  • Went with 24-hour clock time
• Jeans' Rregiment
  • Done
• for night battle link Night combat
  • Done

Down to Aftermath. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• say where the Battle of Clark's Mill was
  • Done
• I would change the piping to "battles of Westport in Missouri, and Mine Creek in Kansas.
  • Done
• "much as he did in the 1862 battle" doesn't follow what is in the article. A couple of Shelby's regiments are mentioned in the Prelim subsection, he isn't mentioned at all in the September 30 subsection, and he led the rearguard of the retreat after the battle ended. From the article it appears that Cooper was directing things, allocating resources etc. Was Shelby commanding the two regiments sent to Newtonia on the 29th?
  • Nixed. A leftover from an earlier version of the article where O'Flaherty was used heavily, and his excessive focus on Shelby included
• The Mathew H. Ritchey house→Mathew H. Ritchey House, if that is its formal name as when first mentioned?
  • Done
• there is no need for the {{rp|34}} citation formatting, as cite web supports the |page= parameter. This and the one in the NPS template are different from the rest of the article.
  • The two rp instances were to the same reference, so that wouldn't work. What I did was to move that PDF to the sources, and then use sfns to deal with it.
• move the author-link parameter to the first Bearss source.
  • Done

As this is your first FAC, I'll take a look at the images and sources formatting as well. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• in Note a, add Regiment
  • Done
• not for this article, but could you add a field for leaders to the Missouri in the American Civil War navbox?
  • Done. Picked three of the more prominent from each side, although other editors may think other selections could have been better. Went with Ewing Jr, Lyon, and Curtis for the Union, and Price, Shelby, and Marmaduke for the Confederates
    • That's great. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• are there any useable pics of Salomon, Cooper, Lynde or Jacobi?
  • @Peacemaker67: - There's images of Salomon and Cooper on Commons, but they aren't really useable, as the date of original publication is unknown, so PD can't be proven. I can find images for all four on the internet, but the issue is that with all of the period images, the date of publication isn't recorded, so using the images would result in failing the image review since PD can't be proven. I also looked for Hawpe with the same results.
    • Best I can find is [36], which indicates a date of likely taking, but doesn't have a publication date.
      • Ok, I couldn't find any of them in the Brady-Handy Collection, and I had a look for regimental histories published pre-1925, but no dice. If they aren't available, they aren't available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• given my observation about Shelby's involvement, is he really a priority for an image?
  • He's mostly in there because I can't find an image of any of the other primary commanders that can be proven is PD.
    • Given the above, ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Shelby image is now gone.
• what would be really useful would be a map of the battle itself, showing the movement of forces.
  • There's not a free one in existence that I've seen, and I don't have the expertise to create one
    • In that case, what would be really useful would be some indications of which directions troops were approaching from etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I wound up finding an NPS map searching in a NPS PDF for corroborating details to support Bearss. I'm uploading it on Commons to add to the article.
        • That's great. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That is all I could find. This article is in great shape, just a few changes needed to bring it up to FA level. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm gonna call it a night on this one now. I've gleaned some stuff from Tucker and I found a NPS report with a couple pages for it. It's gonna be a bit tricky here, as Bearss is the only source I've seen that gives more than 2.5 pages to this battle, so he has by far the most detail. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This one has needed so much work already during this FAC ... Hog Farm _Bacon 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I've determined that I'm just gonna have to indicate that Bearss says the 5th and Jeans' stayed in Newtonia on the 29, but other sources (Tucker and McGhee's regimental histories) indicate the two units were not at Newtonia at the beginning of the 30. I'll add that tomorrow. My writing skills aren't quite up to fac grade yet, so this'll be a slow process. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Peacemaker67: - I'm trying to glean as much as I can to support Bearss from the sources that don't cite Bearss. Is this becoming an improvement? This FAC has felt like a giant mess to me. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Definitely improving. This is often the case as new FAC nominees adjust to the higher expectations, particularly of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Don't worry about it, doing doing great. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @Peacemaker67: - I made a breakthrough and found an old 1922 source online that had a good description of this battle that was able to back up Bearss in several places. I also added a couple more cites to McGhee. I'm worrying I'm starting to run out of additional possible sources I can find to add, though. I've looked through just about every print source I can find, and almost none even mention this scrap. I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books, too. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
            • @Peacemaker67: - I've cited a peer-reviewed, well-respected (IMO) journal for the causes stuff. Personally, I think Bearss is a good enough source for the secession dates and order, but I can find another source for that if desired. Is this satisfactory? Hog Farm _Bacon 01:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
              • All good for me now and I consider it meets the FA criteria. I appreciate this has been a bit of an ordeal, but it takes a bit to adjust to FAC. Well done. Gog the Mild, all yours, mate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Placeholder. I will wait for Peacemaker67 to finish, or get close to that, before reading this, so we are not both picking up the same issues.

Nb. It is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

"I'm getting deep into the bowels of Google scholar and Google books." :-) Tell me about it. It can sometimes feel like trying to make bricks without straw can't it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe, Gog the Mild, and Peacemaker67: - How does the source diversification look now? I think I've diversified sources about as much as I can, except for Wood, which heavily uses Bearss and thus isn't great for supporting Bearss; O'Flaherty, who is very pro-Shelby biased; and John Newman Edwards, who is utterly unreliable. I've gone through Google books and Google scholar to the point that all of the results were no longer about this battle, and I've gone through all of the pages of Google search results Google brings up. I've checked just about every print book I have access to. I'm not sure there's too much more I can add. For using a source other than Bearss for the high-level first paragraph of the background section, I'm still waiting for my university's JSTOR login page to decide to function. Hog Farm _Bacon 03:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna pass on this and leave it to Peacemaker, who seems to have looked at this aspect in some detail. and Buidhe, who did the source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at this prior to nomination, and Peacemaker seems to have given it a thorough going over, so I am not sure how much I will find. If I flag up an issue which you have already sorted with PM, just say so.

• Might it be worth red linking "Salomon's brigade"?
  • I'm gonna say this unit probably isn't notable. It was a bit ad hoc and sort of ephemeral.
• "The First Battle of Newtonia was fought on September 30, 1862, near Newtonia, Missouri during the American Civil War. It was fought between ..." Could we avoid "was fought" twice in successive sentences?
  • I've combined the two
• "Union militia commanded by Colonel George Hall covered the Union retreat". Suggest deleting the first "Union"; I think that I reader will understand that without being told.
  • Done
• "although the Confederate artillery fire struck". Delete "the".
  • Done
• "In the United States during the early 19th century, a large cultural divide began to grow between"> Optional: not sure that "began to grow" is encyclopedic. Maybe 'developed'?
  • Done
• "Many southerners decided to reject the legitimacy"> I am not enthusiastic about this phraseology; maybe 'Many southerners rejected the legitimacy'?
  • Done
• "and began promoting secession". "began" - it wasn't being promoted before then? Perhaps 'and promoted secession'?
  • Done
• "formed the Confederate States of America; Jefferson Davis became the first President of the Confederate States of America." " of the Confederate States of America" is redundant.
  • Rephrased
• "Lincoln requested that the states remaining in the Union provide 75,000 volunteers for the war effort." "war effort" - possibly a mention somewhere that war broke out/was declared?
  • I feel like On the morning of April 12, the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the American Civil War should establish that there's a war on

OK

• "the Missouri State Guard, a militia organization" Link militia.
  • Linked
• "was plagued by guerrilla attacks from prominent bushwhacker". Does it matter that the bushwackers were prominent. (And don't you mean that their leeaders were?) Suggest deleting "prominent" - "including William Quantrill" makes the point.
  • Removed
• "Estimation of Confederate strength vary." I'm not sure that this is a grammatical sentence. Maybe 'Estimates of the Confederate strength vary'?
  • It's not. I went with your suggestion
• "Historian Daniel O'Flaherty provides a similar range". Start the sentence with "The" to avoid false title and "provides a similar range" suggests that Foote has provided a range, which they haven't.
  • Done. First time I'd heard of false titles, it's something I need to be aware of from now on.

I was taught it last year on about my third FAC. I like the good morning test.

• "The force headed for Newtonia consisted of 150 men, in four companies, commanded by Colonel Edward Lynde of the 9th Kansas Cavalry" Were the 150 men from the 9th Kansas Cavalry, or only the commander?
  • From the regiment. Clarified
• "the Union artillery advanced nearer to the Confederate lines". Either 'advanced nearer the Confederate lines' or 'advanced closer to the Confederate lines'.
  • Went with closer to
• "Some of the infantrymen of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry". Optional: "infantrymen" → 'men'. It may be considered that the "Infantry" in their unit's title gives away what their role was.
  • Done. Makes sense.
• "sent the 34th Texas Cavalry there to reinforce Hawpe. The Texans had been taking shelter behind a stone wall" I realise that there is a paragraph break, but a reader is likely to assume that "The Texans" were from the 34th.
  • Fixed. It was the 31st
• "Union artillery again shelled the Confederate position". I assume that the source confirms that they were firing shells, as opposed to eg round shot?
  • Good catch. Replaced shelled with "fired at"
• "Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived" → 'Confederate reinforcements in the form of the 1st Choctaw, the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles and the 5th Missouri Cavalry arrived' or "The 1st Choctaw and the Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked" → 'The 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles also counterattacked'.
  • Fixed. The official title of the regiment is the 1st Choctaw and Chickasaw Mounted Rifles
• "Four companies of the 9th Wisconsin Infantry were stated to have suffered particularly high losses." Would that be the same four companies which contributed 150 men to the morning's probe?
  • Yes. Specified and cited to Bearss
• "Salomon's command had represented only the advance guard of Blunt's command." Would it be possible to avoid using "command" twice?
  • Changed
• "his line of retreat was in danger of being cut off by the Union advance". Delete "off".
  • Done
• "after a brief shelling of the town". Again checking that it was exclusively shell fire?
  • Changed to bombardment. I have a bad habit of using "shelling" as a euphemism for any artillery fire.
• "The Confederate Native American troops retreated back to Indian Territory; others retreated into northwestern Arkansas." Do you mean 'the others retreated'? If so, perhaps 'the other units retreated into northwestern Arkansas'?
  • Done

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• • @Gog the Mild: - All replied to. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A fine little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Adding this to the urgents list to hopefully get more reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYC

Great work, Hog Farm. I've not come across any issues, although I've only got two minor comments regarding the linking:

• Maybe link United States in "In the United States during the early 19th century"?
  • I went with a piped link to History of the United States (1849–1865), which provides some background I didn't have space for in this article. How does that work for you?
    • That's good. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
• Link companies at the first attempt, not the second. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Great catch.

Many thanks, WA8MTWAYC. I'm glad someone from outside the MILHIST project was able to take a look at this, I was concerned about potential jargon in here. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's alright. It was clear to follow and I enjoyed reading the article. Well done. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [37].

---

British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s. I'm nominating this because there has been a spike in page views due to the TV series Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Based on my review at ACR. (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

• British or Australian English?

Will do this soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• The article is tagged with {{use Australian English}}. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah I just realised that too. Cheers.

• was released by a Royal Air Force (RAF) Vickers Valiant --> "was released by a British Royal Air Force (RAF) Vickers Valiant"

  Ian Rose hates that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree (i.e. "British" should not be added as a prefix for Royal Air Force). Mark83 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "kilotons" --> "kilotonnes"?

  They're the same thing. Settled on "kilotons". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Australian government" --> "Australian Government"

  Changed everywhere. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The British government expected that the United States would --> "The British Government expected that the United States would"
• the British government restarted its own development Same as above.
• were fighting together in the Korean War and the Malayan Emergency Maybe add years of their involvements?

  I guess we can. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The creation of NATO in 1949 excluded Australia from the Western Alliance Don't think NATO should be linked.

  Why not? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems Emu as in Emus the animal? Maybe link it.

  Changed to "Emu Field". Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The British government's preferred permanent test site remained --> "The British Government's preferred permanent test site remained"
• coordinate vs co-operation?

  Not sure what is being asked here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• 2.5 million imperial gallons (10 megalitres) per annum What's megalitres? I mean I personally don't have an idea of how many litres that is heh.

  In metric we use the prefix mega- for a million. A litre of water weighs a kilogram; a megalitre of water weighs 1,000 tonnes. Normally magalitres is used for small dams. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• tests, except those to UK government personnel Maybe it's me but this sounds really odd to me?

  Could be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The British Government welcomed Australian financial assistance
• established at Watson, about 40 kilometres (25 mi) --> "established at Watson, about 40 km (25 mi)"

  Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• grading of 310 kilometres (190 mi) of tracks --> "grading of 310 km (190 mi) of tracks"

  Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• dispersed over an area of 210 square kilometres (80 sq mi) --> "dispersed over an area of 210 km² (80 sq mi)"

  Abbreviated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• nails to drafting gear and two 4-inch (10 cm) wagon drills Why has this sentence inches instead of cm?

  Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mark83

Extended content

Really solid article. A few comments on a first pass (Lead up to and including "Aboriginal affairs"). Items with questions mark are more probing questions/suggestions. I am not a nuclear expert, but I am used to seeing kT, but not TJ. Is this standard? Or maybe too much info? TNT equivalent is what is universally used for nuclear weapons tests. WP:UNITS: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hence kilotons of TNT is the primary unit here, with a conversion to the SI unit for energy (the joule). A kiloton is 4.184 TJ by definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Consider changing Second World War > World War II for consistency with that article title? World War II is an Americanism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) > The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act). The former is not the title of the act, and the way it's linked suggests it is. In this article, the assumption would be an Australian act, so "United States" is used to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Adjusted to "US Atomic Energy Act of 1946" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) "At the time Britain was still Australia's largest trading partner," - at what time? I assume ~1946. And how is this directly relevant? Changed to "in the 1950s". The relevance is in why the Australian government granted permission to the British government to conduct nuclear tests in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "Robert Menzies, who came to office in 1949, was strongly pro-British" - I looked at his article and see he was PM from 1949 to 1966, this needs to be explained in this article to show the relevance. Changed to "Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966". He was previously in office from 1939 to 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) What do free passage and subsidised passage mean, specifically? Of course I can guess but I shouldn't have to. e.g. from where to where. Added "on ships from the UK to Australia" and inked to the article on Ten Pound Poms. This is before the era of air travel. The trip cost about £120 in 1945, but immigrants were charged only £10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "The 1948 Modus Vivendi" - no idea what this is even after clicking the link. I should write an article on it. Added "the nuclear agreement between the US and UK which superseded the wartime Quebec Agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) How is Australia's exclusion from NATO relevant? "Western Alliance" is a bigger term than just NATO and Australia very much in that sphere of influence. You'll find "Western Alliance" links to "NATO". This left Australia without allies in an uncertain post-war world. Hence the desire to re-kindle ties with the UK, and to acquire nuclear weapons. Australia's exclusion had long-effects that are still being felt today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Did signature of ANZUS in 1951 not secure Australia's place in the Western Alliance? Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) ANZUS secured Australia's agreement to the signing of a peace treaty with Japan. It is a non-binding co-operation agreement between Australia, New Zealand and and the United States. Unlike NATO, ANZUS has no integrated structure, no dedicated forces, no secretariat or formal structure, no mutual obligations, and does not involve any of the Western Alliance countries other than the US. Far more important was the US designating Australia a major non-NATO ally in 1989, which has some tangible benefits, but still falls a long way short of what NATO countries get. In the 21st century, long after the period cover by the article, there are some intelligence-sharing agreements in place with Western Alliance nations, and as a result of the debacle in Afghanistan, NATO entered into a series of partnership agreements with Australia. This is still a long way short of NATO membership, but it is hoped that it will at least head off a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) When reading "Neither the Montebello Islands nor Emu Field were considered suitable as permanent test sites" it makes you think why not? The site selection criteria is further down (bulleted list) so perhaps this can be reorganised slightly? Added "Montebello could be accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems with its water supply and dust storms." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "the area north of Emu Field.... was on the axis of the Long Range Weapons Establishment" - leaves me questioning what the problem is? Added "which meant that there would be a competing claim on the use of the area." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "a temporary airstrip was created in two days by land rovers pulling a length of railway line" - I'm guessing this just means they dragged it along the surface to level and clear the site? But is this clear and/or relevant? Maybe just "a temporary airstrip was created in two days"? I think this gives the reader a clearer picture of the rough and ready nature of the strip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained boring" > 10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained by boring". And are all the conversions necessary? Added. Removed additional conversions. We only need imperial gallons and litres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) In line references should be after punctuation. Some examples where this is not the case. Found and fixed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) J. M. Wilson - not linked so are they relevant? Indicates the level of the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) UKMOS doesn't seem like an accepted abbreviation? Should be UK MoS or just MoS after first instance Used in the sources. Changed to "MoS". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) although Cabinet did not give its assent until 4 May - when reading this I thought it meant British Cabinet. It's linked to Australian Cabinet so that needs to be clearer. Added "Australian". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "The British government welcomed Australian financial assistance, and Australian participation avoided the embarrassment that would have come from building a UK base on Australian soil. On the other hand, it was recognised that Australian participation would likely mean that the Australians would demand access to even more information than in Operation Totem. This had implications for Britain's relationship with the United States." Is this all covered by the next reference? Sorry don't have immediate access to it to check. Seem like important points. Yes, it is a summary of what the reference says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "the wartime nuclear Special Relationship" - that article is about much more than just nuclear weapons, so not sure the way it's linked is appropriate? It has both a general and a specific meaning. In works about nuclear weapons it always specifically refers to the access to nuclear weapons technology. I've consistently qualified it with "nuclear". It is only meaningful in the narrow sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) bush track from Watson to Emu became the main line communications for the project. - main line of communications? Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) near the 42-kilometre (26 mi) peg? Hmmm? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Peg is just not a term I'm familiar with? Maybe just me. Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "just finished the construction of an oil refinery near Fremantle" when? The delay from this to cabinet approval is unclear. The reader is just asked to accept it. Yes. Changed to "The need to create a new work force caused a cascading series of delays." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) In the whole Development section there are numerous dates without years. I found this confusing. Added "1956" in a couple of places to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "Magee prepared Blomfield a list of stores and equipment" - A quibble, but "provided Bloomfield with a list" would be better. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Bores > Boreholes? We always refer to them as "bores" in Australia. WL "brackish" because I hadn't a clue what this is. User familiarity will vary massively on this based on geography. Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "Two Army skid-mounted 11-kilolitre-per-day (3,000 US gal/d; 2,500 imp gal/d) Cleaver-Brooks thermocompression distillation units" - Could this be trimmed/simplified? Simplified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "towed by a Caterpillar D8 tractor." Relevant? Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Geofex needs explanation/context. Changed to "plastic explosive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Camp at 11 miles needs explanation/context. The 11-mile peg? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Remove red link to Arthur Gillespie Wilson? Generals are normally presumed notable. (WP:SOLDIER) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Range commander being sacked could benefit from a reference. The article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) "one of less than five" is clunky. Changed to "such a small committee". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) generally in groups of about 25 or so - is not FA-standard language. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I'd suggest just removing general & or so. Makes it more defintive while still clear it's an estimate.Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) LRWE not explained. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Why was the decision to establish the Giles Weather Station a "complicating factor"? Expanded in this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I continue to be impressed with the quality of this article. A few comments from review of Operation Buffalo - Operation Antler#Planning and purpose (inclusive): "sitting as Mosex or Buffalex as appropriate." confused me. So Mos- and Buff- refer to Mosaic and Buffalo. And then -ex is for Executive? I just feel it should be explained a bit more? Yes. Expanded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) In One Tree "Which was more important..." > What was more important..? Buffalo or Grapple . Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) "Conditions were suitable but "by no means ideal"." - for me this begged the question what are the factors that make it less than ideal? I can make assumptions (clear skies and no precipitation?) but a sentence setting ideal conditions would sit well here. Added a bit about this. The main defect was the winds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) theoretical predictions group - just checking if this should be "Theoretical Predictions Group"? Not previously explained. Just the group responsible for the calculations. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) The main cloud crossed the east coast about 18 hours at about > 18 hours later Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) No. 49 Squadron RAF > No. 49 Squadron - as it's clear in the sentence it's about the RAF Be that as it may, I would prefer to keep it this way, as the default in this article is RAAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Should TAA be spelt out? I had to click the link. If it was Trans Australia Airlines it may be better. Another one of those corporate abbreviations that is far better known than what it stands for. (Most people thought it stood for "Try Another Airline".) Added the name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) The discussion of fallout travelling west to east made me wonder why an eastern seaboard option wasn't chosen to avoid this. (I note at least one northern option was discounted). Not a deal breaker in terms of FA, just thinking out loud. Because the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Suggestion that the AWTSC reconstituted - was it disbanded? Sorry if I've missed something here. It continued, but as a smaller committee, with fewer functions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) "The failure of the first round of Operation Grapple tests" hasn't been previously explained in this article so should it say "The first round of Operation Grapple tests was unsuccessful in demonstrating a working hydrogen bomb design which left plans for Operation Antler in disarray."? (It's a quibble but it doesn't assume any knowledge of Grapple). Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) This section says use of barrage balloons was logistically simpler, but then says "six hours to set up a tower test and eight for a balloon test." - just seems like a contradiction? I think it just says that the barrage balloons had advantages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Last batch: You replied above "the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast." But I've looked up maps of population density for both Australia and USA and while the latter has populations spread down the majority of its eastern seaboard, there are areas of Australia comparatively uninhabited - for example North of Cairns. Just important to stress again (as I did above) I'm just thinking out loud and this will not get in the way of my supporting FA status for the article. Also it may not be in the references and of course I'm not asking you to introduce original research. The Cape York Peninsula is a jungle with monsoonal rains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) The UK didn't tell Australia formally about the cobalt tests - did this cause any friction? The UK informed Titterton, as noted in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Minor trials - it's noted "Maralinga was ordered to suspend all testing, including minor trials." - I assume by Australia and not UK? No, by the UK. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Should curies be linked? Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) "The UK could conduct a series of Kittens as part of Operation Buffalo." - should this be "a series of Kittens tests"? Changed to "kitten trials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Minor prose suggestion for your consideration - "Tim experiments were concerned with the measurement of how the core..." > "Tim experiments investigated how the core..." Not doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) "TM100 and TM101 areas" isn't fully explained in the text - perhaps refer to the image by way of explanation? They can look at the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Vixens - "for a successful test subjects the core fuel to high explosives in the hope that it simply scatters" -- missing word(s) here? Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Fallout - "Although the 1958 Operation Grapple thermonuclear tests had a measurable effect in the UK, none was detected in Australia." -- I just wonder if it should say something like "had a measurable effect in servicemen returning to the UK"? Not talking about service personnel. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) This augured poorly for the future of Maralinga, if there was a change of government, and the 1961 Australian federal election reduced Menzies' majority to just one seat. -- Slightly clunky. Maybe just remove the first comma? Re-worded without comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Legacy - I wonder why the Australian government rejected the recommendation that the British government should pay all the costs of a clean up? Foreign relations must have outweighed internal politics? I note "prolonged negotiations" are mentioned in the Media coverage section. Another example of just me thinking out loud. Perhaps Mexico should have paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) "Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up is a book by Alan Parkinson about the clean-up following the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, published in 2007. Parkinson, a nuclear engineer, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga " feels a bit redundant. Maybe "Alan Parkinson's book, Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga..." Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Also he's introduced in this section (as a nuclear engineer). Should this not be at his first mention in the section above? Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Mark83 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support from me. Mark83 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Spinningspark

• I think there is some inconsistency in the units used. The explosion yields are given in kT with the metric equivalent in brackets, but distances are given in metric with imperial conversions in brackets. WP:UNITS says UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units in which the subject project was drawn up. In this period, the imperial system of units would undoubtedly have been used to design up the project (and kT used for yields). Also jumping out at me, the height of the Vickers Valiant being given in metres first – aircraft flying heights are always in feet.

SpinningSpark 11:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The article is not a UK engineering-related article. WP:METRIC: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. The use of kilotons of TNT for the nuclear explosion yields is conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Support Only minor complaints.

• "11-mile" If this just means 11 miles away, I might put a metric conversion.

  Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• " The inhabitants were moved to a new settlement at Yalata, but many ritual objects had been concealed and left behind, and the people preferred the landscape of the desert, and many people left Yalata to return to their traditional lands." possibly substitute a semicolon for the final comma, excluding the final "and"?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The decision to establish the Giles Weather Station in the Rawlinson Ranges was a complicating factor because it was outside MacDougall's jurisdiction, being just across the border in Western Australia, where the legal environment was different, and the people there had little contact with white people." Possibly change "the people" to "the Aboriginal people"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• "a Red Beard with a composite core of uranium-plutonium core" is the double use of core intended?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Changed to "composite uranium-plutonium core" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• "It was clear that the procedures for prevent balloon escapes had been inadequate and the self-destruction devices were unreliable.[143][144][145]" Should this be "procedures to"? Or is this Engvar?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

That's it. Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Enjoy the TV series. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@CPA-5: do you have time to revisit? And I think we need an image review?

Image review

1. All images appear to be freely licensed (I could not check the source for File:Souvenir necktie for staff of the maralinga atomic test facility.jpg as the website is down, but will AGF that the file is actually available under stated license)

   Seems to be a problem with the site, probably temporary. You can see the archive version here. Added to the image page on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

2. Minor tweak to layout was done
3. Please add more information to identify what "MARTAC" is on the description page of File:Maralinga Map.jpg, so it is verifiable

   Maralinga Rehabilitation Technical Advisory Committee (MARTAC). Added a reference. Commons doesn't support citation templates unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

4. Conditionally passing assuming that step 3 is done. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [38].

---

Alfred Worden

Al Worden was the command module pilot of Apollo 15. That was only a small part of a life that included being a test pilot, scientist, engineer, businessman, and public speaker, promoting the space program and STEM education. His 88 years left us the richer; hopefully we do not squander what he has left us. This article has passed a MilHist A-Class review.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Per my review at ACR. buidhe 12:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Per my review at ACR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I looked at this closely at the recent Milhist ACR, and all of my comments were addressed there. Just a couple of nitpicks on another read through:"Worden was a Boy Scout and earned the *rank of First Class Scout"

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest "F-86D Sabres" as the aircraft is better known as the Sabre, same for F-102 Delta Daggers

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Colonel Chuck Yeager

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "raising the age limit from 34 to 36" could you add what age Worden was at the time as this had been previously noted as a possible issue for him?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, which involved the testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit."

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• led by Pete Conrad

Not done. I tend to sometimes repeat first names (or in this case, nickname) when someone's last name is also a first name if that makes sense. Pete Conrad has possibly become obscure (at a pub quiz on a cruise ship, they asked us "Who was the third man to walk on the Moon?" Ours was the only team to get it right ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• suggest using Template:As of for the uses of "as of" to flag them as potentially dated statements

That's done. I suggest that this is one of those statements that if it became dated, it would be prominent enough to be changed immediately. Here's hoping they become dated, by the way.--17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• ...He was 88.[11][98][108][109] seems citation overkill for some pretty basic facts about his death

Probably stems from the talk page discussion. Cut back to two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• for "tweeted" link Twitter?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is Note [b] supposed to cite "Worden became the first astronaut to divorce during the program and thereafter fly in space"? The note is uncited, and I can't see material to fully support that sentence in the Telegraph obit. It says "He was also the first astronaut whose career survived a divorce" and "Worden was selected to fly on Apollo 15 in late 1969 just after his divorce"

Sorry, I think I dropped the cite somewhere along the way. It's not cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I could find this time around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Peacemaker67. I've done or replied to all. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Balon Greyjoy

Article looks pretty comprehensively done. Nice work!

Lead

• "he elected to be commissioned in the Air Force, though he had no piloting experience" I would remove the part about piloting experience; it wasn't a prerequisite to join the Air Force and it wasn't/isn't an uncommon trait to learn to fly upon entering the military

Since Worden makes a point of it and he became very accomplished as a pilot in air and space, as opposed to, say, Scott, who flew from a young age, I'm thinking it's worth including since the lay reader might consider it noteworthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Education

• I would combine the sentences about trying to get a scholarship and the University of Michigan, as the current version is pretty wordy. My take is, "Worden applied for scholarships to fund his college education, but was only able to secure a one-year scholarship to the University of Michigan."

If we are to keep the part about his family not being wealthy, then making it one sentence is a little bit more difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that quote is necessary about him saying that he wouldn't live the rest of his life on the farm. I think Worden's overall story makes it clear that he wasn't trying to become a farmer.

I think it's important to have his own statement regarding his motivation. Even if he hadn't stayed on a farm, there were a lot of jobs in Michigan he could have taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you elaborate more on "Worden came to like the demanding life at West Point." There are going to be ups and downs during any military training, let alone a four-year service academy, and while I'm sure that Worden was glad about his decision to attend West Point, it seems like a generalization to say that he liked the entire experience.

No, but it's hard to boil it down. I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Military service

• I don't think it's necessary to say that Worden had no piloting experience when he graduated from West Point; it's not uncommon to not have any military-related experience prior to entering the military, let alone flying experience in the 1950s.

  Comment: During the period from 1947 to 1955 when West Point was the main source of USAF officers, there was a program under which cadets were taken for rides in aircraft as part of their training. The idea was to give them some familiarity with aircraft. Since many officers washed out of flight training, Worden was taking a big risk with his career; if he could not hack it or did not like it, he would be really stuck. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the portion about how Worden felt that promotions would be faster in the Air Force. It's not clear who he thinks they'll be faster than (I'm assuming it's his West Point peers who joined the Army). Additionally, it doesn't seem like he was ever denied promotion or had a slow-rolled career, so it doesn't make much sense to say that speedy promotions weren't the case for him (acknowledging that all of the military astronauts seemed to promote quickly).

  Comment: During World War II, promotion in the Air Corps was much faster than in the ground arms. (A Willie and Joe cartoon had Willie visit an air corps base, to be greeted by the colonel with "Uncle Willie!") But it left the USAF with a pronounced "hump" of officers promoted in this period that drove personnel policies until the 1960s, when they started to retire, a slowed promotions for those commissioned after the war. One of the side effects of this was that USAF officers had less education than their Army counterparts. The scheme of sending officers back to school, which Worden benefited from, arose from this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• What aircraft was Worden training on while at Tyndall AFB? I'm guessing it was F-86 training, but whatever airframe it was on should be mentioned in the sentence.

  Comment: It was the F-86D. The advent of jet bombers made it obsolescent, but it continued in service because the Soviets had not developed a long-range jet bomber capable of reaching the US. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• The ARPS section is a little confusing. It reads like he was an instructor there, and then a graduate, while I'm assuming it was the other way around.

  Comment: No, it is correct. Worden: "It was odd, graduation with the students I taught, but it suited everyone." (p. 52)

Selection

• I would remove the quote about only realizing that the US had a space program in the early 60s. The national attention about the Mercury 7 makes it unlikely that Worden was completely oblivious to the space program until the 1960s. Regard his statement that he decided in the early 1960s that it was "worth looking into," I think it's clear that he felt that way since he applied in 1963, and doesn't require a quote.

Worden tells an anecdote in his memoirs that he and fellow pilots were so busy with work related activities that he did not watch the coverage of Shepard's flight. Sometimes in this Apollo 15 coverage you can't take an autobiographical statement as entirely accurate because there's contradictory information. But here there isn't. So how do I not take him at his word?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

While I don't want to suggest what Worden was thinking or armchair quarterback his commentary, I struggle to believe that he was unaware of the space program until the 1960s, despite what he wrote. In a similar vein, I wouldn't believe it if he wrote that he was so busy in November 1963 that he was unaware of the Kennedy assassination. The Mercury program was national news, and there's no realistic way that an active test pilot in the US Air Force would be unaware of it until the flight portion was underway. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I've removed all up to his application to be an astronaut in 1963.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since Worden's biography as used as the reference, I would remove "he related in his biography" and just say that he "applied to NASA's third group of astronauts."

Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• The two quotes about why he decided to apply are pretty generic and don't tell more about him. The "higher and faster" quote is just the reality of space travel, and it's clear that he felt that becoming an astronaut was a step-up from a test pilot; he wouldn't have applied if he wanted to remain a test pilot.

It definitely has the feel of NASA PR about it, doesn't it? I've cut 1 of the 2. Still, it's useful to have some discussion of Worden's motivation. He had done quite well in his Air Force career and probably would have continued. Plenty of pilots did not want to become astronauts due to the lack of flights that was already becoming apparent, or felt their existing work was more important, or preferred to stay within the Air Force at MOL or felt they should not be in Houston at a time of war.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Replace "cold shoulder" with something more specific, as that is a figure of speech. Were they completely ignored, or was it just more that senior astronauts hoped to beat them on getting flight assignments?

The text is as follows: “ It’s no wonder that some of the older astronauts didn’t warmly welcome us, and in fact resented us showing up. Once you were in the program, Deke often said, you were as qualified to fly into space as anyone else already there. More competition for seats meant fewer flights for the older guys, and for at least the first year they kept us a little isolated from the rest of the team.” Worden does talk about one of the Mercury 7 astronauts (unnamed) telling him he wasn't eligible for the Rathmann Corvette deal when in fact it was open to any astronaut, but that's a page or so earlier and really seems more due to Worden being a new kid in school than due to being competition for a limited number of seats. Is there language you'd prefer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The quote doesn't really illustrate that the previous astronauts disliked/ignored the new class. The only anecdote here is that a single Mercury 7 tried to keep him out of the Corvette deal. I understand that the previous astronauts would understandably dislike new competition, but there's not any hard evidence to tell about how about the new class was coldly received. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now hewed closely to what Worden said, that he perceived resentment on their part.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Early assignments

• Was Worden's assignment to a support crew particularly rare? Not to downplay his accomplishment of getting the job, especially since Givens and Haise were also assigned lunar missions, but there's not much else to indicate that it was an measure of success to get the job.

You may mean Mitchell rather than Givens. I think for Group 5 astronauts, yes, being on a support crew on the early Apollo missions got you a good chance of being in the lineup.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong "Ed," typo on my part (facepalm). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "He found it hard to accept that the three accomplished pilots who were to make up the first Apollo space crew died on the ground, rather than flying." I would rephrase this. It's a common theme that astronauts were upset that the Apollo I crew was killed on the ground and not in flight, but it's not like Worden couldn't accept the reality of the situation.

Since he plainly did move on, since he flew on Apollo 15, I think it's fairly implicit that he was able to move on sufficiently.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if my point was confusing, as I think we have different interpretations on the point I was making. What I meant is that this should be rephrased, because it's not clear what it means when it says that he found it "hard to accept." I think it would make more sense to say that he was very upset by it; I think saying that he couldn't accept something means that he couldn't believe it, whereas I'm sure he had no doubts that they died. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's unnecessary to devote an entire sentence to Slayton describing Worden as a "logical choice." They needed astronauts for these mission billets, and while I'm sure there was a ton of consideration for different crew personalities, none of that is explained here. My take is that this should be removed; Slayton indicated that he thought Worden would be a good member of the crew by selecting him to be a part of it. If it's necessary to leave "logical choice" in, the logic behind the choice should be explained.

That's really all Deke had to say about why he selected Worden. I think it's worth including because a) Deke selected Worden and so his perspective is worth having and b) we don't have any other information on this subject. Worden didn't know and Scott didn't have much to say about Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Deke would be making a choice he would consider logical. If he had more to say about it regarding his decision, I would consider that his perspective, but just that he made what he felt was the correct choice is redundant. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deke meant it to say something or he wouldn't have written it. If it isn't as informative as we would like, well, that's Deke Slayton all over.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand that Slayton felt this way and decided to put it in his autobiography, but I don't think it adds anything to the narrative about Worden. It's an extraneous detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, then, look at it this way, Deke recognized Worden's work on Apollo 9, which is worth mentioning, and the rest should be included because it says that Worden was in the mainstream of Apollo crew selections. He didn't consider it exceptional.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• What's the significance of learning that he was a part of the crew in Scott's office? They would presumably receive work-related news at the workplace. If it's left in, the part about it being from Worden's biography is unnecessary, as the biography is cited.

I don't think it's essential. But I think it's worth including as some flavor of Worden's experience. Clearly it was a big moment for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the quote about the Dick Gordon relationship, as it doesn't say anything beyond what you would expect from a close working relationship. They worked hard together and spent a lot of time together.

It seems an exceptional comment. Certainly Worden did not speak of either of his crewmates in such high terms. I'd rather leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• What does it mean "Warden remembered..." It doesn't make sense at the time that he would be remembering it, as it was a current event. Is it just that he stated that in his book? The book itself is already cited, so the fact doesn't need to be attributed to Worden in text.

It's leading into a quote by him and so it's a variation on the usual "Worden wrote," etc. Just a different way of saying the same old thing that you're about to let the reader have a quote from the article subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Corvette part is interesting, but it's a stretch to say that the 3 Corvettes they drove made them less conspicuous by virtue of not matching. I would remove it.

The actual quote is: “The different cars seemed symbolic of the differences between our crews. The Apollo 12 guys went everywhere together. If you saw one gold-and-black car, you would see three. Eventually, this caused some problems, because astronauts don’t always want to be recognized. Sometimes, it was better to disappear into the woodwork. Our crew didn’t have that problem, as you would rarely see our three cars together.” As Hawkeye7 pointed out, if you saw a Corvette going like a bat out of hell near KSC it was almost certainly an astronaut, but I've added something to the effect that the three cars were rarely seen together.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Preparations and launch

• It's a little confusing to say that this was the first mission that lunar observation from orbit was a mission objective, but then state that the Apollo 13 and 14 CMPs were trained on it. Maybe clarify how Apollo 15 was different in this case?

I've added "formal" before mission objectives. The addition of all that equipment hopefully will help make it clear how 15 was different from earlier ones.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Where did Worden travel for field geology training? I'm assuming to places with igneous exposure. If possible, that sentence should be more specific than "many parts of the world."

I've added examples.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Clarify what Worden was doing at the Downey facilities, as it's vague to just say he spend much of his time there.

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• What does it mean that he took the children's questions on the trip? Were they written down and given to him, or was he just remembering them?

He wrote them down, took them with him and gave them to Fred Rogers. I'll clarify.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Blasted off" seems like a figure of speech; maybe "launched" or "lifted off" instead?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• It seems excessive to say that it launched "for the Moon" as it was really just headed for orbit, as the trans-lunar injection occurred later.

I've tweaked that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Lunar orbit

• I would mention that the Falcon was able to separate after the loose umbilical was reconnected. Right now, it reads that the undocking couldn't occur, Worden reconnected a loose umbilical, and the next sentence jumps to the Falcon on its way down.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• The entire paragraph starting with "Busy as he was, he still had time to savor the experience" comes across as WP:POETIC, and doesn't tell much more than that Worden spent some time looking out the window and thinking about things. While I certainly can't fault Worden for being amazed at what he is looking at, it doesn't appear that he had some epiphany or religious experience that changed him in later life beyond the celebrity and success of being an Apollo astronaut.

I think it's important to mention how he felt about it. He was, after all, moved enough to write a book of poetry about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of "and that he was used to being alone as a fighter pilot" as a multi-hour sortie by oneself and a three days in the CSM are very different experiences. It seems like an unnecessary comparison.

I would not include it if someone else made the comparison, but I think it's different that Worden said so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Return

• Mention the docking of Falcon and Endeavour as the narrative jumps from him being alone to the entire crew headed back to Earth, and he would have had a role in the docking and preparation for the trans-Earth injection.

Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the paragraph starting with "Apollo 15's achievements included..." as almost all of those occurred on the lunar surface, and the ones that didn't (the scientific instrument bay, the deep space EVA) are already mentioned earlier.

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Covers incident

Hey, this reminds me of a GA review I did! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I remember that :) ... I keep working on that article ... the new biography of George Low was a help ... if we weren't in a pandemic I'd go to New York State to look at his papers myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "two covers were apparently destroyed, leading to a total of 398" What does "appparently destroyed" mean? Did someone claim to have destroyed them, or were they just unaccounted for later?

They were unaccounted for when they were processed after the mission. As detailed in the article you reviewed, Scott said he had never counted them.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "an inquiry to NASA, tipping off Slayton, who warned..." Shouldn't it be "an inquiry by NASA"? Also, "tipping off" is a figure of speech; my take is to say that a NASA inquiry began, "and Slayton warned Worden to avoid..."

No, not at that time. Someone interested in buying a Herrick cover asked NASA if it was real. The letter was forwarded to Slayton. Slayton was on notice that Worden was bringing covers, since they were on his PPK list, so the only thing that concerned Slayton about it was that someone was commercializing a moon-flown object that had come from Worden. As for the tipping off, given my explanation, what would you suggest?==Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed "tipping off:" to "alerting".--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden related that the fact that Worden himself was a stamp collector..." This is confusing with the double "Worden." I'm assuming the "Worden related" is a reference to it being from Worden's book. My take it "Slayton, knowing that Worden was a stamp collector, became suspicious that he had arranged both deals,..."

Very well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the last sentence about Worden's feelings on disappointing Slayton. But if it's left in, the previous sentence should specifically mention the meeting between Slayton, Scott, and Worden, as it currently just states those are the individuals the Deke learned it from.

I've left it in but made it clearer as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's a lot of redundant information about Worden trying to get a job at NASA. The section talks about how Worden was informed that he wouldn't be an astronaut anymore, wanted to continue working with NASA, and that he's unable to promote in the Air Force, and then two paragraphs later the situation is explained that all three astronauts couldn't promote, and that they would stay with NASA. My recommendation is that all of this goes after the section about the hearing.

I've cut the initial reference to the derogatory information. All this was going on from May to August or September 1972, as the covers incident gradually became public. Worden talked about it at the hearing. So now it is being dealt with in a chronological manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Combine the sentence "Slayton told a Senate committee in August 1972..." with the remaining info about the hearing in which Slayton testified that's in the next paragraph.

I've cut the reference to Slayton at the hearing, so now it is chronological.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove the quote about Slayton's feelings on the matter; that they told their story is already clear in stating that they testified, and the article about Worden doesn't need info about Deke's after-the-fact opinion.

It's a way of describing what Worden did at the hearing, which would otherwise be difficult, as it was a closed hearing. It's actually not that different than how we did it in the covers article, except there we used what Worden had to say about it. It's not to get in Deke's opinion. It's pretty clear that Deke permanently soured on Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Post-NASA activities

• I would say that he founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc.; saying that he became president makes it sound like it was already an established company. Additionally, what the company did should be explained.

Multiple sources mention it but do not explain it. I'm not certain it's necessary for understanding of Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden still believed that other former astronauts looked at him askance because of the postal covers incident." Did this manifest itself in any way? It should be explained what the other former astronauts did to exclude him.

He didn't get specific. "And I felt I was still considered tainted. My peers no longer shunned me, as they had when I left Houston. But behind the smiles and the handshakes I sensed a continuing unease. I was the guy who had been fired. Perhaps I always would be to them.”--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Worden made many public appearances" Were there significant public appearances he made, such as a speaker at a major university or institution?

He spoke widely, I know he spoke at the Museum of Flight a few months before he died. But there's no particular one that is, for example, mentioned in all the obits.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Were there any major events that could be listed? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Define major. He certainly spoke when getting the award from NASA. But how I distinguish major events from Worden showing up because it's a paid gig is unclear to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My subjective opinion on what constitutes a major event would be one where it's expected to have a high-profile speaker, such as a large museum opening, university graduation, Astronaut Hall of Fame, and the like. I just think it should be more clear that he wasn't just offering his paid appearance to whatever organization wanted good PR by having an astronaut speak there. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Not that I see or that he mentions in the post-NASA part of his autobiography. He was still a ways down the former astronaut pecking order.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• "was one of the most approachable of the former astronauts" How is this quantified or objectively measured? I understand this is taken directly from his obituary, but it seems much more like the author was complimenting the late astronaut, as there's no explanation in either the article or the source material of how and to whom he was approachable.

I'm not sure I would go that far. For all the praise Armstrong got in his obits, I doubt anyone ever called him approachable.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine that almost all astronauts would be considered approachable when compared to Armstrong, but that still doesn't qualify Worden to be referred to as one of the most approachable. A lot of the former astronauts had public appearances following their spaceflight careers; one line in an obituary doesn't seem sufficient to solidify his status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "ready to chat over a vodka on the rocks" This falls under WP:INFORMAL and is not encyclopedic. It should be removed.

I think it goes to how Worden conducted himself in his later years. I could I suppose make it a direct quote but that seems unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Direct quote or not, it's an unnecessary detail. It doesn't say much other than that was his (presumably) favorite drink. It's an editorialized comment from his obituary; it's not like he would only meet with people while drinking a vodka on the rocks, and I'm assuming he wasn't drinking constantly if he made it all the way to the age of 88. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The above two are the same basic objection. I'd like to see what other reviewers think.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Awards and honors

• Did Worden receive any notable Air Force awards? If so, they should be mentioned.

I don't see any mention of it in places I would expect it to be mentioned, say in the Shayler/Burgess book, which has a post-NASA biographical entry for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I would imagine that he had received some awards by virtue of being an O-6, but probably nothing too exciting since he started flying after the Korean War and join the Astronaut Corps prior to Vietnam. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Personal life and popular culture

• What does it mean that he was shunned by the astronauts' wives club? He wasn't in the club originally, so it's not like they kicked him out.

While The Telegraph does not give more details, his book says “A couple of the wives continued to disapprove of me for years. One of them was Deke’s wife, Marge, which was always a little frightening, because I imagined Deke hearing all about it when he was at home. And yet, over time, the wives came to understand that I was no threat to them, and in fact Marge eventually became one of my biggest advocates.” He also relates an anecdote whereby there was a party just after the divorce became final and he feared to go because of the wives' disapproval. Scott told him to go and he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• As a pianist, did he perform at major recitals or shows to make him accomplished? If not, I think that "playing piano" could be grouped together with his other recreational interests.

Merged.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Death

• I would shorten the number of direct-quote tributes listed. My take is to limit it to quotes from very notable people (Bridenstine, Aldrin, and Pence). I'm not a fan of the Kallman quote, as it's quite long. I think the McLaughlin quote should definitely be removed, as the author isn't a notable individual, and there's no indication that the author had any interaction or first-hand knowledge about Worden.

I have removed the McLaughlin one, and cut back on the Kallman one. I think something from Kallman should remain as he knew Worden in recent years.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I think it's better now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have! Please let me know if you have questions or further comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the review. I've either implemented or commented on all your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Balon Greyjoy, did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping to see if any additional editors would weigh in on the approachable astronauts/vodka on the rocks comments that we left above. But it seems like that is not occurring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy what are your thoughts now? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Review to come but in meantime Wehwalt can you rescue the "astronomy" ref just removed? JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, could I ask you to crack on with this if have a chance? It's been open a fair while but I don't want to archive if you're ready to comment... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Before you do so, let me see if the people who weighed in at the A-class review wish to do so here AustralianRupert and Hawkeye7.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I am not really in the right frame of mind to review for FAC at the moment, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

"How was your EVA?" "It was ruff going."

-EEng

I haven't much to say; I am very happy with the sate of the article. I was pleased to find the image of the ARPS class, but you trumped me with the pics of the corvettes. I would consider moving the Group five image down a paragraph and across to the left to maiantain the left-right sequence; and move the image of the postal cover down one paragraph. Suggest simplify the spacewalk caption to "Worden performing the first deep-space EVA during Apollo 15's homeward journey". (EEng would say that if any Soviet space dogs performed EVAs that would be really interesting.) But these are just suggestions.

• Note b could use a reference
• "Air Force" and "test pilot" are doubly linked in the lead
• In the body, "Aerospace Research Pilot School", "Apollo Program" and "George Low" are double-linked.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the double lead link for "test pilot", the other double links are due to one being a pipe, or, in the case of George Low, he is only introduced as a NASA official when he proposes Apollo 8 as lunar mission, and it is simpler to re-link him in the postal covers section than to remind the reader that he has been talked about before. Note b is now sourced. I was very pleased about the Corvettes, I need to follow up with the guy, he knows people at NASA and showed me other pix we might make use of. But good job on the ARPS class. As for the spacewalking pooch, I suppose there will be a need to walk the dog even in space ... thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a few suggestions for you to consider, looks very comprehensive Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• spent his early years on farms— perhaps rephrase to make it clear that he was living on farms, rather than working
• U.S.'s service academies — U.S. service academies would be acceptable, at least to a Brit, and is less clunky
• perhaps link "cheerleading" and "umbilical"
• 47th in his class — out of 47? 500?

  Out of 470. By 1960, 260 were serving in the Army and 122 in the Air Force; 81 had returned to civilian life, 2 were foreign graduates, and 5 were dead. By 1990, only 5 were still serving in the Army and 2 in the Air Force, and 36 were dead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• as it proved correctly— perhaps as proved correct?

• Two cameras, a stellar camera and a metric camera, together comprised the mapping camera, which was complemented by a panoramic camera—five repeats og "camera" in one sentence

Down to four.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Worden founded Alfred M. Worden, Inc —which did what?

  He doesn't say in his memoirs and the sources that mention it don't expand on it either.

  "Maris Worden Aerospace, Inc., formed with John Maris to develop and patent an Aerodynamic Performance Monitor and Stall Warning System for aircraft" [39] The company still exists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• In External links, IMDB and Medium are not considered reliable sources. I don't have a problem with the Medium link, but I don't thin IMBD adds anything.

I've done all those except as noted. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2020 [40].

---

Horseshoe bat

Nominator(s): Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a family of bats that have been quite relevant in the news lately as the possible origin of SARS-CoV. They have a lot of diversity and some strange features, even for bats (pubic nipples!) Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sainsf

This is a placeholder for now, I will add all my comments next week. I find the article really interesting and beautiful after reading a few paragraphs here and there. Thank you for your work on this important topic :) Sainsf (t · c) 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay this is my first set of comments, will add more as we move forward:

• There are quite a few duplicate links, you can find them using this script. Link the terms only on their first mention (unless it is a link in the cladogram or captions).
  • I have the script enabled and I'm not seeing the duplinks? I intentionally duplicated links between captions and the body, as well as between the body and the lead, as these are established exceptions. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I can see around five of them like "Afrotropical realm" in Evolutionary history. Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I've fixed all the ones that I see. If your script is highlighting ones that mine is not, feel free to remove. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Okay so with that gone, "SARS-related coronaviruses" and "least horseshoe bat" show up as duplinks in Relationship to humans but I am not sure if we should remove them as repetition might help here. Anyway, not a big deal. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Fixed. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• closely related to the Hipposideridae It may be helpful to mention the common name of this family of bats for a lay-reader, as you do for Hipposideros later.
  • Done Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• combined head and body lengths isn't "combined" redundant when you say head and body length?
  • I think the distinction is that it's lengths, not length, implying two separate measurements are being added together. I've rephrased. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Remember to fix the mention in the body as well ("Individuals have a head and body length") Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
      • What I was trying to convey earlier is that I don't think it's inaccurate to say "combined head and body lengths" (there are two lengths added together) and also "individuals have a head and body length". Is the meaning unclear when I say individuals have a head and body length of x? I feel that's pretty straight-forward. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh no, it sounds fine. I suggested making both descriptions consistent if you changed the phrasing in the lead. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• You can link subgenera, biogeography, taxonomy, Old World, subtropical, echolocation, polygynous, and gestation in the lead (and on the first mention of these terms in the main body). Just terms that I think might not be common in a common person's life. And maybe link Southeast Asia as well if you are linking another geographical region like Sub Saharan Africa.
  • Done. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Fur can be reddish-brown...smooth fur "fur" is repeated in this line, maybe we can say "The fur, long and smooth in most species, can be reddish-brown, blackish, or bright orange-red".
  • Thank you for the suggestion, changed. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• What exactly is a "high-duty call"?
  • Glossed. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• A minor quibble.. you can be consistent in whether you include a brief introduction for people. For example, Gray and several others are not introduced like Lacépède ("French naturalist") and Bell.
  • Made consistent. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• In Taxonomic history link superfamily and maybe Oriental as well. Any link or short explanation for "species group"?
  • Added links and an explanation of species groups and links. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• The most recent common ancestor of Rhinolophus You may want to add "most recent" to the mention in the lead.
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• In Evolutionary history link geological time periods like Eocene, R. nippon and maybe Afrotropics. "Sister" can be linked to sister taxon. No link for nuclear DNA?
  • Not sure if R. nippon is widely recognized as a full species. The 2019 authors considered it separate, but NCBI and ITIS recognize it as a subspecies of the greater horseshoe bat. I supposed I could create it as a redirect? Added more links. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yeah a redirect might be a good idea. Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Redirect created. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• were more closely related to African species Why "were"? These species are still around.
  • Fixed. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Moving on (note the underlined point above which might have escaped your notice), Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Link genetic divergence in Evolutionary history
  • Linked. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• represented by one species, Palaeonycteris robustus.[14] Palaeonycteris robustus On the second mention of the species you can just say P. robustus
  • In my academic experience, you don't start a sentence with a genus abbreviation, which is echoed here "With scientific names, it is common to abbreviate the genus to its first letter after the first mention so long as only one genus is being represented (Aspergillus niger at first mention and A. niger thereafter, for example). However, it is better to spell out the genus in full at the beginning of a sentence". Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, thanks for pointing it out. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• ranging from 35–110 mm "35 to 110"
  • Revised phrasing so that I can keep the cvt template. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• bright orange-red dorsal fur 'Dorsal' may be tough to understand for lay readers, maybe something like underfur works? Or a link would be helpful. Similarly for "anterior" in "anterior portion of the nose-leaf", "rostral" in "rostral inflations".
  • Revised. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• In Description link mammary gland, premolar, canine teeth, echolocate, digit, cartilaginous. You can add a lot of helpful links in the line "Several bones in their thoraxes are fused—the presternum, first rib, partial second rib, seventh cervical vertebra, first thoracic vertebra". Link nose-lead in the caption
  • Added lots of links. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• As you will link echolocate in the previous section, omit the link in "they use echolocation to navigate"
  • Moved links. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Say either "high duty" or "high-duty"
  • Good catch, fixed. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• embryonic development, meaning that growth of the embryo Link embryo in "embryonic" only
  • Moved link. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• if the female enters torpor It would be good to add a few words on torpor as this behavior is not covered in the article anywhere, but seems significant enough to have a short description.
  • Added info on torpor and hibernation. Enwebb (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Individuals hunt solitarily.[17] Because its hind limbs are poorly developed, If the earlier line refers to the bats in plural, the next line should say "their" not "its"
  • fixed. Enwebb (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• In Biology and ecology you can link frequency modulated, second harmonic, first harmonic, uropatagia, diurnal avian predator (each of these words can be linked), temperate, torpor, sociality
  • Uropatagium already linked at 1st occurrence in description#post crania; to avoid a sea of blue, I just put "day-active birds" after diurnal avian and wl predator. The only think really linkable for first and second harmonic is Animal_echolocation#Harmonic_composition, which is pretty much garbage. Enwebb (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• In Range and habitat link hibernate
  • Added link to first occurrence, which is in reproduction and life cycle subsection. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will add my comments on the last section in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• "Hill's horseshoe bat" is a disambig link
  • Fixed. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Scientific name for Ruwenzori horseshoe bat like the others in the sentence?
  • At the first occurrence of a species, I both link it and put its sci name in parenthesis. After that, I do not include sci name. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Other than this I think everything is perfect in the prose. You may wish to add a link to the Wikispecies entry (if any) or some external links if you wish but none of it is necessary.

That is all from me. Once again, marvelous work! Respond whenever you are free. Cheers and stay safe, Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, all the points I made have been addressed properly. I am confident the prose meets FA standards. Supporting :) (forgot to state this earlier.. I will be listing this in my WikiCup submissions) Sainsf (t · c) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Since I reviewed the article at GA, the principal changes have been in citation formatting. I believe the article gives an excellent overview of the family, its ecology, and its relationships to humans including its hosting of coronaviruses. I therefore have little to add just now, though the cladogram could include a cropped photograph of Craseonycteridae, and it might be helpful to pop in a sublabel below Yangochiroptera saying "(most microbats)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally giving me the motivation to hunt down a good picture of the Kitti's hog-nosed bat. I've never been happy with the sparse media files we've had for it, and we now finally have a real photograph! I added in the sublabel you suggested. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maxilla image
• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Palaeonycteris_robustus.png: what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Rhinonicteris_aurantia.jpg, File:Rhinolophidae_vs_molossidae.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Palaeonycteris_robustus.png: the illustrator of the specific plate is not stated (I don't think, at least, but I don't read French), but the authors of Annales des sciences geologiques were Edmond Hébert (d. 1890) and Alphonse Milne-Edwards (d. 1900)
• Rhinonicteris aurantia.jpg: this came from Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum (1878), author George Edward Dobson (d. 1895)
• Rhinolophidae_vs_molossidae.png: is an amalgamation of two images. The illustrator of the top image was Philibert Charles Berjeau (d. 1927). The name on the plate for the bottom image is "Bruch". I would guess Carl Friedrich Bruch (d. 1857) was the illustrator; his older brother Philipp Bruch (d. 1847) was also a scientist, but studied mosses, not animals

• Suggest adding all these findings to their respective image description pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• For the maxilla image, I increased from upright=1.5 to upright=2
• Added alt text to images. Enwebb (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb: it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

• "Internally, the horseshoe bats are divided into six subgenera and many species groups." I am not sure that "Internally" adds anything here.
  • Removed. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "it is unclear where the geographic roots of the family are, and attempts to determine the biogeography of the family have been indecisive" 1. Is it possible to avoid having "family" twice in one sentence? 2. Optional: "indecisive" → 'inconclusive'.
  • Adjusted. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "as well as species recognized as distinct that may, in fact" Delete "in fact"; a reader will nor assume that what you have written is not factual.
  • Removed. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "high-duty calls". 1. Link to Duty cycle. 2. Consider changing to 'calls at high duty cycles'.
  • fixed. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "as a source of disease and as food and traditional medicine" → 'as a source of disease, as food and as traditional medicine'.
  • fixed. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Sub-Saharan Africa" → 'sub-Saharan Africa'.
  • fixed

Still an instance of "Sub-". I have changed it.

• "though they are now most often recognized as a separate family" needs a citation.
  • Added two. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link Eocene, Miocene, Oligocene and Pliocene.
  • Done Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link biogeography in both the article and the lead.
  • Done. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link Afrotropics to Afrotropical realm; unlink later "Afrotropical realm"
  • Done
• "In a few species, males have a false nipple in each armpit." In a few species of horseshoe bats or of bats generally?
  • Horseshoe bats, revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link "anterior".
  • done
• Is "with the teeth resorbed into the body" cited to Hermanson 1982?
  • Yes, duplicated ref. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link "uropatagium" to Patagium.
  • Uropatagium is already linked to patagium (uropatagium is a redirect). Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "sound production composes more than 30% of total time" Maybe 'they are producing sound more than 30% of the time'?
  • Thank you for the suggestion, changed. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "that search for moving prey items in cluttered environments" I am not sure that it will be clear to readers what constitutes a cluttered environment. Perhaps a word or two of explanation?
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "likely assist in focusing the emission of sound, reducing the effect of environmental clutter on sound" Would it be possible to rephrase to avoid "of sound ... on sound"?
  • Truncated sentence. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "aiming the production of sound" I think you mean 'aiming the sound produced'.
  • Rephrased. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Horseshoe bats have sophisticated senses of hearing via well-developed cochlea". "via" → 'due to their' sounds more encyclopedic.
  • Sure, revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• "though consume other arthropods like spiders". Suggest 'though they also consume other arthropods such as spiders'.
  • Revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Link "substrate" to Substrate (biology).
  • Done. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "are average or lower than average" Is that compared with other bats?
  • Yes, added "Relative to all bats" at the beginning of this sentence. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "most horseshoe bat species have average wing area" Likewise.
  • Added "Relative to all bats" at the beginning of these sentences to try to clarify. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• "they had the least attention of any bat family relative to their species diversity". Maybe 'they had received the least ...".
  • Revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "This causes the interval between fertilization and birth to vary from two to three months" Should this be '... vary between two to three months'?
  • Revised. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• The "Coronaviruses" subsection is one long paragraph. Would it be possible to break it?
  • Now two paragraphs. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• "The Newar people of Nepal "almost certainly" use horseshoe bats ..." MOS:QUOTEPOV states that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" - emphasis in original.
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from Therapyisgood

Doing a quick search through the article, I am surprised the word "flea" or the word "ectoparasite" is not mentioned at least once. From my work on the Hectopsylla genus I am aware fleas often inhabit bats as a host. Though I am also not that familiar with editing articles on topics where every bit of knowledge isn't included. Can you comment on this? Is there any published material on their parasites? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I am curious if you are still actively pursuing this nom. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Therapyisgood thank you for your points! I had a major disruption IRL and will get back to this in earnest this upcoming week, including adding a section about parasites. Enwebb (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Content about predators and parasites added in a new subsection. Enwebb (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Therapyisgood if you would like to add more comments, please do so. I'm able to edit more regularly now. Enwebb (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Some additional comments from Therapyisgood

I don't have the time to do a full review or anywhere near (which would be nice), but a quick readthrough gives me the impression something more should be mentioned on the species in Palaeonycteris discovered in France. At least a half-sentence more on its wingspan, anything really, how it was classified in the Horshoebat family, what that was based on, etc. It's prominent in the lead. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can create a stub or something for Palaeonycteris but really almost nothing is known about it. I wouldn't call it prominent in the lead, I just mention that it exists. Enwebb (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

• I wonder why the lemma is the family rather than the genus?
  • Swapped. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe mention the number of species in the lead?
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• or bright orange-red – dot missing
  • Thanks, fixed. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• The nose-leafs aid in echolocation; horseshoe bats have highly sophisticated echolocation – maybe combine to "which is highly sophisticated in horseshoe bats" as it reads a bit rough.
  • Combined sentences. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Verspertilionidae – typo?
  • Thank you, fixed
• Csorba et al. in 2003 – would write "and colleagues" to avoid the very technical term.
  • Removed, thanks. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Skull of the greater horseshoe bat, showing the prominent rostral inflations on the snout – do we need the "rostral"? They do not seem far rostral on the snout anyways judging from the picture?
  • It seems that it is consistently referred to as a "rostral inflation" in the literature. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• The anterior portion of the nose-leaf – "front portion" to keep it simple?
  • Simplified. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• The sella usually has less hair than the lancet or the nose-leaf. – but it was just stated that the sella is part of the nose leaf?
  • I actually removed this sentence because I realize I misread the source. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• The nose-leafs are important in species identification, and are composed of several parts. The lancet is triangular, pointed, and pocketed, and points up between the bats' eyes. The sella is a flat, ridge-like structure at the center of the nose, rising from behind the nostrils, that points out perpendicular from the head. – This leaves me wonder, which part does the horseshoe belong to, or was this part forgotten?
  • Rearranged and rephrased this part to make it clear that the horseshoe is one of the 3 parts (horseshoe, lancet, sella). Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Instead, they use echolocation to navigate. Horseshoe bats have some of the most sophisticated echolocation of any bat group. – Maybe combine these two sentences into a single one since it reads a bit choppy.
  • Combined. Enwebb (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• The wingspans are typical for their body sizes, and their aspect ratios, which relate wingspan to wing area, are average or lower than average. – Do you compare with bats in general here? Not clear.
  • Yes, added the phrase "relative to all bats" at the beginning of these sentences to try to make this clearer. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Rhinolophus sedulus, however, is a rare species of bat that is believed to be monogamous – you mean "is amongst the rare species of bat that are believed to be monogamous", or is it really a rare/endangered species?
  • Rephrased, I meant the former. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• In hibernating species, the sperm storage timing coincides with hibernation – you mean the fertilization timing?
  • No, the storage of the sperm coincides with hibernation (they occur at the same time). Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Because its hind limbs are poorly developed, it cannot scuttle on flat surfaces nor climb adeptly like other bats. – in other parts of the article "their" was used.
  • Fixed. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• for SARS-related coronaviruses (testing positive for antibodies associated with it) – "with them"?
  • Fixed, thanks. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• The Newar people of Nepal "almost certainly" – is this a citation? Maybe just use "probably"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a quote. Pointed out about by GTM that in-text attribution needed for opinions, which I added. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like this needs an image and source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth See above for image review. Enwebb (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: how is the source review looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Still an open question wrt FN56, and I've posted a request for input at WPMED for the COVID-19 material. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikki, Enwebb, are we further forward with what I understand to be these last outstanding points? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

FN56 is fine; see WPMED for discussion of the MEDRS question. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Where do we stand on this? --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The MED discussion has been archived; the only opinion provided was "The sources are rather old by MEDRS standards and reasonably good secondary sources, if not necessarily the highest quality. As the claims are not exceptional as in WP:REDFLAG, my inclination would be to accept them as sufficient quality, but someone with expertise in infectious diseases (i.e. not me) might disagree with my assessment." This was the only pending issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• I can't find any information about Alana Books - what kind of publisher is this?
  • It's considered an authoritative and foundational work for this family. The Journal of Mammalogy published a review of it here, saying in part "In general, I found this book to be so good as to perhaps be in a sense insidious. Most readers will merely head for the species-group key, refer to the illustrations, and leave it at that once they have more or less identified a specimen in their possession. Only by means of a vigilant examination will a reader see among the taxonomic remarks (or elsewhere) the wealth of research gems beautifully and carefully planted by Csorba". In Mammals of Africa, the authors state "The Rhinolophidae have been comprehensively reviewed by Csorba et al. (2003)." You can find more publications by Alana Books if you do an exact search for "Alana Books, Shropshire" or "Alana Books, Bishop's Castle". Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Fn5: if you're citing the web republication the citation should reflect that; if you're citing the original, this needs a page number. Ditto FN10
  • MSW3 has its own citation template. The citation is simply {{MSW3|id=13800444}}. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Then the citation template needs changing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN13: does this have an ISBN?
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN19: Fauna of Australia is the work title; the given website title doesn't need to be included
  • Changed to cite book. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN44: this is an open-access publication; why bother with a ResearchGate link?
  • Rm URL, added doi-access=free to citation. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN45 is missing publisher
  • Added. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• I don't feel the citations provided are strong enough to support the COVID-19 content - research in this area is far from settled at this point
  • Can you be specific as to which sources do not support which claims? I feel like I used very cautious language (Some evidence suggests that some species could be the natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019.), which I believe is supported by the present literature. Furthermore, I believe that the relevant citations used in the article are all MEDRS. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I checked this as part of good article review of Bat virome and from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01541-z and https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/health/coronavirus-origin-china-lucey.html it now seems to be the scientific consensus that the reservoir is in bats. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Chidgk1, news articles are not particularly good sources for determining scientific consensus. Enwebb, you're quoting from the lead, but what's in the article is more definitive. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I have copied in some text from Bat virome, all of which are peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Again, if you feel there is a mismatch between what is in a source and what is written in the article, please point out the specific sentences. Enwebb (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
          • One of the added sources is from bioRxiv and specifically notes that "This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review". Another is an editorial, a publication type which does not typically undergo peer review. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Nikkimaria, Surely Nature can report what the scientific consensus is can't it? They ought to know. There is no serious alternative hypothesis. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Nature is a work title
  • Changed parameter. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN56: I can't verify this journal - what is its area and who is the publisher?
  • It's Czech/Slovak [41][42]. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Are articles in this journal generally peer-reviewed? Where is it indexed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Copies of this journal are held by The Smithsonian Institute Library, Naturalis Library, and the National Library of the Czech Republic. Its Chief editor is Petr Benda, who is a chapter author of Handbook of the Mammals of the World, among other job titles. Its instructions to authors indicate that there is review from the editorial board. I don't think it's considered a particularly prestigious journal, but it (and Benda) seem reputable. Enwebb (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN57 is misformatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it? It looks how I intend it to. For IUCN advanced searches, you cannot retrieve a stable link to the search. So I cannot link to the IUCN advanced search where I have filtered "taxonomy" to equal "Rhinolophidae". I think it's reasonable to list "Taxonomy=Rhinolophidae" or "Taxonomy: Rhinolophidae" as the title of the webpage here. Enwebb (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • IUCN is not a work. Why are you pointing to a particular search, rather than a specific source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • It supports this: As of 2020, the IUCN had evaluated 87 species of horseshoe bat. They have the following IUCN statuses:. What's the problem? Enwebb (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2020 [43].

---

Treaty of Lutatius

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Regular reviewers of my articles from the First Punic War may well be pleased to hear that we have finally reached the end of the war. This article covers the peace treaty that ended the 27-year-long conflict. A departure for me, being the first time I have nominated a non-conflict article for FAC, so I suspect that it needs lots of feedback. It has been through both GAN and ACR, and so I hope that it is approaching the standard required for here. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Licensing and source information is adequate (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi buidhe and many thanks for the prompt reviews. Harrias, bless their little cotton socks, has come up with a far more appropriate map. So I have swapped out the second map. You will probably wish to check over the licensing and sourcing of the new one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's an improvement! Happy to approve it. (t · c) buidhe 20:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• All sources appear to be reliable
• Source checks:
  • Wardle: I have trouble finding support for the content. The paper doesn't mention Atticus and deals mostly with religious issues, so maybe you could make it clearer what information is supported by this source rather than Ziolkowski. Also, ideally "some historians" is attributed to at least one who holds this viewpoint.

Wardle mentions Atticus on p. 382, but only as "A. Manlius Torquatus". He only summarises Ziolkowski's argument here. He agrees with him on the political point, but not on the "religious issues" you mention. Arguably you could simply say "Ziolkowski" instead of "some historians". I cited Wardle to show that Ziolkowski's argument was not a single "wild guess", and that at least another historian had agreed with him. T8612 (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In line attributed to just Ziolkowski. I see what you mean about Wardle. I have cut the cite to them to just one page. The reason for Wardle is as T8612 suggests, to demonstrate that Ziolkowski's view is not just a "rogue hypothesis" and is part of the "representative survey of the relevant literature". I would be happy to take it out if you prefer. The relevant text is

Ziolkowski stresses another ... dimension: ... [Cerco's] opponents wanted the war to continue ... the opposition, led by ... A. Manlius Torquatus

The religious mechanisms are not really relevant.

• • Hoyos 2000: Supports "appeal to Rome", but not the previous two sentences. Maybe citations could be moved to make it more clear what is being supported.

Done.

(t · c) buidhe 21:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Your comments responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support comments from T8612

• "where they were rejected by the popular assembly."There were several assemblies. In this case, it's the Centuriate Assembly (Goldsworthy p. 129).

Thanks. Tweaked.

• "A commission of ten..." I would add a "then" or something similar in the sentence to better show the chain of events.

Added.

• I would add the opinion of Scullard (in CAH 7-2 pp. 565-6), who says the first treaty was "somewhat lenient" for Carthage. Then, he says that the clause on respective allies in the second draft was a compensation given to Carthage after the bigger fine. This would play a role at the beginning of the Second Punic War, as Saguntum became a Roman ally after the conclusion of the treaty [you can also put this in "aftermath" as you mention Saguntum there]. Scullard also mentions there was a declaration of friendship between Rome and Carthage, which explains the help given by Rome during the Mercenary War (see p. 568).

You are fond of Scullard aren't you. I was not inclined to add modern historians' subjective views of the treaty, if only because there is no consensus:

• Miles: "The terms agreed in 241 were harsh".
• Goldsworthy: "the peace terms made it clear that [Carthage] had been defeated".
• Bleckmann (in Hoyos): "remarkably moderate".
• I also checked two others who didn't give a subjective opinion.
• Bagnall: "realistic and reasonable" - whatever that means.

However, I should probably add a bit on these conflicting modern views. Added.

Clause on allies: Both Lazenby and Goldsworthy (the only two I have checked) state that the only changes in the second draft Polybius mentions in his "Book 1" were the increased indemnity/reduced time to pay and the evacuation of the islands between Sicily and Italy. When discussing the start of the Second Punic War in a later he contradicts himself in passing. Most sources incline towards ignoring or dismissing this, but I can expand on it if you think it worthwhile.

My understanding was that Saguntum was not an ally; rather the Romans had agreed a vague treaty of friendship and support - possibly deliberately.

Saguntum became an "ally" of Rome after the treaty of Lutatius, so Carthage said the treaty only covered allies at the time of the treaty, while Rome said new allies were to be included too. In fact Scullard develops this in details in the CAH vol. 8, p. 39. Strangely, Polybius talks about the "respective allies" in another book of his Histories.

Let me do a bit of research and I'll consider tweaking the aftermath. But not if it's just Scullard.

@Gog the Mild: you have some details on Saguntum and the Treaty of Lutatius in Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, pp. 175-178. T8612 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As this is from 23 years after that part of the treaty was signed I don't want to bloat the Aftermath with it. On the other hand, if Saguntum was an ally, then it does need including somewhere on some level. On the third hand the sources seem to split about 50:50 on this. So I have gone with Goldsworthy, who acknowledges (p. 144) the debate, and summarised the situation in a footnote. See what you think.

Declaration of friendship: well, possibly; so why did they then cynically ignore this clause less than two years later, To OR, politics sounds like a more likely explanation than scrupulous adherence to the treaty.

Bleckman in Hoyos' Companion (pp. 180-1) said "Because the peace of 241 had been passed with an extremely slender majority and in a climate of intense conflicts in domestic politics, it is not surprising that only a few years later, when Carthage had become defenseless, the treaty was “corrected” by forcing the cession of Sardinia, an especially bitter blow to Carthage." Perhaps you could add "extremely slender majority" somewhere to explain the change in Roman behaviour. I would also add something on this in the lede, that the Lutatii passed their peace treaty despite considerable opposition in the Senate. I also found a source in German on this if you want.

Yes, I have read Bleckmann.

Thanks, but there are plenty of English sources. Not all agree on the strength of the opposition and definitely not that that was why the Romans seized Sardinia. I am not happy using "there was a declaration of friendship between Rome and Carthage" to "explain the help given by Rome during the Mercenary War", and then that the "extremely slender majority" explains "the change in Roman behaviour". That's not what a consensus of sources say. I think that for once we are best just stating the facts.

• "These were all formalised in the Treaty of Lutatius, named after Catulus." I would add that Catulus had remained in Sicily as proconsul (Broughton, vol. I, pp. 219-220).

OK. Added.

• "Hiero, the king of the Roman satellite kingdom of Syracuse". It's Hiero II, as there was a Hiero I before (although several sources call the older one Hieron, perhaps to distinguish between them).

Regnal numbers added.

• Perhaps you can tell that Sardinia was taken by the consul Titus Manlius Torquatus, also nephew of Torquatus Atticus (Broughton, vol. I, p. 223). After this, he closed the gates of the Temple of Janus for the first time during the Roman Republic (Hoyos, Unplanned Wars, p. 130).

You don't think that that is getting, quite a bit, off topic? ("It stays focused on the main topic".)

A bit yes, you can leave it out, although you should add the event in Punic Wars. To continue my OR, I think Torquatus made a political statement after capturing Sardinia, "now , the war is over" (meaning that the Lutatii had not ended the war).

[As an aside, I think the Torquati were among the "anti-Carthaginian" faction at Rome, which pushed for continuing the war and taking Sardinia, against that of the Lutatii brothers, who obviously were for peace and helping Carthage during the Mercenary War. The sudden shift in Roman policy regarding Sardinia would be explained by the censor of 236 who changed the composition of the senate by appointing new senators favourable to the former faction. But that's completely original research lol.]

I am sure that there was a whole snakepit of personalities and politics that we only get the faintest flavour of, and that sounds more convincing than a lot of stuff in the RSs.

• I would add in the infobox, and perhaps the first lede sentence, a mention to the addendum following the taking of Sardinia, at least the date.

Done.

Wait, you wrote "With a codicil added in 218 BC", but Sardinia was taken in 237 BC.

That's because I am an idiot. I was working on Punic Wars and confused the date of the start of the Second with the end of the First! Thanks. Fixed.

T8612 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612 and thanks for the prompt review of this. Some good points, as usual. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Responded. I'll come back more fully when I have done some reading. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612, I have responded to your follow up points. Over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• All right, two final suggestions:
• "which ended the First Punic War after 23 years." sounds a bit weird to me. Perhaps add "of conflict" at the end, or "started in 264" or "23 years before". Just a matter of style.

That reads oddly to me, but done.

• "Sicily became the first Roman province as Sicilia, governed by a former praetor." At the time it was just a praetor (not a "former" one), although the provincial system was formally organised later, in 228 BC, with both Sicily and Sardinia governed by a praetor (their number was raised to four that year). The definite source on this is: T. Corey Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 85-93. [That's a great source btw, lots of info on other things, not just the praetorship]. Moreover, I would also mention that Syracuse remained independent, as shown on the map above. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Two very good points. Thank you, and done. I have no idea where I got "former" from! Plus, half the cites of that paragraph seem to have gone MIA - I have reinserted them.

T8612 Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Next up: First Punic War. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• All right, supporting now. Are you planning to make a featured topic on the First Punic War? T8612 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Thank you. No, there are too many petty skirmishes and red links which may never be articles. The article itself will be my last on the First Punic War. (Although I may do bios on some of the more notable Carthaginians, and possibly take them to GAN.) I will be moving on to some 2PW articles for a while. I may try for a good topic on the Punic Wars - only trepidation about trying to get 2PW to FA stops me going further; I already have PWs in (I think) good shape and have just started on 3PW. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Girth Summit

Not much from me - a very good read, just a few points to consider:

• In the lead: "...consul Gaius Lutatius Catulus defeated a Carthaginian fleet a..." - WP:SOB, and way to reword?

Done.

• First punic war: "demographically exhausted" - can we link that to something, or explain it? (I appreciate that you touch on the lack of available adult Roman citizens, but perhaps it could be made more explicit that this phrase means 'running out of bodies')

Tweaked.

• Perhaps also link to Roman citizenship

Good thinking. Done.

• Treaty: "This caused him to be eager to conclude..." Perhaps 'This made him eager to conclude might be slightly less awkward?

"Awkward! My prose, awkward? The cheek! That's the problem with the younger generation: no respect for their elders. Mutter. Mumble. Changed.

That's about it. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth, appreciated. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Support from this cheeky whippersnapper. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hog Farm

I might wind up claiming WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• "a Carthaginian fleet was defeated by a Roman fleet" - The piped link is only to defeated. That's a bit MOS:EGG-like, I'd recommend changing the piping to was defeated, to make it clear that something more than just defeat is being linked.

Done.

• "to agree a peace treaty with the Romans," - I feel like there should be a "to" between agree and a

I see what you mean, but that would communicate something subtlety different. How it is is how it is supposed to be. I have changed "agree" to 'negotiate'. Does that help?

• "In the event the war lasted 23 years, with the maritime aspect the largest and longest naval war of the ancient world" - I'm not sure exactly what's wrong here, but this don't quite read right to me. I think "in the event" is throwing me off. Basically, this isn't grammatically correct in the language of redneck, but it may be fine in other things of English

It is, but you are right in that it is overly convoluted. Now simplified.

• "and in a hard-fought battle" - Same with the MOS:EGG issue above. Personally, I'd make the piped part "a hard-fought battle"

I'm not seeing this. You would expect "hard fought battle" to send you to a battle, which it does; so why is it EGGy? It is not normal practice to include definite or indefinite articles within pipes. Eg The [[Battle of the Aegates]] and not [[the Battle of the Aegates]]. It is so universal that I would guess that there is a policy on it somewhere.

• You mention in the first sentence of the lead and in the infobox that it was amended in 218 BC. There's no content about a 218 amendment, but there is content about a 237 amendment.

That's because I am an idiot. The Second Punic War started in 218 BC and I clearly have that date jammed in my mind. Thank you. Amended.

• Adrian Goldsworthy is a duplink

Oops. Thanks. Fixed.

That's about all I can find. Willing to discuss/retract any of these. The only of these I'd consider not a nitpicky prose issue is the amendment date issue. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:58 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This might be a brEnglisg / amEnglish thing, but I disagree with Hog Farm about the language issues (agree a treaty and in the event) - I think they're both fine as they are (although, personally, I'd have a comma after event...). GirthSummit _(blether) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Girth Summit|, that' cus you're in the "Today, I had breakfast" school of commaisation, while I am in the "Today I had breakfast." (When I first started copy editing Wikipedia it looked to me as if in a significant minority of articles someone had scattered commas at random.) You may want to run an eye over my changes to check that I haven't messed anything up. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Today, I had breakfast. Once I'd finished, I read your comment. Having checked your diff, I am satisfied that you haven't made a mess of anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Prompt service again Hog Farm, thank you. Your comments all addressed above. The diff is here. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Ready to support. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Harrias

I reviewed this at its A-class review, and it has been generally improved since then, so I don't expect to find much.

Good morning Harrias. How are you enjoying the weather? Let's see what you have for me.

On account of being British, I'm going to complain: it's too hot. We have three fans running in the house, and it's still ridiculous. I've got to lead a 7-mile run this evening, and frankly I'm not looking forward to it much. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

:-) I know what you mean. I run cold and even I aren't happy. I went up a steep hill in north Derbyshire over the weekend and had shorts on for only the second time in the UK in over 25 years. I don't envy you at all: lots of hydration!

• "Rome then sent a commission of ten to settle the matter." I think something like "Rome then sent a ten-man commission to settle the matter." might flow better and sound less archaic, but it isn't something I'm going to press.

I'm writing about the 3rd century BC, I'm trying to sound archaic. Fixed.

• I'm going to do that thing again, where I raise something that I've ignored in countless article before. Why is the footnote stating "Hamilcar Barca was the father of Hannibal." necessary? Is it relevant enough to this article to warrant a footnote, rather than being a fact determinable by following the wikilink?

I'm with you but if I hadn't at least one, and probably several, reviewers would have been vehemently insisting that I "had" to include it. It is a minority opinion, but a strong one, so I have been inserting it preemptively. I would be more than happy to take it out.

It seems unnecessary to me, but I'm not fussed. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "..and in a hard-fought battle the.." To avoid a minor WP:EASTEREGG, could this be changed to "..and in the hard-fought Battle of the Aegates the..?

Good point. Done.

• "..the Romans sank 50 – 20 with all hands – and captured 70." On first reading, I was a little confused, thinking this meant "50–20 with all hands". This is probably me being an idiot (unspaced versus spaced endash etc.), but could the punctuation or phrasing be tweaked around a bit to avoid this?

You don't want to go with your plan A? Tweaked.

• "It is possible that for political and prestige reasons Hamilcar did not wish to be associated with the treaty which formalised Carthage's defeat in the 23-year-long war." This sounds like POV; ideally it would have inline attribution; whether to one person, or saying that it is the consensus view among historians.

Fair enough. I have gone with "Several modern historians have raised the possibility that ..." I already have three cites at the end of the paragraph, would you like me to duplicate them at the end of this sentence and/or add some more?

No, that's fine. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "This made him eager to conclude a definitive peace and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close." Goldsworthy explicitly suggests that this might have made Catulus "more conciliatory", hence why the deal was subsequently rejected by Rome and harsher terms were agreed. I think this suggestions is worth mentioning.

Sorry Harrias, I am not sure that I (fully) get your point here.

I think it would be worth explicitly mentioning that Goldsworthy suggests that because Catulus was "eager to conclude a definitive peace and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close", he was "more conciliatory" than he perhaps should have been. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am still scratching my head a bit. Is that not what is already said? I don't want to single Goldsworthy out as this is the consensus. I shall try to make it a bit more obvious. I have changed it to "This caused him to be flexible during the negotiations as he was eager to conclude a definitive peace while he still had the authority to, and thus claim the credit for bringing the lengthy war to a close." How's that?

Yeah, I prefer that. For me, the article hadn't been explicit enough that Catulus gave more generous terms because of his eagerness. Harrias ^talk 11:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• "A commission of ten was then sent.." As above.

Done.

• "The historian of ancient Rome Adam Ziolkowski argues there was a faction in Rome opposed to the treaty, and possibly to ending the war at all, which was led by the ex-consul Aulus Manlius Torquatus Atticus." Do we know why?

Wardle summarises "... were keen to conclude a formal peace, and so to secure the glory for having ended the war, whereas their optimate opponents wanted the war to continue so that they might have a chance at glory ..."

Is this worth explaining in the article? Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ziolkowski's theory is one of many, and is not emphasised by most historians. It is there because T2612 wanted it to be given a little more weight. If you are not happy with it - which is your entitlement - I would far rather trim it than expand it.

• Wikilink hinterland.

Done.

• Pointless comment: "The Carthaginians sent a force to retake the island. When it arrived its members also mutinied, joined the previous mutineers, and killed all of the Carthaginians on the island." – This is still my favourite thing ever.

I have read a lot on the Punic Wars over the past year. I have ceased to boggle at the lack of grasp of the absolute basics of military leadership (Hannibal aside) shown by the Carthaginians. It is the Monty Python school of waging war. Wait until the Third Punic War: Romans declare war; land an army in Africa; demand that Carthage hand over all of their weapons and armour and burn all their ships. And the Carthaginians do! Three guesses as to what happens next?

That's it from me. Harrias ^talk 08:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias and many thanks for that. Your points above all addressed, albeit a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: A couple of replies to your replies. Harrias ^talk 11:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Harrias, and back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Suits me, happy to support this. Cracking work as always. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [44].

---

Qibla

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Muslims face the Ka'bah in Mecca during prayers; this direction is called the qibla. Aside from the religious usage, the article includes discussions such as theoretical and practical methods to find this direction from places far from Mecca, and how the determination was done before astronomy and with the early astronomy of the medieval period, and how historical qiblas can differ from each other and from the modern calculated direction. I find it a very interesting topic, and included references that covers its religious, technical, and historical aspects. I hope it is ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have an existing open FA nomination, but a coord gave me permission to start this one concurrently. HaEr48 (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The other review has completed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Not at all my subject, but I like the prose - the article is understandable for this general reader. I have made a few tweaks, hope they are OK. I was a little surprised at the use of an 18th century illustration of Mecca to illustrate an event of several centuries earlier. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you WereSpielChequers (nice username, by the way!) for taking a look and for your support. Your tweaks look fine to me, thank you for those as well. May I know which 18th century illustration of Mecca you are talking about? HaEr48 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Whoops, that was on a linked page, I have struck the comment. ϢereSpielChequers 15:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• Images are free—I'm assuming the prayer rug is not copyrightable.
• Image captioned "A modern city map of a section of Cairo" I am struggling to understand the relevance of the image, and it causes sandwiching above and a broken section below—probably should be removed.

  It seemed obvious to me that the map showed three mosques each with a different alignment, however perhaps the caption could spell this out more clearly? ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It illustrates the slightly different orientation of mosques (probably I should have mention it in the caption). I removed it because based on the reviewer's feedback that it causes layout problems. HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Calculating the qibla from Yogyakarta, Indonesia (see text)" looks really weird stuck in the middle of the screen, wouldn't it make more sense to float left or right?

  The reason I put it in the center is because it guides the reading of the text, e.g. the mathematical notations used in the text refer to the notations in the picture. Usually when I see such an illustration in a text book, it would appear inline in the prose rather than floating right or left as a decoration, so the reader wouldn't miss it. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think it works best floated to the right, so it doesn't break up the text. Images are not supposed to be decoration, they should only be added if they increase reader understanding. MOS:IMAGELOC says that the purpose of centered images is, "To present images larger than the guidelines above (e.g. panoramas)". (t · c) buidhe 16:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: Moved to the right, per MOS:IMAGELOC you cited. I do feel it makes it more likely for readers to miss the image, so please consider if it is worth making an exception of the MOS here. HaEr48 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Religious aspects—image sandwiches the nav sidebar. This could be fixed by moving the sidebar up, to just below the lead images so its sits opposite the TOC. Or you could remove it. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  Removed the sidebar to avoid the sandwiching and probably a sidebar so big does not add that much navigation value anyway. HaEr48 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by A. Parrot

Seems pretty thorough. I only have two large-scale comments about content, and the rest of my comments are about details of clarity, redundancy, and prose. A. Parrot (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale comments

• The article on Mizrah seems to indicate that Jews pray in the cardinal direction closest to the direction of Jerusalem, and this article seems to indicate that Muhammad copied this practice until changing the qibla toward Mecca, nearly due south of his location in Medina. This seems to indicate that Muhammad used cardinal directions for the qibla, even though Jerusalem is not due north of Medina, and that only later did Muslims start focusing on the exact direction toward the Kaaba. I could be wrong, but if the sources indicate an evolution of the qibla like the one I'm inferring from the article text, it would be good to describe the process explicitly.

  I've tried to track it down in various sources, unfortunately can't find any more detail than just facing Jerusalem, without any mention about whether it was due north or slightly northwest, or how the exact direction was determined. HaEr48 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• The final section has subsections for the qibla in the early Islamic world, North America, Indonesia, and space. There must be other parts of the world where the qibla has been a problem, and while not every one of them will have coverage in the sources, I can't help thinking that some of them must. South America may not have a substantial enough Muslim population to produce such coverage, but what about Africa, East Asia, or Australia?

Unfortunately couldn't find any significant material on Australia, East Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa. Even this bibliography is silent on those regions. Found some interesting material on the Maghreb North Africa though, somewhat different than the ones we already have in the article because they're based on modern-day survey of the actual mosques, rather than using historical documents. Added it to the #Early Islamic world section. Let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Smaller-scale

• The article uses "the qibla" and "qibla" inconsistently. If the former is used, it should be used everywhere, except when the word is being used as a modifier for another noun (e.g., in the phrase "qibla calculations"). Wikipedia's usage is generally based on that found in the sources; how do the English-language sources on the subject tend to treat it?

  I checked the sources and I think it's pretty clear that "the qibla" is the norm - it's just inconsistent because of my oversight. Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article on the Kaaba uses that spelling, rather than Ka'bah; it's generally better to use the same spelling as the article title when writing Wikipedia text.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Other than for the ritual prayer, it is also…" Given the context, I think this could be shortened to "The qibla is also…"

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• "the customs of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad in one's place"

  What is the suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, forgot to finish writing this bullet point! The phrase feels a bit awkward, and in fact the whole sentence could be split and slightly reworked. My suggestion: "Before the development of astronomy in the Islamic world, Muslims used traditional methods to determine the qibla. These methods included facing the direction that the companions of Muhammad had used when in the same place; using the setting and rising points of celestial objects; using the direction of the wind; or using due south, which was Muhammad's qibla in Medina."

  Good point, applied a slightly modified version of your suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The link to mizrah is an Easter egg link and should be made more visible, though I'm not sure how best to adjust that sentence.

  I just added (see mizrah) at the end of the sentence, how does that sound? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Giving the reader parenthetical commands in the text "(see mizrah)", isn't ideal. You might just say "…the same direction used by the Jews of Medina for their prayers, the mizrah."

  Went with " the same direction as the prayer direction—the mizrah—used by the Jews of Medina", which also avoid parenthetical command. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency in the treatment of Islamic religious terms. Most are given brief explanations, but some, such as tawaf, Hajj, and umrah, are not.

  Done for tawaf, ihram, and hadith. Hajj and umrah are mentioned as "pilgrimages", so I think they're already explained. Even if they are glossed, usually hajj is just "pilgrimage" or the "major pilgrimage" as opposed to umrah which is a the "minor pilgrimage". 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note B seems to go into rather irrelevant detail. The key points for the purposes of this article are that most Muslims didn't accept the Qarmatians' attempt to change the qibla (or so I assume), the stone was eventually returned, and everything went back to normal, and those seem worth incorporating, albeit briefly, in the main text.

  Added "for a time" to the main text to note that it is temporary - otherwise removed the footnote per your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Religious aspects" is a somewhat odd section title, as it implies that the other aspects of the qibla are non-religious. But it's really an inherently religious subject, although most of the article is taken up with the technical details of how it is determined. Might "religious significance" work?

  Good point. "Ritual aspects" might also work, but I like your suggestion, "religious significance". Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Ayn al-ka'bah is facing the qibla…" This sounds a bit odd. Perhaps it could say "Ayn al-ka'bah is a position facing the qibla…"?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• The link to ijtihad is a bit of an Easter egg link as well; there may be a way to work the term into the sentence.

  Changed into this: one is to make one's own determination—to do an ijtihad—by the means at one's disposal. How is that? HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  This depends on how the Arabic word tends to be used in English-language writing. The article on ijtihad seems to treat it as something a person uses (a mental faculty) rather than something a person does (a practice). Perhaps "to use ijtihad or "to use one's ijtihad"?

  I think "a mental faculty" is just the etymological origin, the actual definition is the "independent reasoning" or "exerting oneself" part, which are acions/practices. Anyway, I checked the Encyclopedia of Islam article on "Idjtihad" (the EoI has a slightly different transliteration) and it uses "to exercise idjtihad" (without an article), which seems reasonable so I change this article to use it too. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wonder if the definition of a great circle should come immediately after the first sentence of that section.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Can something about the Craig retroazimuthal projection be incorporated into the text on "On the world map"?

  Added. Including some discussion about retroazimuthal projection in general and how it is relevant to the qibla. HaEr48 (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to address it, but the overlapping subject matter in "Traditional methods" and "Pre-astronomy" feels like it's created some redundant text in the article.

  I totally understand what you mean.. I've tried to reduce the overlap by focusing on different directions in each sections. I thought hard about it, that feels like the best that can be done. Deleting the "traditional methods" would deemphasize the fact that some of these directions are still used today , and deleting the "pre-astronomy part" will lose us some historical detail about how these methods develop and the "Development of methods" section will have some gaps in its timeline. Ideas welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  I cut a small bit of redundant explanation out of the Pre-astronomy section, but with that done, I think the current amount of overlap is acceptable. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The traditional directions were still in use when mathematical methods later developed and found different directions to Mecca…" feels awkward. I suggest "The traditional directions were still in use when methods were developed to calculate the qibla more accurately…"

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• "…the concept of latitude and longitude introduced in Ptolemy's Geography…" I suggest saying "taken from Ptolemy's Geography", because the important point here is where the Islamic world got the idea, not where it was invented.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• David A. King should be linked and his qualifications briefly mentioned (e.g., his article calls him an "orientalist and historian of astronomy").

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• The section on Indonesia talks first about general problems with finding the qibla there, then quotes recent opinions about it, then talks about qibla disputes in the Dutch East Indies. The resulting jump back in time is strange, though I'm not sure how exactly to rearrange the section, given that the sentences about general problems should come first.

  I split them into two paragraph to clarify that they are talking about different ideas. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• The passage about the four options for prayer in space, "in order of priority", is unclear. I'm having difficulty thinking of a good way to word it. I gather that Muszaphar was told to use the first option if possible and fall back on the other options, successively, if it proved impossible.

  Your understanding is correct. Added another sentence to clarify that. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the same passage, I'm not certain what "the projection of the Ka'bah into space" means.

  My understanding is that if you expand the spherical Earth into the location of the astronaut, the Ka'bah will be (imaginarily) projected into a location in the resulting imaginary sphere. The recommendation is to face that. I added a note, let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

  I've been trying to work out how best to explain this whole subject, and I think it needs some significant rearrangement that's difficult to explain in text. So I made a revised version in the sandbox, in this revision. See what you think. A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for taking the time to write that down. I think it's very good, so I just copied it over with minor adjustments. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The link to List_of_Muslim_astronauts#Praying_towards_Mecca_in_space is strange, given that it's piped to a section of List of Muslim astronauts that has less detail on the subject than this article does. You might instead include List of Muslim astronauts as a see-also link under the "Outer space" section heading.

  Done as suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Thank you very much for your review all your points are good. I have responded to your comments. Most are done as suggested but some I have further queries and some can't be done due to unavailable sources. Sorry for the delay as I needed some research to address them. Let me know what you think, and if you have further comments. HaEr48 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I've added my replies to five of your queries above. Aside from those, all the issues I raised look satisfactory, and I just have two last points. First, might Indonesia be listed before North America in the final section? The section seems arranged sort of chronologically, starting with the early Islamic world and ending with space, but Islam reached Indonesia before it reached North America. Second, the Wired article about the qibla in space mentioned that Muslims who pray while in motion, as on a train, use the direction that was the qibla when they started praying. Is there a good place to mention this? A. Parrot (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: thank you for your follow up. I've addressed them and made further edits to the article. I reordered Indonesia and North America as you suggested. As for praying in a vehicle, I understand there are multiple opinions on this (there are some who say you should wait until the trip ends so that you can find a stable place to pray, for example); what Abdali said may be applicable to just a certain group, so I hesitate to use it authoritatively. In the first #Religious significance section, where most of the religious practice is discussed, I try to only use "overview" sources which review and summarize the possible differences in practices, such as Wensinck and Hadi Bashori. Unfortunately they don't talk about praying in a moving vehicle, and I can't find a good overview RS elsewhere that does. HaEr48 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It's good to see an article on a major religious topic rise to FA level. A. Parrot (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  @A. Parrot: Thank you very much for your review and feedback, and very happy to have your support! HaEr48 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list and the source review list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Didn't have time to review the other FACs about ancient Islamic subjects before they got enough supports, so I'll get in on this one soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• There are a couple of duplinks, you can find them with this tool:[45]

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not a huge deal, but in a couple of areas, your image alignment makes images clash with the section headers beneath them, which could be avoided by reversing the image alignment. The sections "Ayn al-ka'bah and jihat al-ka'bah" and "On the world map" are affected by this.

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, FunkMonk. Looking forward to your review. HaEr48 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Any reason why Muhammad isn't linked in the intro, and why kaaba isn't linked at the first mention outside the intro? Ideally, all terms should be linked both at the first mention in the intro and first mention outside it, there may be more cases. I wonder if Mecca and Muslim should also be linked.

  Done for Muhammad, Kaaba and Mecca. Didn't do it for Muslim, it feels like a common enough word to not require wikilink. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "directly above the Ka'ba" Be consistent in how you spell kaaba.

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Medina, and Jerusalem" Link these in caption of the map.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The qibla status of the Kaaba" why in italics here?

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "when defecating, urinating, and spitting" I wonder if these very common terms need links? I could understand it if they linked to articles about those things in a religious context, but it's just the basic articles.

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "A pilgrim makes a supplication" Link supplication?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem" I wonder if this caption could be given more context?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Ayn al-ka'bah is a position" Give translation?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "in Al-Andalus (historical Spain and Portugal)" That seems an odd way to define it? Wouldn't it be more clear to say Islamic Iberia or something like that?

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "for example Ibn Arabi—consider ayn al-ka'bah to be obligatory during the ritual prayer, while others consider it only obligatory when one is able. For locations further than Mecca, scholars such as Abu Hanifa and Al-Qurtubi argue that" This and other places read as though you are giving current opinions, when looking at the respective articles shows these are centuries old. Could be good to give approximate dates or something, especially since you use present tense.

  Added years that indicate these are past authors. These opinions are still influential/cited today in Islamic law/ritual. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Likewise under for example Determination, it could be useful to know when these various theories were developed.

  The #Determination section is intended for the current status of these methods. The #Development section covers the historical aspects. Where appropriate, dates have been given when #Determination mentions past authors as contexts. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  @FunkMonk: Thanks for reviewing and for your feedback. I've answered above and done most of your suggestions. HaEr48 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "known to Muslim astronomers since the 9th century (3rd century AH), developed by various Muslim scholars" I'm not sure the second "Muslim" is needed if you already qualify you are talking about Muslims the first time?.

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I suck at math, so I can't evaluate the calculations!
• "instruments created in the 18th century Iran" Seems "the" is unneeded.

  Removed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "has a picture of one of the isntruments" Typo.

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "known as ilm al-falak i" Translate?

  Added the literal translation. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "using either analemmas or direct the application of formulas." Not sure what the last part of the sentence means, something missing?

  Should be "using either analemmas or the direct application of formulas". Fixed now. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• You link Baghdad under "With astronomy" instead of at first mention.

  Fixed. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "An electronic version could use satellite coordinates to calculate and indicate the qibla automatically." So this does not exist yet? Maybe make clearer it is hypothetical, and whether it is being worked on?

  Reading the source again, looks like such models exists, so reworded. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "According to the doctrine of jihat al-ka'bah" Translate?

  Already done in #Religious significance. Do we need it again because there's quite a distance before this section? HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Under "Indonesia" you mention some studies, but it hard to know whether they are recent or much older?

  Now all events and opinions in this section have years or year ranges.

• "in October 2007." Is the month really necessary in one place?

  Removed the month. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor" Is his name really Sheikh, or is it a title? In which case, I don't think we use titles when referring to people?

  Yes it is part of his name, and not a title. It is quite unusual, but all RSes I found include it as part of his name. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "in chapter 2 (al-Baqarah) verses 144, 149, and 150" Is this level of detail necessary for the intro?

  Reduced detail. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "is the direction of the building Kaaba" Or direction towards? From how I read the article, it's not about the direction of the building itself?

  Changed to towards, and removed "building". Any further suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The spaceflight of a devout Muslim, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, to the International Space Station in October 2007 generated a discussion with regard to the qibla direction from outer space. On Sheikh Muszaphar's request, the Islamic authority of his home country, Malaysia, issued a detailed guidance, suggesting a determination "based on what is possible" for the astronaut, in line with recommendations from other Islamic scholars." This is a large chunk of the intro devoted to a tiny part of the article, could be more balanced?

  Reduced amount of text about this in the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looking great to me now! FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "based on what is possible" - source for quote?

  Added in article body now (with citations). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• What's the source for the variety of spellings in note a?

  Can't find a good source that list spelling variations. Removed the note. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN65 is missing endash

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

  Done (included all). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• WIRED -> Wired
• Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals

  Done (omitted all). HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• What is Hadi Bashori's background?

  He's an expert in ilm al-falak (a discipline dealing with astronomical matters in Islamic practices, in which the qibla is a subject matter). Pengantar Ilmu Falak is a university textbook and is cited in journals, e.g. [46]. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• King and Kuban have the same publisher but it's formatted differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  Done. HaEr48 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: thanks for reviewing. Answered above. HaEr48 (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [47].

---

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Beograd was the lead ship of her class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the late 1930s. During WWII, she saw action under the Yugoslav, Italian then German flags. This article went through Milhist ACR in 2017, and I have recently smartened it up in preparation for a run at FAC. This article is part of a Good Topic I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

SR + IR by Buidhe

Image review—pass

Only image is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Most of the sources are what you would expect to see on similar article. Voennyi Sbornik is a very sketchy journal (quite possibly predatory) but if the author has similar publications in legitimate outlets it can be allowed per SPS.

Yes, Freivogel has been widely published on naval matters in Jane's Fighting Ships, Weyers Flottentaschenbuch and Combat Fleets of the World among other reliable publications. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• No source checks done. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, buidhe!

Comments by CPA-5

• Per MOS:LEAD both the "Background" and the "Description and construction" sections are not included in the lead.
• Italy and the Aegean and North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
• increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load --> "increasing to 1,655 t (1,629 long tons) at full load"
• bridgehead being established at Zara, an Italian enclave Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
• Link Dalmatian.
• six motor torpedo boats were dispatched to Šibenik What's Šibenik?
• She was commissioned in the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) Italian is too common to link.
• between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa Unlink North Africa.
• in September 1943, the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine) Like above German is too common to link.
• According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at Trieste What's Trieste?
  • These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• by Yugoslav Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945 Mention here that they weren't the royalists but were the communists. Officially Yugoslav Army was the in-exile-government in the UK.
  • unpiped. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Her standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load Link both standard and full load.
• "1,210 t (1,190 long tons) (standard)" Link both tons and standard and full load bellow too.
  • done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• Anti-aircraft guns in the body vs AA in the infobox. I know they're the same but you didn't mention that AA the abbreviated is of anti-aircraft.
  • fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-185-0116-22A, Bucht von Kotor (-), jugoslawische Schiffe.jpg" When was this?
  • added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• she was damaged by a near miss during an air attack --> "she was damaged by a near-miss during an air attack"?
  • seems like an Americanism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh really? I have searched for the noun and it looks like by Ngram a lesser known term.

• Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built --> "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built"
  • done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
• idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted --> "idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted"?
  • done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hey PM. all look good except for the lead. Personally I do not prefer adding a background in the body nor lead in warships' articles. But if it's in the article then we should also use it in the lead. An example of things that should be included in the lead are: was she and her class part of a modernisation plan (programme), strengthen the Navy or did Yougoslavia made (and/or buy) ships to protect itself for a future invasion by someone? Or was it because the new kingdom had no ships so it decided to make a navy and her class is part of the programme? The lead itself says "during the late 1930s, designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik", does this mean her class was the reaction of the expansions by Italy and Germany before or even in the early stages of WWII and was part of the defence plan? Another comment here is to link WWII. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• G'day CPA-5. There is no standard structure for a ship article, I've used several different structures in FAs, as have Parsecboy and Sturm, tailored to the individual ship. Personally I don't think a ship article is complete without some Background, I think there is necessarily some repetition of what is in the class article to place the ship in its context. Others disagree, but there is no consensus as such. We can only include in the lead a summary of what is in the body. The main characteristics (main guns and speed) are often included in the lead of warship articles (Parsecboy does it, for example), and I've included the most important aspect of the background, which is the purpose for which the class was built (to work alongside Dubrovnik). That meets your suggestion that the lead needed to reflect the contents of those sections. None of the sources specify what threat the Yugoslav navy was considering at the time the class was built (otherwise I would have included it in the Background), although presumably given the contested nature of the Adriatic, they were built as a bulwark against Italian hegemony there. Realistically though, the Yugoslav navy was entirely defensive given the size of the Italian fleet. WWII added to body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

For what it is worth, I have no issues with the choice and order of section headers; and it does not concern me that it is different from those adopted in some other warship articles.

• It may just be me, but the opening sentence reads much more smoothly with a comma after "destroyers".
• "Re-armed" means to me to be equipped with armament once again after a period of having none. Do you not want 'up-armed', or a more felicitous variant thereof?

Good points, these done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "which gave her a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Is it known at what speed?

No, the sources don't say, which is mildly annoying. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots". Is it known what weight the ingots were? 12.4 kg?

Not in sources, I checked some other possible refs, but no dice on the ingot or total weight. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "and 20 mm (0.79 in) L/65 Breda Model 35 guns were added to her armament" Is it known how many?

Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• "in order to augment her anti-aircraft armament". Do they mention with what?

Tweaked this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Should Preston et al not have an ISBN? (978-1844860036).

Very remiss of me, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

All done, I reckon, Gog.

Well up to your usual standards. A nice, readable little article. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very readable. Just a few things.

• " completing over 100 convoy escort missions in the Mediterranean under the name Sebenico, mainly as a convoy escort on routes" can we merge the "convoy escort"s?
• "The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean, where they would be able to operate alongside French and British warships." This strikes me as a bit obscure. Does "operate alongside" imply cooperation or combat?
• "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted. In 1934, the KM decided to acquire three such destroyers to operate in a division led by Dubrovnik.[3]" I might change "such" to "smaller".
• "with a large part of Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots," that's a fairly meaningless figure as an ingot can be of any size.
• ". According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at the port of Trieste by Yugoslav People's Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945, and was raised in June 1946, probably to remove her as a navigation hazard, only to be scuttled a month later.[22] " I might cut the "only", after all, if she is only being raised so she will not be a hazard, it is not surprising that she would be scuttled or scrapped (I'd also remove the parallel language in the lede).

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

All done(ish), thanks Wehwalt! Annoyingly, several sources mention the gold transfer but don't specify the size of the ingots. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good enough. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@CPA-5: How are things looking from your end? Have your concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I think that this might be my first FA-level review of one of Peacemaker's articles on warships. The article is in good shape, especially considering the limited availability of sources on this topic, and I'd like to make the following comments:

• The lead should note when the ship entered service

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The last and second last sentences of the lead start with 'she' - I'd suggest varying this

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean" - was this a generic plan, or intended for operations against a specific adversary? (Italy?)

In general, the Yugoslavs had good relations with the UK and France until the late 1930s and a rivalry with the Italians over the Adriatic, but this seems to have been a generic plan. The sources aren't much help on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• " the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted" - I'm not sure about the word 'idea' here - surely this was a plan and/or doctrine?

I've gone with intent, is that better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• "The Beograd class was developed from a French design" - was this based on a French destroyer class?

Not that I can see from the sources, and it must have been scaled down if it was, as the four French flotilla leader classes were all bigger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence starting with 'When the invasion commenced' is a bit over-complex Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dropped the first bit. Better? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Nick-D. All done? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

G'day @FAC coordinators: , this looks good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [48].

---

Battle of Cape Hermaeum

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000. Strangely, the sources are thin, but I believe that there is enough to make it FA-worthy. I have written it from scratch, so its no doubt many blemishes are all down to me. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

• "What, if any, the Roman losses.." Sounds wrong to me.

That's PAW Patrol, not me. Nope, I'm really not seeing any problem. But there must be other ways to phrase it. How would 'It is not known what the Roman losses were ...' suit you?

• "The modern galley expert John Coates.." This is probably something over nothing, but I was momentarily thrown about whether he was a modern galley expert or a modern galley expert. It could possibly be rephrased "John Coates, a modern expert on galleys, ..", but that might not be an improvement.

You are correct. ;-) I have tweaked it to "The modern expert on galleys John Coates"

• Is "The modern replica galley Olympias" the same as Olympias (trireme)?

It is indeed. You can tell, 'cus it is linked at first mention. :-)

• The lang template for "Ras ed-Dar" should use "ar-latn" rather than just "ar".

Ah. Makes sense. Done. Cheers.

@Gog the Mild: you mean Ah-latn  :) ——Serial ^# 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be busy with your next FA nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: You mean, after my current one is archived having been near-trolled back to 1937?! I might be giving it a break for a while, as it goes. Maybe visit Barnard castle, see wot all the fuss is about  :) ——Serial ^# 12:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Anything I could do to assist the miscreant duke? Last time I looked it seemed that the thing it didn't need was more opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Well; if you've got a masochistic itch to scratch, Gog, you won't find better ): do us a favour, could you do so? But don't feel pressured to say anything you don't want to. But a pair of neutral eyes, at this stage, could probably achieve more than I could. Incidentally, I'm sorry for hijacking Harrias's review: add an L4 section header if you want. I could resist the Ah-latn though! ——Serial ^# 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and seamanship displayed immediately prior to the storm." This raises more questions than answers for me: is there anything more about what that poor judgement and seamanship was? They had just defeated the Carthaginians in a naval battle, the seamanship couldn't have been that poor?

 *OR alert* It (almost certainly) wasn't. Which is why the next sentence includes "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship". You could found an entire department on explaining Polybius' point. There is really no end to it - one reason why I haven't gone there. See, the sea itself turned on the victorious Roman fleet and destroyed it. To the Romans these things didn't just happen - someone or something had to have angered the gods. Or, if you were a rational Greek, there had to be a hubristic human failing. Entire fleets don't sink for no reason, surely. Except even the incorrigibly religious/superstitious Romans didn't seem to buy that at the time. And perhaps Polybius expected the more worldly of his audience to nod knowingly at his fudging of the religious/philosophical implications. Und so weiter.

Just to complicate things, years later (still in the 1PW) a Roman consul lost 120 warships and 800 transports at the Battle of Phintias. Driven ashore by bad weather due to disregarding expert advice says Polybius; outfought by the Carthaginians says another source.

I really didn't feel that I could skip Polybius' opinion, but I have come as close as I dare to pointing out that the view of the consensus of Rome's military experts of the day was "Just one of those things old boy, could have happened to anyone".

That's it on a first pass; somewhat distracted by kids and PAW Patrol at the moment; will need to give it another read through later. Harrias ^talk 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias for disturbing your domestic tranquility to delve into this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot I hadn't come back to this. I tend to be quieter Fri-Sun, but I'll have another look over as soon as I can. I can't see there being anything major, I did read through the entire thing before. Harrias ^talk 19:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: No rush. I suspected that it might have fallen down the back of your "to do" list - happens to me too. It was just a gentle nudge. What you think of the cricket? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

• I'm not a fan of the single sentence paragraph that now closes out the lead. It feels like it has just been tacked on. I'm sure that with a little finesse, it could flow nicely on from the previous paragraph, either as part of that paragraph, or with a bit more context in a third paragraph.

Finessed.

• Why do the Roman commanders' first names get omitted in the infobox?

The result of a discussion with T8612 in a previous FAC where it was agreed that infoboxes looked less crowded if, sometimes, Roman names were shortened. (RL calls - more to follow on this.) Apologies for the hiatus. So we agreed here that praenomina could be left out in infoboxes. I consider it similar to leaving out a more modern person's middle name or initial. Personally I would be happy to put them back in in this case.

I'm not fussed, it just seems a bit odd, and stands out in this case particularly, as they are red links. Whatever. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• Following on from above, could "What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known.." be changed to something like "What losses, if any, the Romans suffered is not known.."? To me, that sounds a far more natural construction.

You are right. But I have changed to " What losses the Romans suffered, if any, is not known", which seems even better.

• I know that this has been in every single one, and I've never questioned it before, but is "His works include a now-lost manual on military tactics.." actually relevant to this article? I assume it is to establish his credentials for discussing military matters, but given the detail gone into in the second paragraph, it doesn't seem necessary. All that said, I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it either way.

It is; I can't find a source which says that if this captured commander managed t get a book published telling his captors how to fight wars he must know his stuff, but I am trying as hard as I can to let a reader draw their own conclusions. That said, I am not wedded to it, so if you really think it jars I'll take it out.

As I say, it's not a major issue. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know whether I make these into an issue that they are not, but "..probably made it inevitable that it would eventually clash with Carthage over Sicily on some pretext." seems to me to be a POV statement that requires inline attribution.

Ah, that was me and T8612 again, but you have a reasonable point. I have softened it up, made it more immediate, and attributed it. See what you think. If you like it but T8612 doesn't, we can thrash out some suitable wording here.

• Wikilink marines?

Done.

• I do wonder if the Invasion of Africa section is maybe a little over-detailed and long, throwing the balance of the article off a little. Also contributing to this is the shortness of the Aftermath section. The Battle of Panormus tells us that the Romans "rapidly rebuilt" their fleet; how about the Carthaginians? I think some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war would be useful for the reader.

I kinda see what you mean about Africa. I have trimmed it a bit. Enough?

Aftermath. Well, when a military event is over, I tend to consider it over, but I can see that approach can be overdone, "some more information about the naval dominance through the rest of the war" added. That do you?

That's it from me second time around. Harrias ^talk 18:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, thanks for that. Your points, finally, addressed; see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• SUpport I'm happy with the changes made, and that it meets the Featured criteria. In case I didn't mention, I'm playing the WikiCup game, and will claim points for this review. Harrias ^talk 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per my review at the ACR (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

• Per MOS:LEAD the lead doesn't mention the background and aftermath sections.

Will come later back after this is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Good to see you again :-). "a battle of the First Punic War" and "The Romans were attempting to rescue the survivors of an invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) that had failed with their defeat in the Battle of Tunis, while the Carthaginians were attempting to intercept them." covers the "Background". I have added a sentence to cover the two-sentence "Aftermath". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) American northeastern?

Fixed.

• What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known; most modern historians assume there were none. The "what" makes it a question?

No. It is allowable, honest. Eg, see these 5 mn (!!) Google hits here.

• 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52] vs "when it differs with any of our other accounts".[11][note 2]" First notes or should citations be first?

IMO notes. Fixed. Thanks.

• only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage --> "only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage"

Done.

• I think we better can remove "of Carthage" in the Xanthippus's article's title if sources don't say that.

Feel free to do so. I rarely mess with other articles'titles. I don't even mess with my own, even when they are wrong; as with Mercenary War or Battle of the Bagradas River.

• more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] Double 61 citation?

Grr. I copied instead of cutting when I put them in order. Fixed.

• was a battle of the First Punic War fought in 255 BC between Remove the extra space.

Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers CPA-5. You are letting me off lightly. Or else I am getting better :-) . Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, is there any more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog, finally got back to this, sorry for delay. I've been back to my original comments and all changes since... Firstly I'll deal with the older comments

No worries Jenny. I only posted this one three days ago!

• grapple - I had asked about this because I searched "corvus grapple" and found many sources linking the two ie end of corvus was a spike/grappling hook... but also the corvus enabled grappling. No bother, pls ignore.

Done!

• ship handling skills - hyphen was added then lost?

D'oh! Re-added.

• This comment of mine "The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?" - since then you have amended the year 254 to 255 elsewhere... the map has "6: Romans retreat to Aspis and leave Africa. (254 BC)" but retreat was 255BC? Tweak caption date?

That is embarrassing. Corrected.

• per same comment ... in text "Later in 355 BC the Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and more than 300 transports to evacuate their survivors" - 355 BC should be 255?

Groan. I think that I was confusing the year with the number of ships. Clearly I need putting out to grass. Done.

• author link for Scullard didn't happen?

That is very odd. Done.

• author link for Peter Jones (classicist) happened but didn't work - needs a "2" (ie second author)

It does? I guess that makes sense. Done.

• You've added to lede "... more generous than those proposed by Regulus." - add consul and pipe wlink Regulus here?

Actually, re-reading, the last bit of that sentence relates to nothing, and isn't that relevant. Shortened. What do you think?

• ref orders (yeah, yeah... humour me) 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52]

For you, anything.

• more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] - 2 times 61

Already deleted with prejudice. I copied when I wanted to cut while ordering them.

• Category 254 BC - 255

Done.

That's it for now, JennyOz (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenny, you are a star. I don't know what I would do without you. All done and, this time, checked. Awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@JennyOz: I seem to have repeatedly messed my ping up. Fourth time lucky. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no "next installment". I reckon I'm ready and happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

PS can you pls add a </small> to your chat with SN?

Support Comments by T8612

• "More broadly both sides wished to control Syracuse, the most powerful city-state on Sicily", can you replace this with what you wrote in Battle of the Bagradas?

Done.

• The figure of 350 ships, as given by Polybius, has been doubted by many historians. Your citation of Goldsworthy also mentions that figures are unreliable (p. 115). Scullard supports the long-established view that the number was inflated by 100 ships, possibly by Fabius Pictor, from whom Polybius got his numbers. So, there would have been 250 Roman ships present at Hermaeum; they captured 114 ships (total 364), and lost 284 of them in the storm (=80 surviving ships). Walbank says that Fabius' number comes from the inclusion of the transport ships. Refs are Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, pp. 82-83. Scullard, CAH, vol. 7-2, pp. 554-557. Tipps also summarises Julius Beloch's argument that Fabius deliberately increased numbers in order to impress his Greek audience. Tipps himself supports Polybius' numbers.

  I would expect to see this discussions here, because the figures you have used only represent one side of the academic debate, for which there is apparently no consensus. I would even say that Tipps' article actually challenged the consensus (that the Roman navy had 100 less ships). This discussion would also expand the Battle section, which is currently only a small portion of the entire article.

  You would have to mention the alternative numbers in the infobox and the lede too.

Very good point(s). I'll do a quick survey of the secondary sources and get back you.

I'm not seeing that from Scullard in the Cambridge Ancient History; he just gives "some 210 vessels" with no explanation of where it comes from.

DeSantis, most unusually, gives a whole chapter to this battle. He simply gives 350, with some explanation as why it is a reasonable total.

Bagnall simply gives 350.

Goldsworthy is specifically doubting the "80 survivors from 364" and not the 350 Roman warships he gives earlier.

Lazenby gives the best summary of the sources I have found, and I have no great objection to briefly summarising this, but ends up more or less supporting Polybius.

Tipps, as you say, argues strongly for 350.

Bleckmann simply gives 350.

I have not cherry picked these, they are the sources I have to hand. Hence my understanding that the strong modern consensus was for 350.

Note that a simple 250 plus 114 = 334 doesn't work because, as Lazenby and Tipps discuss, it omits the 40 galleys left in Africa.

You are seem to be suggesting that the consensus among scholars is for 250, or 210 as Scullard (who I assume is allowing for the 40 galleys at Aspis, although he doesn't say). Any chance that you could give the sources who support this, other than Walbank? Thanks. Pending this I have added a note flagging up that their is a minority view. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Walbank also tells that the "bad seamanship" given by Polybius was a criticism elaborated later. He says that the Roman navy had no choice but to go on the (dangerous) eastern route around Sicily, since the Carthaginians still held Drepana and Lilybaeum and prevented them from passing there. (vol. I, p. 96). It would fit well after "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship".

I feel that modern sources speculation as to why a particular route was chosen is getting off topic. Is Walbank arguing with Polybius from beyond the grave really worth including. I give Polybius's opinion; the implied contradiction of the triumphs; and then quote Scullard more or less saying that Polybius is talking nonsense. That seems to me a reasonable summary.

T8612 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Working on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again T8612 and thanks again for your insightful comments. I have responded above and look forward to your response(s). Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late answer, I was away. So I've read a bit more on this. Tipps' article summarises all the historiography on the matter since the 19th century. It apparently all started with Julius Beloch in 1886, then W. W. Tarn in 1907, De Sanctis in 1916, Johannes Hendrik Thiel in 1946 and 1954, Walbank in 1958, who also cites Tenney Frank from the 1st edition of the Cambridge Ancient History (with different numbers though), and finally Scullard in 1989. All the authors you listed apparently wrote after Tipps article in 1985. Scullard died in 1983, so he wrote his chapter for the CAH before Tipps too. Therefore, it seems that Tipps was convincing and shifted the consensus back to Polybius' numbers. I see you have added a note, but I would expand a bit in there, saying something along the line of "For most of the 20th century, many prominent historians [perhaps giving some names: such as Beloch, De Sanctis, or Walbank] doubted the numbers given by Polybius, but in 1985 G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' number of 350 ships. His conclusions have been generally followed since." I personally like when Wikipedia tells about historiographical shifts and I feel that the importance of Tipps' article ought to highlighted here. T8612 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi again T8612, thanks for doing the research; that's pretty much how I see it too. I am also with you re including a bit of histography, but as I have a tendency to ramble on I perhaps overcompensate at times. However, now that you have "given me permission" I will get it in. (Reading the Tipps article inspired me to work on my first Punic Wars article - Battle of Ecnomus.)

My footnote has ended up as

Polybius gives the figure of 350 warships and this is accepted by most modern scholars. For most of the 20th century, prominent historians argued that this was based on an error or a miscalculation and gave figures of 210 or 250. In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since.

I couldn't see a way to get names into the "most of the 20th C" bit without making it clunky. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I wouldn't add the refs to Scullard and Walbank there as they are all listed in Tipps' article. I've tried this: The figure of 350 warships comes from Polybius. However, for most of the 20th century prominent historians—such as Karl Julius Beloch, Gaetano De Sanctis, and F. W. Walbank—argued for lower figures of 210 or 250, saying that Polybius' figure was based on an error, a miscalculation, or even Roman propaganda. In 1985 the classical historian G. K. Tipps published an influential article favouring Polybius' figure, and his conclusions have been generally followed since by modern scholars.[Tipps' ref]. Do as you like, I think it's good either way. T8612 (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: Yes, I like it. I have gone with a slightly tweaked version of your suggestion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Me butting in again; normally in my experience, "classical historian" is used to mean a historian from the classical period, such as Polybius. Referring to Tipps as a "classical historian", meaning a modern historian who writes about the classical period is (to me at least) a little confusing. Harrias ^talk 21:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Harrias: That's what you're supposed to do :-) . Point taken. Changed to plain "historian". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi T8612: I wonder if you feel ready to either support or oppose yet, or if you have any further comments or queries. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'll make new comments tomorrow. T8612 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• On the consuls' triumph, the exact dates are 13 (Fulvius) and 12 (Paullus) ante diem 1 February 254. John Briscoe (Commentary on Livy, books 41-45, p. 221). The Romans counted days backwards from the beginning of the next month. Since January had 29 days before the introduction of Julian Calendar, it means the dates are 16 and 17 January (Fulvius and Paullus respectively). Not sure it counts as original research because Briscoe only gives the Roman dates though.

Great. Thank you. I have ducked the OR issue by just referring to January, with which I feel we are safe enough.

• After the part on the consuls' triumph, or perhaps in the aftermath section, you can add that Paullus built on the Capitol Hill a column celebrating his victory (mentioned by Livy). John Briscoe (ibid., p. 221) says that Paullus wanted to imitate Gaius Duilius who built a column with public money after his triumph (Paullus used his own money though). He adorned it with captured Punic prows. Paullus' column was destroyed by lightning in 172 BC.

Added.

• You have the portion of the Fasti Triumphales that mentions their triumph here (I think this picture can be used in other articles on the First Punic War as all the triumphs there are dated 263-241; the first line mentions the triumph of Valerius Messalla, the last line tells about Lutatius' triumph). If you want I can do something like that to highlight their names on the stone.

I think that the main picture is too big for this article, where the triumphs are a bit peripheral. But if you could cut an extract down to four lines or so and highlight the two consuls' names that would be excellent.

T8612 (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks T8612, responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to reduce the picture of triumphs to the two names here, but the quality of the image is not good and the names are a bit blurry as a result, so I won't add it. I still think that this picture could be used for the articles on the Punic Wars. Anyway, supporting now. T8612 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Sources all look acceptable to me.
• It would be preferable to harmonize the use of Google Books links. Personally, I don't think they are helpful unless they link to a specific section or page where information can be verified.

All removed.

• Checked Tusa & Royal 2012. The only relevant content that I could find on page 14 sort of supported "secured with bronze spikes", but not any of the other content (which is in the other source.) It would be preferable to move the citations to make clear which content is supported by which source.

Done.

• Furthermore, the sources are only discussing one set of archaeological finds. Perhaps this should be attributed further as it's not clear to me that the sources are fully generalizing as you do here.

I have added "All of the rams recovered by modern archeologists" to the start of the sentence.

Comments

• The image captioned "Romans land and capture Aspis..." breaks the next section heading. So does "Territory controlled by Rome and Carthage".

True. Is there some issue with this?

• The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle.

Very true. The primary material on the battle as such is very thin, despite it being Carthage's worst maritime defeat of the war and the storm which followed destroying more Roman ships than any other event of the war. So much so that despite this war being well picked over by Wikipedia editors that I was able to create the article from an incorrect redirect three months ago. What is in the "Battle and storm" section is pretty much all that has been milked from the primary sources by more recent scholars. I could "balance" the article by reducing the other sections, but this seems a bit "cart before horse". I have cut the "Invasion of Africa" section a little - and expanded the "Aftermath" - at Harrias's request since you read the article.

(t · c) buidhe 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, much appreciated. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support if renamed)

• The article is well-written, and well-referenced. The prose is pleasant, easy to follow and in conformance with Wikipedia's styles. Historical backgrounds and necessary concepts are explained clearly.
• Small suggestion: In the passage "The immediate cause of the war was the issue of control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)", it would be useful to mention who controlled it before the war.

Oof. It was an independent city state. It was "in the news" because several years earlier a gang of unemployed mercenaries had killed all of the town's men and taken the place over, including their families[!] I have changed it to "control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina)"; I think that the rest would be getting off topic. What do you think? (I could put a bit more detail in a footnote?)

I think mentioning it as an independent city state is already good. The original wording made me wonder if it's one of them trying to grab the other's territory, but if the city is independent that's enough to clarify the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• My main concern is the lack of details about the course of the battle. For example, it would be nice to know how the fleets were organized, how they engaged each others, if any tactics or maneuvers were used (other than the Carthaginians vaguely sailing close to the coast), or what was the reason for the lopsided result. Any notable small-scale event/engagement during the battle could add more colour to the article. The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself (I think only the first paragraph of the battle section is directly about the actual battle). Probably this is due to limited RSes, but in my opinion there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness before we can call an article Wikipedia's "very best work".

Buidhe had much the same issue, and it is probably best for you to read what I responded to them. Despite it being Carthage's worst naval defeat ever, and the storm Rome's worst disaster of the war, very little primary material has survived. Which means that the secondary sources all mention it, but all have little to say about it, and that mostly repeats the same bare facts. It is highly notable, so it seemed to me that it deserved an article; and I believe that I have included all of the material in the RS secondary sources, so it seemed reasonable to nominate it for FAC. Brevity comes up occasionally at FAC-talk, but it is not, so far as I am aware one of the FAC criteria. They require other things, such as "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context" and "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." I think that part of the problem may be around the title: what I would like to call the article is something like The Romans' fighting withdrawal from Africa, and the misfortune which befell them during it. That is the topic of the article, but as a title, that wouldn't be allowed. Suggestions for a better title would be welcomed. You say that "there should be a minimum standard on comprehensiveness"; could you explain in a little more detail please, because the article seems wikt:comprehensive to me.

My interpretation is that by being comprehensive it has to encompass a broad enough aspects of the battle. To make it less subjective, I imagine a reasonable person asking me, "how did the battle of Cape Hermaeum go?", which is one of the main aspects to ask about this battle, I expect the material from this article should be enough for them to think that my explanation is comprehensive. If I just explain so-and-so sailed closed to the coast, then got outmaneuvered, pinned, and lost 114 ships, I really doubt it would be considered comprehensive. This is my interpretation, but unfortunately the FAC is too brief to tell whether this is an appropriate one, and I understand if you object to it. I hope this makes my objection more specific, hehe. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

PS Actually, thinking on't, how would "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" sound to you as a more appropriate title?

That's an interesting idea. I think in that case the breadth of the article would be more appropriate. The article can answer the question "how did the Roman withdrawal in Africa 225 BC go?" more comprehensively, and the background and the aftermath article still works as well (if not better). I don't know how this would go with the other reviewers though. HaEr48 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for making me think about the title, I normally pay it no attention at all. (I once had a FAC where the title was changed twice during the process. I just kept out of it, but I don't think that the coordinators were best pleased.) I don't see why the other reviewers should be too bothered, but I will ping them anyway. I just need to check with @FAC coordinators: that changing the article's title now won't mess up the process, or would they prefer it to happen after the FAC has concluded - one way or another? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC: such a change in the title would necessitate a change in certainly the lead, and possibly a slight change in focus for the whole article. Harrias ^talk 12:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

And PPS, if I were writing a history article I could write an extensive and detailed account of the battle - the crash of corvuses, the rush of boarding legionaries, Carthaginian ships crowded against the shore where they can't use there superior manoeuvrability, etc. And be 99% sure that it was accurate - but that is the job of the secondary sources and for some reason they haven't got to these events yet. As it is an encyclopedia article all I can do is put all of that stuff in the "context" and hope that I write engagingly enough for a reader to mentally fill the gaps. Any hoo, well off topic now.

That's my feedback for now. Don't get me wrong, despite my concern above, it is a well-written and informative article, and I enjoyed reading it. HaEr48 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48 and no problem, this is Wikipedia - we are supposed to disagree! I have responded as best I can. If you are still concerned, perhaps you could narrow down what your concern is, and I will do my best address it, or, who knows, perhaps agree with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Post retitling proposal

As commented in the other sections, I support the retitling proposal. Further comments regarding the structure of this article if it is retitled:

• Result secion in the infobox is no longer an unequivocal Roman victory because the fleet was lost in the storm. Suggest updating result and casualties to reflect that

I meant to do that, but somehow overlooked it. Thanks for the reminder. Done.

• "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship": probably we no longer need the "subsequent" here.

1) It is a quote: while I could truncate it, it would smack a little of twisting the words to fit how we are trying to present events. 2) 'each was awarded a triumph in January 254 for their victory at Cape Hermaeum ... "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship" ': this seems a perfectly natural construction to me. Looked at on its own it doesn't seem to be presupposing what the scope of the article it is a part of is; just noting that the storm happened after - subsequent to - the battle. So I am inclined to leave it. Not insisting, but it doesn't seem an issue to me.

• Suggest adding another top level section "Roman reversal and withdrawal" that covers the fourth paragraph of #Invasion of Africa downwards.

Done

Overall I am leaning conditional support assuming the remaming and suggestions (especially the first point above) are done, and I have sufficient trust that the nominator will carry it out properly. HaEr48 (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HaEr48, your points addressed. And the renaming will be happening, whichever way this nomination goes. (Bar some sudden and not expected rush of consensus not to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support with the renaming. HaEr48 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change of title

Pinging previous commentators on this article @HaEr48, Harrias, CPA-5, Buidhe, JennyOz, and T8612:

• It was noted by Buihde that "The article seems unbalanced since only 3 body paragraphs actually deal with the battle" and subsequently by HaEr48 that "The article has great details on the background, prelude and aftermath, but that cannot make up for the sparsity of the details on the battle itself". Both I feel are good points. There is further discussion above.
• I feel that the title was ill chosen: I picked it up as a redirect and never really thought about it. I am minded to change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC". This, I think, better describes the scope of the article. I don't think that it does it full justice, but it is the best short and encyclopediac title I have come up with.
• If this change were made it would entail, as Harrias notes, a couple of obvious changes to the text in the lead and a couple of minor tweaks in the body of the article.
• I would welcome any thoughts you may have on this.
• @FAC coordinators: to check that changing the title isn't going to break FAC.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I would support this move. (t · c) buidhe 20:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would support too, as long as the necessary tweaks are made in the lead and probably in the body, as the nominator noted above. HaEr48 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as a coord, it's always simpler if these things happen after the FAC has been closed. I'm sure if the move is agreed to here then it'll happen soon after closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Harrias earlier commented above "I would have no objection to the title (and therefore scope) being changed, but feel that it should happen during the FAC" Given that CPA-5 hasn't edited for two weeks, and that {{u|T8612 has only made 7 edits in the last 16 days (2 on this page, bless them) I am taking this as a consensus for the change of title.
• I have modified the lead, except for the short opening paragraph (see below) and made a couple of very minor tweaks to the main article.
• Given what Ian said above, I intend to wait until this nomination is closed, and then - whichever way it goes - I will change the title to "Roman withdrawal from Africa, 255 BC" and rewrite the opening paragraph of the lead as

  The Roman withdrawal from Africa was the attempt by the Roman Republic to rescue the survivors of their defeated expeditionary force to Carthaginian Africa in 255 BC during the First Punic War. A large fleet commanded by Servius Fulvius Paetinus Nobilior and Marcus Aemilius Paullus successfully evacuated the remnants of the expedition, defeating a Carthaginian fleet en route, but was struck by a storm while returning, losing most of its ships.

• Hopefully there is sufficient trust to accept that this will happen, despite us all no doubt agreeing with Harrias's sentiment that "[I] feel that it should happen during the FAC".
• Are there any comments, queries or objections regarding this? Pinging HaEr48, Buidhe and JennyOz.

Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer to keep the current title, because the new one is less explicit, and not really supported in the sources. Although the battle only makes a small part of the article, it is still the main event of the whole operation. If the problem is that the battle § is too short compared to the rest, then a solution would be to remove some text in "background", since this is a repetition from previous articles. That said, I would not oppose the new name if there is a consensus for it. T8612 (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi T8612. Thanks for sorting out the Africanus image - appreciated. Feel free to look over the rest of it.
• Re sources, I did a check when this first came up - not, admittedly, an exhaustive one - and couldn't find the phrase "Battle of Cape Hermaeum" anywhere in the RSs. I was surprised.
• I think that consensus has pretty much been reached; I am even inclined that way myself, although I can very much see both sides. I have written a couple of FAs of campaigns, and titles can be a bit debatable, and rereading the whole of this article, it is, to my eye, more an account of the campaign than of the battle.
• I was planning to leave it another day or so for any further comments by existing reviewers, and then start encouraging them to either support or oppose on the basis that it is going to be retitled.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• OK. All actionable comments have been responded to.
• Hopefully T8612's image of the Fasti Triumphales will be coming along at some stage, but I see that as a nice extra rather than a nomination breaker. At least I don't think that anyone has suggested that the article in its current state fails "It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status."
• I have changed the opening paragraph of the lead, as discussed above, so everything is in its final shape apart from the actual change of title; which, in accordance with the coordinators' preference, I won't do until immediately after the article is either archived or promoted.
• So, I would be grateful if @CPA-5, T8612, Buidhe, and HaEr48: could – barring any further comments, queries or suggestions – indicate whether they oppose or support the nomination. And apologies to you all for not having got to grips with this issue prior to nomination and thank you for your patience and forbearance. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  Added a declaration of support in my review section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: @Ian Rose and Ealdgyth: Hellooooo ... (I am being "pro active" again.) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian @FAC coordinators: in the light of the above, could I have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks.

And for information, CPA-5 hasn't edited Wikipedia since 16 July. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the first ping got lost, yeah go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [49].

---

Al-Hafiz

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Al-Hafiz was the eleventh Fatimid caliph, and the last to actually exercise any power. His accession was disputed, and his reign was tumultuous to say the least, with even his sons turning on him and one another in pursuit of power. This is my first Fatimid caliphal biography FAC, and hopefully not the last. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and have tried to present the complex circumstances of rise to the throne as well as I could, given that the modern sources are often themselves contradictory in their assertions. Any suggestions for further improvement are, as usual, welcome. Constantine ✍ 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are free and relevant. However, the "plan of Fatimid-era Cairo" and "Victory Gate in Cairo" break across sections. buidhe 01:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Attar

Welcome back Constantine. My initial thoughts:--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would remove any citation from the lead, but thats just my personal taste
  • I put it in for the numbering, but I guess it is redundant. Removed.
• I think a short section about the name should be added (maybe add it in the origin section which can be renamed name and origin). Readers need to understand what is the Kunya and what is the regnal name and what is the actual name...etc. I mean more about the naming traditions of those monarchs. A lead should not contain information not mentioned in the body of the article and right now this is the case as his full name and Kunya are mentioned only in the lead.
  • I added mention of the kunya in the initial section, but am wary of doing more: the full name given in the lede should be easy to understand from his parentage, and the regnal title is explained later on.
• "As an adult, he is reported to have shown a strong interest in astronomy". By whom reported? a old or contemporary historian who wrote his biography for example? Obviously we may not know this so its not a must to include who reported this.
  • Walker just writes "One report credits al-Ḥāfiẓ with a strong interest in astronomy", and I haven't been able to find any more details on this.
• "al-Amir had resumed the personal direction of government affairs". There should be a sentence about the background of this (like the caliphs formerly lost direct power and al-Amir restored it..etc)
  • Clarified.
• "all-powerful Armenian viziers Badr al-Jamali and al-Afdal Shahanshah". Mention that they are related? Later we read that Kutayfat held the "titles of his father and grandfather" but we dont know that Badr is his grandfather as it is not mentioned before.
  • Duh, thanks, of course this should be mentioned
• "the army, assembled at the Bayn al-Qasrayn square". Mention in which city (it is in the caption but should also be in the text)
  • I thought it was obvious from the "...carried through the streets of Cairo" that follows
• "the appointment of Kutayfat, the only surviving son of al-Afdal Shahanshah". Maybe a note on how Kutayfat still had power in the army after his father's death (and the year of the latter's death should be mentioned in the text). Ofcourse if this information doesnt exist then there is nothing we can do.
  • I don't think it was personal influence, just the attachment of the army to the memory/legacy of Badr and al-Afdal. This is beyond the scope of this article, however.
• "guarded by Ridwan ibn Walakhshi". Introduce Ridwan (the vizier, the leader...etc)
  • Done
• "Fatimid claims to the imamate". Maybe a short note about the immamate concept and the Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism. Most readers understand that a caliph is a monarch but Imam and other concepts are not really familiar. Maybe a small background in the origin section could be of help.

Seconded. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• • @Attar-Aram syria and Gog the Mild: I sort of knew this would be asked, but dreaded it TBH. After several drafts, I have a version which I think conveys the essence without being an article in its own right. Have a look, and feel free to criticize it as much as necessary until I get it right.

Looks good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Mu'tamid al-Dawla as head of the bureau, and his brother as naqīb al-ashrāf". An explanation between two brackets of what that title means should be good here.
  • Done.
• " just as the Seljuk rulers had been vis-à-vis the Abbasid caliphs since the time of Tughril", mention when he reigned.
  • Done.
• "Ridwan also continued correspondence with the Burids," Its not clear who they are. Introduce the dynasty (like the Burids who ruled southern Syria).
  • Good point, done.
• "In 1142/3, Fatimid envoys visited the court of Roger II of Sicily, whose fleet had captured the old Fatimid capital of al-Mahdiya on the coast of Ifriqiya" A note here is helpful mentioning that the Fatimids no longer controlled that city by that time since it was under the Zirid dynasty, which was only nominally under the authority of Cario (if at all). Otherwise its weird for readers to read that the Fatimids were Okay with the capture of their old capital (I know its in note "g" but many readers wont read it I believe).
  • Good point, rewritten.

Thats it for me, cant see anything else that can be improved. The article's weak point is the complicated nature of Islamic concepts: imamate, Ismailism as a state doctrine (many readers wont know this- they would know that the Fatimids were Shia but not much more, or maybe I dont give the general reader much credit and need to work on that), the divisions of Ismailism...etc. In the articles about the Seleucids, I tended to have long background sections that summarized the history of that dynasty so I dont have to introduce it bit by bit in the body of the article. Maybe this article can benefit from that approach. For example, we read: "As a result, al-Hafiz's accession produced a major schism in the Musta'li branch of Isma'ilism".... If I was a reader without a background in this, I would be totally lost. Few sentences later, we read about what the Musta'li schism was about... I think this article would benefit from summarizing or moving these paragraphs to a background section where the events are told chronologically. This is just a suggestion ofcourse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I've considered this, but I fear the result would be a huge intro section that would entirely put off anyone from reading the rest of the article (cf. my barely started work at rewriting Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah, where I've tried to keep things at a minimum). That is why I've deliberately chosen to deal with the concepts as they become relevant during the article. I fear the hurdle of unfamiliarity cannot really be overcome in such a way as to satisfy everyone. In the final analysis, we have to trust in our readers: if someone is interested, he/she will delve into the topic and the events and concepts presented here. For the casual reader, I can only recommend skipping the more troublesome sections during the first read and just try to get the gist (at least that's what I am doing in similar cases). On the specific example you gave, I admit I also was uncomfortable with name-dropping Musta'lism before explaining what it was. I've now reordered the section to introduce the 1094 schism first.

Thank you a lot for your input, Attar-Aram syria, I particularly value it because, as you say, you have to deal with similar niche topics. If you have any further suggestions (or remarks on where the article is most confusing) I would be very happy to have them. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I see. Sometimes its inevitable to treat the readers as if they have some kind of knowledge of what they are reading. Happy to support this article which greatly expand the knowledge about that part of the world. Thanks alot for these efforts.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Attar. Again, if you have any further suggestions, beyond the confines of FAC, they are most welcome. Constantine ✍ 06:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

• "and ultimately unable to halt the evolution" → 'and was ultimately unable to halt the evolution'.
  • Done
• "Hasan's reign proved tyrannical". Did viziers "reign"?
  • For lack of a better word, yes. Viziers, especially by this time, were effectively viceroys, rather than simply chief executives.

It was an open question. I am aware of some of the nuances around this. I am happy for you to decide on the most appropriate phrasing. I note that viceroys of India, for example, were "appointed" and their 'reigns' were "terms" or "periods in office".

• "caused a severe reaction by the Muslim public opinion". You can't phrase it like that in English. 'caused a severe reaction among the Muslim population'; 'caused a severe reaction in Muslim public opinion'? Or something else.
  • Thanks, done.
• Some slightly long sentences, eg "Although largely accepted by the Isma'ili faithful in the Fatimid domains in Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant, al-Hafiz's highly irregular accession and claims to the imamate were rebuffed by some communities, chiefly in the only other major Isma'ili realm, Yemen: there the hitherto staunchly pro-Fatimid Sulayhid dynasty broke up, with the Sulayhid queen, Arwa, upholding the rights of al-Tayyib, whose birth had been announced to her in a letter by al-Amir, while the regional dynasties of the Hamdanids and the Zurayids recognized al-Hafiz's claims." Not the only possible example.
  • Went through the article a couple of times and tried to fix this.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• "dismount when passing by a mosque, prohibiting them from riding horses" There seems to be a contradiction here.
  • They were still allowed to ride donkeys, mules, etc. Clarified.
• "brought forth one of the Caliph's sons". "brought forth" seems stilted and archaic. Maybe recast in modern phraseology?
  • Done. In my defence, Tolkien's works were among the first English books I ever read :)

Ah. That explains a lot ;-) .

• "but was repulsed before the city gates" Maybe 'in front of the city gates'?
  • Done.
• "For the remainder of his reign, al-Hafiz no longer appointed any viziers" That's almost a triple negative. Maybe 'Al-Hafiz did not appoint another vizier for the remainder of his reign' or similar?
  • Done.
• "whose fleet had subdued". What does "subdued" mean? Captured, sacked, blockaded?
  • Clarified.
• "while mine and pestilence ravaged Egypt". "mine"?
  • Famine.
• "which survived more thanks to inertia and the vested interests of large sections of society in keeping it running." Delete "more".
  • Replaced with "mostly".
• "and the dynasty's very legitimacy was increasingly challenged". Optional: delete "very".
  • Done.
• "Al-Hafiz was the last Fatimid caliph who rose to the throne as an adult; the last three Fatimid imam-caliphs until the end of the dynasty". "last twice in quick succession. Suggest changing the second to 'next'.
  • Done.
• Note c: "His historicity is now considered as established by surviving reports of festivities ordered by al-Amir to celebrate his birth survive". This is not grammatical.
  • Rewritten.

Overall I found this heavy going. Much of this is of course due to the hopelessly tangled events you are trying to unpick. However, I feel that a reader is not helped by:

1. Too many overlong sentences. Very few of which need to be so long; they usually have obvious break points.
2. Your fondness for semi colons and colons in the middle of long sentences. Personally, I suspect that if every one were to be replaced by a full stop it would be a net gain.
3. Some old fashioned language. Eg, brought forth the Caliph's son; defeated before the gate; water to the very gates. (These are from memory, not exact quotes.)
4. Use of "he is reported to have" and similar. This causes a reader to doubt it. If it is in a RS, feel free to write it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice; if it's not. or you personally doubt it, miss it out - or name the reporter.

Finally, can I support Attar-Aram syria's request for a brief summary of "the immamate concept ... Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism", ideally in line.

All of that said, I enjoyed my visit to the disintegrating dynasty and it is good to see you back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, as usual, for your thoroughness, Gog the Mild. I've addressed most of the points you raised. The topic is indeed very complex, but there's no need to make it difficult to read as well, so any help and criticism with the prose is welcome. Please have another look and make more suggestions, or, if you feel like it, edit the text directly. As you know, comprehensibility is always a concern of mine for niche topics like this, so a critical eye here is also appreciated. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I will do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• "his legitimacy was repeatedly challenged for the duration of his reign" Er, when else might it be challenged? Suggest deleting "for the duration of his reign". (Insert ', and his reign was troubled by ...'
  • Good point, done.
• "Given his lack of legitimation". Should it be "legitimation" → 'legitimacy'?
  • "legitimation" is deliberate here, as in he was not legitimate in the eyes of a large segment of the dynasty's subjects.
• "He also did not receive the customary titles of the Fatimid viziers implying control over the Muslim religious establishment". I think that this may read better as 'He also did not receive those customary titles of the Fatimid viziers that implied control over the Muslim religious establishment'.
  • Good point, done.
• "from the Cairene street". Maybe 'from the common people of Cairo'?
  • Altered to "from the Muslim public opinion in Cairo", because this was not only the common people.

I have also done a little copy editing. As usual, feel entirely free to revert any you disagree with, or to query any you don't understand. I will try to finish up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is "head of the bureau" the same thing as ""supervisor of the bureaus" (nāẓir fi'l-dawāwīn)"?
  • No, clarified.
• "Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade". Suggest 'Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade of 1147–1150 ...'.**Done.
• "but in the end the rebellion was ended when". Is it possible to avoid "end ... ended"?
  • Removed the first instance.

All done. Just awaiting your comments on the bits and bobs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild, your copyedits are, as usual, fine. Looking forward to any further suggestions, if there are any. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

That all looks good, and it reads very nicely. IMO. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

HaEr48 (support)

The article is in good shape and certainly interesting. I have few comments and feedback:

• Since you use diacritics in the lead name, I believe at least the z of Hafiz and the second s of al-Mustansir should also have one. Also, please make sure nothing else is missed.
  • Quite right. Done.
• "(Roger II) ... adopted many of the practices of the Fatimid court for his own administration": this is not mentioned in the article body, but appears without reference in the lead. Can it be supported by the body?
  • It is stated that "the Sicilian court modelled much of its administration and titelature after Fatimid practices."
• Rise to the throne and the Hafizi–Tayyibi schism: Would a diagram/tree help illustrating the Hafizi-Tayyibi and Nizari-Musta'li schisms? Seeing how it fits into the larger Ismaili grouping, or other Shia branches would be useful as well, but I'll defer to you whether it's within the scope.
  • Excellent point, done.
• Reign: As background, is it possible to introduce why the vizier was so powerful, despite being appointed by the caliph and can even be filled by his own sons? What was the mechanics of it: does the office control something important like the command of the arm, the treasury, or something?
  • This is dealt with when Badr is introduced: "the vizier was now commander-in-chief of the army as well as supreme head of the civilian, judicial and religious administrations".
• "This was a mistake" Similar to my comment in the other review, suggest rewording this, a little bit editorialized.
  • Changed, as in the other article
• "against an amān" => "in exchange for an amān?
  • Changed, as in the other article
• Other than the symbolic meaning, what does a secretary or a supervisor lack that a vizier has? Saying that the secretaries were " utterly dependent on the Caliph" seemed rather hand-wavy to me.
  • Rephrased slightly and explained: a) they were not viziers, hence institutionally much weaker (compare the powers of the Prime Minister of a country to those of a department permanent secretary), b) they were not military men, so had no ties to/influence in the army, c) they were "often non-Muslims", which made them still less of a potential threat to the caliph.
• twisting his honorific al-akam (the Most Noble One): is this maybe al-akram?
  • Indeed, thanks for catching this.
• Further embassies to Yemen in 1144 and to Damascus in 1147 are recorded: Which monarchs are meant by the two locations? Especially Damascus, because it was not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • Done, and expanded a bit on the relations with Yemen.
• A map of the Levant is provided, how about a map of the Fatimid realm itself? Especially because several provinces/localities are pertinent to the discussion.
  • Well, at this point the Fatimid realm was essentially Egypt (plus the Cyrenaica, IIRC). There is no good map of Islamic Egypt in Commons, unfortunately. I will probably have to make one myself, when I find the time.
• The Cairo map has the gate names in Arabic (e.g. Bab al-Nasr), but the article text has them in English (e.g. Victory Gate). Suggest adding the corresponding English name in the caption, or adding parenthesis containing the Arabic name when the English name is first mentioned, so that the reader can find the gates in the map.
  • Good point; switched to the Arabic name in the article, but added the English translation in parentheses
• (in the footnote): "The imam is the supreme spiritual leader of the Islamic community … the Sunni mainstream ... attached minimal conditions to the imamate, which became little different from secular kingship" . I'm surprised that the Sunni was mentioned at all in this discussion, the term is rarely used in this context for the Sunnis, commonly just in the context of a scholarly authority figure or the leader of a mosque/religious service. The cited Daftary source does not mention any Sunni imamate at all, I wonder how widely accepted Madelung (the other citation)'s view on this is. Personally I would just not mention it unless you feel confident that the Madelung view reflects the scholarly consensus.
  • The term was quite common in the early centuries among Sunnis as well, while the exact distinctions of jurisdiction and authority were still fluid/being worked out. It was especially used by the Abbasid caliphs, who famously tried to claim the prerogative of interpreting the Quran. Madelung is probably the unquestioned authority on such matters, and I don't think his views have been much revised in the meantime, except in matters of detail. It is true, however, that the term is today almost exclusively associated with Shi'ism other than what you mention. So I am also thinking whether, to avoid confusion, I would not simply omit it.
  • I've rephrased it a bit, removing the explicit mention of the imamate from the Sunni part
• Note: I intend to claim this review for Wikicup points.

In general the article is very well written, well-referenced. Not only the biography is thoroughly discussed, the context and the aftermath is sufficiently explained as well. Certainly a good FA candidate. HaEr48 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48, the last outstanding issues have been addressed/replied to. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no more feedback. Support HaEr48 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I think we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Don't see a citation for the specific date of death
  • Added and corrected to 10 October
• The article text says he was born in 1074 or 1075, but the infobox says 1075 or 1076 - which is correct?
  • Clarified, the confusion arises from the fact that the Hijri years do not correspond exactly to Julian ones.
• Walker 2017 appears to be a different edition of the Canard work, but is quite differently formatted
  • It is not a different edition, it is an altogether new work, see below
• Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • As far as I can see, all locations for books are included. For journals, it has been suggested to me that the location is not desired, and for EI3 (Walker 2017), it is an online resource.
• Be consistent in how editions are formatted.
  • Can you be more specific please? If you mean the Encyclopaedia of Islam editions, the naming is deliberate: these are not new editions as you think of them, but entirely different works. EI2's articles are completely different to those of EI3, even if they are on the same subject. The names of these works follow the published titles/suggested naming guidelines.
    • This point was with regards to the "New Edition" versus the Daftary "Second Edition". With regards to Walker 2017, what kind of publication is this? Even if it's a new work and not an edition, the formatting is quite different to the other similar work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria: As I said, this follows the actual naming of the works in question. Daftary's work is indeed the second edition of his book, whereas the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an entirely new edition (hence the naming in the work itself), although it is often abbreviated as EI2. Likewise, the third edition of the encyclopaedia calls itself Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. The works are only superficially 'similar'. Constantine ✍ 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • Okay, but if they're both encyclopedia entries, I would expect them to be similarly formatted? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Not necessarily. I mean, both use the cite encyclopedia template, but of course they are different works, with different parameters being relevant for each, since one is a print encyclopedia and one is an exclusively online one... Constantine ✍ 06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
              • It appears that both Walker 2017 and Madelung/Magued being accessed online though? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
                • @Nikkimaria: EI2 has been uploaded online, of course, like many older reference works, and for convenience/verification, the url to these entries is also provided. Again, EI3 is an exclusively online resource, EI2 is not (I actually consult the printed version). I fail to see what exactly the problem is, TBH: both works are cited by using a template (cite encyclopedia) filled with the data relevant to each of them. Of course, since they are not the same work, the data will be different and the instantiated template will therefore also look slightly different. That does not mean they are inaccurate or inconsistent. They are just different. Constantine ✍ 21:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • I don't see a good rationale for them to be so different, but we will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for having a look. I've answered your points above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [50].

---

Hurricane Willa

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC), ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}, and ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it. I would like to invite @Hurricanehink: to join the nomination if he so wishes. Thank you to everyone who has helped with improving the coverage of this season. That being said, let the nomination commence. Noah^Talk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah, I co-nom this. It's an impressive bit of collaboration among three users (and everyone else who worked on the article). I'm very proud of Noah's work on the 2018 PHS, which will make for an impressive FT soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free. buidhe 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Jarodalien

comment

why 13 hurricane at "Landfalling Pacific major hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by wind speed"? Maybe cut off last three?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jarodalien: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used to determine the Category of the storm based upon its wind speed. In this case, 14 storms at Category 3 intensity or higher have made landfall in the Pacific. Cutting off storms would made the entire the table inaccurate. Noah^Talk 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah yeah you're right, don't know why I missed last one is Willa! Sorry.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: Only suggestion is add a note that "All damage values are in 2018...".--Jarodalien (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jarodalien, I added that note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this, thanks. I'm still working through the article, and don't see any showstoppers. I'm listing some comments so you can start working them now if you'd like.

• In general, it has some technical language that’s hard to understand for the average reader. E.g., “the storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I’d aim for more approachable versions of these passages. I’ll point out those I think would be best adjusted vs. having you guess. But feel free to push back if I ask if something can be explained better and it would be problematic.

• Please do point out these spots! It's a tricky balance between being thorough and relying too much on jargon. I rewrote that passage you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I’d break the first paragraph into two, both to better reflect the article and to align with MOS:BEGIN, Yours goes a bit beyond what the latter outlines for the first paragraph. I think just sketching out the context as per that guideline while shifting the Hurricane’s major muscle movements to a second paragraph will make it a bit more digestible for the average reader (like me) too.

• I split it up, so the first one is more of a summary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• “After the storm, many individuals did not receive direct help from the government until many months had passed.” Which govt? Mexican? U.S.? Both? Consider also replacing one of the uses of “many” with a synonym. Perhaps “multiple” for the second one.

• Done Noah^Talk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• “People mainly relied on help from charitable organizations to recover and rebuild their damaged property.” This again is a bit vague. People in Mexico? The United States? Both countries?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Last sentence in the lede: “overall for the time it took to receive help” This is talking about the govt of Mexico. Should that be to provide help?

• Oops. Noah^Talk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• “the wave produced intermittent bursts of deep convection near a well-defined mid-level circulation center”. Deep convection is Wikilinked, but is there a way to translate "well-defined mid-level circulation center" for the layman? I know it might be a bit more wordy, but it would probably be worth it for someone who otherwise would just bleep over it, chalking it up as unintelligible jargon. Or perhaps a footnote would help if an explanation in the text would be too wordy.

• I reworded and simplified it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, this version is much improved for the average reader. Thank you.

• Consider how you might smooth the transition from preparation to impact. An FA should "tell a story" as much as possible. E.g., if there was a quote from a public official about finishing preparations right before impact, or something along those lines, that might make a good transition. This isn't a showstopper, and I wouldn't withhold support for this—just something to consider.
• “a Hurricane Hunter aircraft was scheduled to survey the system for further development” From what country?

• Clarified that it was a United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft. Noah^Talk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• “The tropical wave moved into the East Pacific early on October 17 and quickly organized” Although from a non-expert perspective I can kind of imagine that a storm system organizes into something stronger, I don’t understand the link between a wave and organization.

• I removed the "quickly organized", because it didn't really at this point in time. That came latter in the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• “At this point, the NHC assigned it the name Willa from its rotating list of names.” Is there a reason it would be italicized here but not elsewhere?

• This is the point at which NHC gave the name. For the rest of the article, we use "Willa" as a mononym (instead of writing out TS Willa or Hurricane Willa every time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was just trying to find in the WP:MOS where it provided for italics for the first use of a name or term. Am I missing it?

• The word “trough” is used twice. I recommend employing a very brief in-text aside to define that for the average reader, unless it will take more than a few words to do so, in which case perhaps a footnote is warranted.

• Gave a brief explanation and a wikilink is there is they need more. Noah^Talk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Banding features" Is there a way to translate or explain this? "Bands of rainclouds" or the like? Again, you want this to be as readable as possible for the average person.

• Let me know if that is better. Noah^Talk 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Much, thank you. You could probably do without "significantly", but I leave that up to you.

• “The storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I mentioned this above. Any way to translate this a bit for the average reader? Intermittent pinhole eye might be OK, but after that it gets tough to digest for the non-expert (at least in my non-expert opinion).

• Was it the "outflow" or the wording? Is the current wording better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• In footnote 1, “Operationally, Willa was reported as having intensified by 120 mph”. Does “operationally” add anything?

• Operationally means something occurred while the storm was active rather than an adjustment in postseason storm reanalysis. Noah^Talk 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Recommend using non-breaking spaces before spaced en dashes. You can use the {{snd}} template or other tools.

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• English language titles of works in references should be in title case. E.g., reference 70, “Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update", should be in title case. You can check here in the MOS for foreign language caps use which is relevant to your reference list.

• @Airborne84: I can't fix your example since it is in a template outside this article... unless you think that I should add the table into the article and fix the issue. The other English ones should be fixed. The MOS says that foreign language ones (modern) should be left in their original state. Noah^Talk 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Will follow with more later. Airborne84 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Table: “Known Pacific hurricanes with at least $500 million in damage.” US dollars? Or is this part of the same external chart?

• @Airborne84: I just added in the table to fix all those issues with it. Noah^Talk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• “Strong currents broke a fence for a crocodile habitat in La Manzanilla, allowing hundreds to escape.” ???Where are the crocodiles??? OK, you don't have to address this one. But I know at least one reader who's wondering.... :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to find this. I did a search and came up with nothing. News coverage in Mexico isn't particularly good so things like this are overlooked there. Also, this is the same issue for finding quotes from government officials. News sources dont cover that particularly well. Noah^Talk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem.

• Aftermath: “In total, 144 houses had been counted from October 23–28, while more than 2,000 were actually affected.” Should that be 144 houses had been damaged?

• This is referring to an irregularity from the previous government. They ONLY COUNTED 144 homes but 2000+ were actually damaged. Noah^Talk 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean that the govt. was only aware of the 144 homes because they only counted 144 existing previously? In that case, I'd suggest adjusting the wording because right now it reads a bit confusing between the first and second part of the sentence. Perhaps "In total, only 144 houses had been counted to exist" or similar wording. An alternative would be to keep the initial wording but to finish with "while more than 2,000 actually existed and were affected" (but omit the italics).

@Airborne84: The govt only counted 144 as damaged and ignored the rest. Let me know if the new wording helps to fix the lack of clarity. Noah^Talk 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, thanks.

• When you give lists of towns, such as these in Aftermath, is there a rationale for the order? “Tecuala, Acaponeta, Huajicori, Rosamorada, Santiago Ixcuintla, Tuxpan, Del Nayar and Ruiz” Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Put the two I saw in alphabetical order. Let me know if there are any others. Noah^Talk 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I reordered one more list of municipalities in the Preparations section. Please revert if it was ordered that way on purpose (e.g., population or geographic size, etc.)

• URLs in references 76 and 77 don't go anywhere.

• @Airborne84: Ran the bot on it. Noah^Talk 16:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. My bad. They're archived from the original. Missed that.

Last question was on the italics above.

@Airborne84: The MOS allows for italics to emphasize something... In this case, we are emphasizing that this is when the name was given by the NHC. Noah^Talk 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, no problem.

I find that it meets the FA criteria. Also bounced it off of similar Hurricane FA articles and it compares well. I'm supporting. Nice work!

Support by R8R

(should be able to start on Sunday)--R8R (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll now start the promised review. In general, I am not particularly knowledged about hurricanes so I found it at times a bit hard to follow the text. This wasn't overall too difficult, as generally the wikilinks needed to understand the text are there, although sometimes I could feel my lack of knowledge on the topic at hand. I will point out my moments of confusion and the bits where it seems to me some concepts could be explained in the text to increase readability, but I will leave those subject to your judgment because I also understand writing styles may vary, and for a good reason too. But generally, I personally try to make my texts as understandable as possible and maybe so do you (I've read earlier in this review that it may be the case).

• on October 2 -- there are readers such as myself who skip the lead section when they want to read an article closely (I'll return to the lead section at the end of the review with some knowledge of what the article summarizes, and with that in mind I personally introduce terms (like acronyms) at the first occurrence in the text even if they've been introduced in the text. It could be a good idea to do the same here and mention the year at the first occurrence, too.

• See below. Noah^Talk 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• On October 14, the NHC began monitoring -- Similarly, perhaps it is a good idea to do the introduce the acronym here, especially so since you link "NHS" anyway. I noticed that even when the acronym is first introduced, the introduction could be better still: instead of the present "the National Hurricane Center (NHC)" you could use "United States' National Hurricane Center (NHC)"

• Added the year after October 2 and introduced as National Hurricane Center (NHC) in text. Noah^Talk 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for that. But is there a reason why the country of the National Hurricane Center should not be mentioned? Since I'm so unfamiliar with the topic at hand, my first idea was that we were talking about a Mexican organization. As a rule of thumb, whenever introducing a new name, I usually introduce it by the nationality and occupation of the person whose name makes its first appearance in the text, such as "English physicist Isaac Newton." This is done so that a reader isn't surprised by a new name and doesn't form a question in their head like "who is that?" and his reading is not interrupted by such a question.--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can mention it. Noah^Talk 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• trough, an elongated region of low atmospheric pressure, -- just want to point out that explaining terms in the text like this is very useful (no action required)

• Yes, We need people unfamiliar with the topic to tell us what needs explained better. Noah^Talk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• its low-level center becoming embedded beneath a central dense overcast -- this one is a bit difficult. What's a low-level center? Could the central dense overcast be explained here too?

• Linked the first and gave a brief explanation for the second. Noah^Talk 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• 29 °C (84 °F) ... 195 mi (315 km) -- are metric units primary or are American customary units? (The degree Celsius is not strictly speaking a metric unit, but I presume you know what I mean.) This should be checked across the whole article

• Fixed the two occurrences of this. Generally, the meteorological history often differs from the impact in terms of how units are displayed. This is the case if the main areas affected don't use imperial units. The one part is scientific while the rest of the article falls under MOS:TIES. I would consider the mixing of science with impact that has national ties a good reason to ignore consistency in this case (which the MOS states may occur). Noah^Talk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh... they should be the same now. I see there is inconsistency on this even for groups of articles. Noah^Talk 11:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Looks much better now. Though I think the main unit for pressure should be inch of mercury? Upon some quick search for weather in various U.S. cities I find that pressure is given in inHg.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Tropical cyclones are measured with mbar (hPa) for their pressure. Noah^Talk 13:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• 925 mbar (27.3 inHg) -- it's generally great that both metric and American customary units are used. But in this particular case, I couldn't help but wonder if metric units are really needed. I come from a country that uses metric units myself, and I still noticed that the unit for atmospheric pressure used here (mmHg) is not mentioned. I can't help but wonder whether it would be a better idea to use mmHg instead of mbar; I don't know if there are places that actively use the bar as their primary unit. That being said, I don't insist on it if there's an established consensus to use the bar.

• Millibars is a commonly used pressure unit. The National Hurricane Center uses millibars and converts to inHg. The regions outside the East Pacific and Atlantic use hPa as their official unit. 1 hPa = 1 mbar... Noah^Talk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Very well then. I'll trust your judgment on this one.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• 7:20 pm on October 23, local time -- Can't help but think it would be great to mention the specific timezone we're talking about. Also, what is the exact reason times in UTC use the 24-hour format and the local time in Mexico uses the 12-hour format?

• I added that is MDT... Local times are always on 12-hour formats and UTC was created as a 24-hour system. Other than that, I don't know exactly why that is. Noah^Talk 23:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I see. Can you confirm that local times in Mexico use the 12-hour format? From what I could read in es:Husos_horarios_de_México, it seems that the Mexicans use the 24-hour format.--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• This says that both are in common use. Noah^Talk 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Okay then.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• nor'easter -- that could be wikilinked, and I personally never heard the term before

• Linked. Noah^Talk 23:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberón Sanz, the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy -- the name is wikilinkable. Also, it appears to me it would be better if you said "Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberón Sanz of the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy" instead

• Linked and changed. Noah^Talk 23:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Good, but that comma after "Navy" in the text looks misplaced. Is it? I've seen commas appear like that in American English, but I'm not sure if that's considered correct punctuation.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• It was misplaced. It has been removed. Noah^Talk 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Marine Plan -- I also don't know what that is, although I can guess. Would a link to Marine spatial planning be correct here?

• Gave a brief explanation based upon what the source discussed was happening. Noah^Talk 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• 90 tonnes of food -- the word "tonne" seems a bit off to me in the context of American English. Is it or is it just me?

• In this case, it is because tonnes are used in Mexico. Noah^Talk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• My question is not about the choice of units, but rather that of the name of the chosen unit. According to tonne, "The tonne (/tʌn/ (listen) or /tɒn/; symbol: t) is a metric unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms. It is commonly referred to as a metric ton in the United States. [...] In the United States, metric ton is the name for this unit used and recommended by NIST; an unqualified mention of a ton almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), and tonne is rarely used in speech or writing." The question is not why use tonnes instead of pounds, but rather why "tonnes" instead of "metric tons."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Changed to metric and added the conversion for US tons... neither are abbreviated as the abbreviations aren't commonly known and would confuse people (including myself). Noah^Talk 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• San Diego, California; Tepic, Nayarit -- I recall looking it up, you put a comma here after the name of the state in such occurrences regardless of what the context is

• Good catch with those two. Noah^Talk 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Great. On a similar note, could "In Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, and central Sinaloa" be rephrased to avoid the impression that the list included both Puerto Vallarta and Jalisco? For example, you could use "In central Sinaloa and Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• @R8R: Just switched the order of them. Let me know if there is anything else. Noah^Talk 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Okay; I'll take another look later.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) in Jalisco employed 400 people -- perhaps use "The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) employed 400 people in Jalisco"?

• My understanding is that this is a state agency instead of a federal one. I think that maybe lost by changing the location of Jalisco. Noah^Talk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• I see. In that case, could this be expressed more clearly by using something like "The Jalisco state Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT)" or "The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) of the state of Jalisco"?--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Changed. Noah^Talk 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

more to follow later--R8R (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

More comments:

• 17,000 ha (42,000 acres) -- strange formatting. If "acre" is meant to be a symbol, then it doesn't get a plural, or it could be "ac"

• I asked someone about this before and I was told acre has no common abbreviation. Using ac would raise more questions than its worth. Also, the conversion template automatically lists anything other than 1 as "acres". Noah^Talk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Since Coppel is introduced as "a nationwide department store," it would make sense if you also introduced Petróleos Mexicanos in the same manner.

• Done. Noah^Talk 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed that the added introduction is not currently given at the first mention of the company.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I forgot I had mentioned it in the preps section. Noah^Talk 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• No problem, I also only noticed the earlier mention when I was confirming your "Done."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• It would also be sensible to have the criticism of the actions of the Mexican government expressed a bit more clearly, perhaps by dedicating a paragraph solely to that.

• @R8R: Actually, upon looking into this further I discovered that the source attributed criticism occurred for a storm that hit a few weeks prior when a similar incident occurred. Additionally, the agency in question was a state level one rather than the federal government. I adjusted that sentence in the lead so it just discusses the mattresses and loss of funds. Noah^Talk 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Overall, the article was enjoyable to read, and my lack of knowledge of the topic in question didn't affect my read too much. I am looking forward to seeing my comments resolved and supporting the nomination.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@R8R: I have addressed or replied to most of the comments. I would like to leave this last one for either Hurricanehink or KN2731 as I am quite tired now. Let me know how the changes look. Noah^Talk 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this delay. I'll try to write my first responses tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fine... Just keep in mind I won't be able to reply until after 3:30 PM EDT as I have to work 8 hours. Noah^Talk 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

That's most certainly fine by me. I can't even really commit time to Wikipedia every day (including today, sorry), so I'm in no position to complain if you can't respond to all of my comments on the day I wrote them. If anything, it's me who should be afraid to stir up your impatience.--R8R (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed, I am happy to support the nomination.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments by Balon Greyjoy

• Article looks in pretty good shape! I'll be back later with additional comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Balon Greyjoy: Is there anything else that is in need of attention? Noah^Talk 23:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Nope, I am supporting it! My apologies for not following up more quickly! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Intro

• When using "$306 million" I think it should be clarified if that's USD or MX. As I understand MOS:CURRENCY (this is the first time I've asked this question), it would be referring to MX, and doesn't require additional country designation, but I think it's a little confusing as earlier in the paragraph uses both MX and USD.
  • Fixed by Hurricane Noah. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• "United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft" I would link the Lockheed WC-130 instead of the squadron, or link both of them, but not just the squadron. I would also use the squadron's name, not its nickname of Hurricane Hunter. I would also remove "United States Air Force Reserve" from the link, or link it to the actual Air Force Reserve Command page. My take is: "A [[Lockheed WC-130|WC-130]] aircraft from the [[Air Force Reserve Command|United States Air Force Reserve]] [[53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron]] was scheduled..."
  • Sounds good, reworded accordingly and got rid of the semicolon in front which would make the sentence too long. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I see it's on the needs source review list. @R8R: have your concerns been satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: R8R said he will try to get back sometime this week or next as he is busy. Noah^Talk 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I said so but it was in an edit summary so that why you couldn't see it. Anyway, I am now ready to support the nomination.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Would you be willing to do a source review for this article? It would be greatly appreciated. Noah^Talk 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria did a source review, for which I'm quite appreciative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose It appears Ealdgyth is busy in real life right now. Noah^Talk 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, and with the disclaimer that I don't speak Spanish

• Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited in the text - for example, that it was the strongest to make landfall in Sinaloa since Lane

• I added content and a source about Willa being the strongest to hit Sinaloa since Lane 06. I removed the bit about Willa being the 5th costliest, as I didn't feel the template citing it was a good enough citation to say Willa was definitely the 5th costliest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Some of the content in the See also section warrants citing
  • Done. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN1: |work= should be removed

• Done. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason FN14 uses a different template from the other reports? Ditto FN73, check for others
  • Should be fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN15's range should use an endash

• Added the Endash. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when locations are included

• Removed them all. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• FNs 38 and 40 are to the same source but are formatted differently; ditto FNs 114 and 117, check for others
  • Have addressed these two. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Fn44: given publisher is a work title - check for others, there's quite a few of these errors
  • Think I got all of them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • No, still more - FNs 113, 114, 110... Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 12:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• How come only some refs have title translations?

• Should be fixed now. Noah^Talk 01:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• What makes Animal Politico a high-quality reliable source? Riodoce? Sopitas? LadoB?

• "Animal Politico" has an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, which describes the website as "...an independent digital publication born in Mexico in 2010 focused on the country's political information." It then goes on to discuss the website, how it has over a million followers. Riodoce (per their "Who we are" section) is "a weekly newspaper that was born in February 2003, due to the need for Sinaloa to have a journalism more focused on the great problems the entity is experiencing, based mainly on investigation and from a critical perspective." Sopitas is "a site founded in 2005 by Francisco Alanís with the intention of offering an alternative and independent channel of information and entertainment to a generation that had been forgotten by the traditional media. Sopitas.com converges between music, sports, entertainment, technology, science, humanities and political and social movements with an approach and personality that has conquered a generation eager to discover new ways of consuming information." So basically an independent Spanish journalism website. LadoB (or La Dobe) is likewise another journalism hub, and their "Who we are" page lists their journalists on it. So these are all Spanish journalism sources, they all have been around a while, they all have sections on who their authors are and what their mission is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, but the fact of being a journalism source that's been around a while doesn't automatically make them reliable in itself. What are their editorial policies? What are the backgrounds of the authors? Are the publishers well-regarded? Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Animal Politico - Here is its code of ethics. It's cited a few times in El Universal, one of Mexico's most popular newspapers.
• Associated Press cites Riodoce
• Forbes did a piece on Sopitas and its founder. The site has 21.5 million views per year. Its founder, Francisco Alanís, has been named among the 300 most influential Mexican leaders in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
• LadoB has won awards for its reporting, it has a website on the Spanish Wikipedia.

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), does that lend any credence toward these sources being reilable? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Awards for reporting, yes. Wikipedia articles, no. Anything else? At the moment I think LadoB passes, probably Animal Politico, I'm still not sure of the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Riodoce - Bloomberg described it as "one of the only periodicals in Mexico that seriously investigates drug violence." That backs it up being a credible journalism source if Bloomberg profiled it, and it's cited by the Associated Press.
• Sopitas - The Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas discusses and cites the website. Does that change your mind by chance, Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I'd say that's probably good enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• FN69 is missing diacritics on author name - check for others
  • Added, but haven't checked other refs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Checked all refs currently listed with authors and added a bunch of them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• FN70: |work= should be removed

• Removed. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN77: given author should be listed as publisher

• FIxed. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• FN81 is incomplete
  • Added newspaper name. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• FN82 is misformatted
  • Changed NWS to publisher and removed year (couldn't find it on the page). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• What makes FN84 a high-quality reliable source?

• The source's author has a master's of science in Atmospheric Science. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• FNs 86 and 101 are the same source but have a different work title. Ditto FNs 61 and 67, check for others
  • Fixed these two. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Noticed Televisa News and Noticieros Televisa are the same thing, replaced all instances of the former with the latter. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• FN115 should simply use CNN as publisher and no work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [51].

---

2010 Twenty20 Cup Final

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the most gut-wrenching cricket matches I've been to. Somerset lost their second final in a row, more or less on a last ball technicality. But really just because the Somerset players didn't know the Laws of Cricket, or at least, forgot them. As always, all comments and criticisms welcome. Harrias ^talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

• "which was the first domestic Twenty20 competition between first-class sides." I suspect that either 'UK' or 'English' needs inserting into that.

• No, that's what made it so notable. It was the first anywhere in the world. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine. But, optionally, could this be stressed? Eg, by adding 'anywhere in the world'.

• I realise that this is the lead, but "Hampshire reached 62 from the powerplay, but then lost a cluster of wickets. A steadying partnership between Neil McKenzie and Sean Ervine took them to the brink of victory, but another pair of wickets led to a tense finish." could be written more accessibly. Eg, bracket in an explanation of "powerplay", maybe add "six-over" as in the article; add 'lost' after the second "wickets".

• I've added "six-over" and "lost", but avoided a bracketed explanation for the moment. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "The match was eventually tied". I assume that the score rather than the match was tied. How could a tied match produce a winner?

• Weirdly, this match is recorded as a Hampshire win. Typically in cricket, the match is tied and the competition is won via the tie-breaker. For example, the 2019 Cricket World Cup Final, which England won on boundary count, is officially recorded as a tie. Somerset's tie with Hampshire in 2011, when they were knocked out after losing the super-over is also officially recorded as a tie. But anyway, that's beside the point, in this case, apparently, it wasn't a tie. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Background". Perhaps mention 'England' in the first sentence?

• Added. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "the sixteen group-stage fixtures". I count 32, 16 per group.

• Clarified: "..the sixteen group-stage fixtures per team were an increase.."

• "and the final were held". Optional: "held" → 'played'.

• Sure. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "as being one of the favourites". When? Ie, at the start of the competition, or of finals day?

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "though Jimmy Adams entered Finals' Day as the competition's leading run-scorer". Which team did he play for?

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "until the wicket of Samit Patel at the start of the 13th over". Maybe 'until the wicket of Samit Patel fell at the start of the 13th over'?

• Yup, added. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "and leading up to the final, the ESPNcricinfo commentary described conditions as "murky" . It may be me, but the comma made it very difficult for me to parse that phrase.

• I think I reworked the first few sentences so many times that it got a bit garbled. Removed. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "he had faced 16 of the 19 balls". Add 'bowled'.

• Changed to deliveries. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "stodgy": Wiktionary link?

• Added, though the definitions there are unclear for this usage. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But at least you have made an effort.

• "Jimmy Adams and Razzaq opened the batting for Hampshire". Maybe link "opened" to opening batsmen in Glossary of cricket terms?

• I already linked "opener partner" to Opening batsman a couple of paragraphs earlier? Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I missed that. I would still, optionally, suggest adding it again. Duplinks are not prohibited in all circumstances, and this may be one where it would aid a reader.

• "Their total of 62 for one at the end of the six-over powerplay was their second-highest of the competition." Which a non-aficionado won't understand without clicking on "powerplay". Any chance of working a brief explanation into the follow of the text?
• "to act as a runner for him". Oh come on :-) . An explanation of "runner" please. Preferably simple enough for the Somerset players to grasp the concept.

• I've changed this to the simpler "..and another Hampshire player had come out to run for him." Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Link to Runner (cricket).

Added wikilink. Harrias ^talk 07:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• "even knew the law". Assuming that only ignorance of that particular rule is being confessed to, could this be clarified. Currently one might gain the impression that very few of the Somerset staff and players knew any of the laws of cricket.

• I've tried to clarify this, how is it? Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Fine.

• "Somerset won the resulting Super Over"> Why the capitalisation?

• Because that's how our article capitalises it. I've switched it to lowercase, because it looks better that way. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• "Route to Finals' Day" section: suggest a paragraph break immediately before "Hampshire".

The match and aftermath sections flow well. Background and build up I found a little clunky. Not helped by rather large paragraphs. At times it felt like just a collection of facts. I know that to a large extent that is the nature of the beast, but could the flow be smoothed a little?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Some responses to the response you have done so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I've had a bit of a tidy through the background and build-up sections to try and improve the flow, and hopefully tidied any remaining issues; could you have another look over it when you get a chance? Harrias ^talk 12:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a bit better. I have made a couple of tweaks - revert at will. Flow is much better; trying to get an encyclopedia article on a sports event to trip along must be a nightmare.

• Link "byes" to Bye (cricket).
• Link "run for him" to Runner (cricket).

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Gog the Mild. Linked both, and also caught the runner link you asked for above, which I had missed. Harrias ^talk 07:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• "which was the first domestic Twenty20 competition between first-class sides anywhere in the world", I'm not seeing this anywhere else in the article, so it would need a source here.
  • It's probably excessive detail for this article, so I have removed it completely. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• "the head coach of the England men's cricket team", not a major issue but is there a need to distinguish it as the men's team when the article title itself doesn't?
  • In my opinion, the article title itself should. Either way, we lose nothing by being more specific here. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• "having won the 2009 Friends Provident Trophy", I can't see this in the refs provided in the paragraph?
  • Added a reference for this. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• The Guardian preview refs have the team names as Hampshire Royals and Somerset Sabres. I don't see those names mentioned anywhere here, are they unofficial or not widely used?
  • The Guardian was plain wrong for Somerset: they dropped the "Sabres" nickname the previous year. I have added a bit of information on both of these in though. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Link Southampton in the Build-up section.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• The England and Wales Cricket board is linked for a second time here also.
  • Unlinked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Patrick Kidd has an available link.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Kieswetter's opener partner", I'm not overly familiar with cricket terminology, so I may just be out of the loop, but this reads a little oddly. I would of guessed opening partner would have worked better?
  • You're right, I'm not sure what happened there. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• The Daily Telegraph is overlinked in the aftermath section.
  • Unlinked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• BBC Sport is linked in ref 12, but is used before this.
  • Tidied. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what stood out for me on a run through. A great article overall, very little to complain about. Kosack (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each of your points above. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy with the fixes and answers given above. I have no further issues, so I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from TRM

(With two disclaimers: (a) I think I reviewed/promoted this to GA (b) I'd like to count this review (if long enough!) for the good ol' WikiCup.)

• As you have 2010 Friends Provident t20 Final in bold as an alt-name, you could create the redirect 2010 Friends Provident t20 Final.
  • Good point, done. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• The lead feels a little light when introducing the format. I know it's easy to overlook our non-cricketing friends, but there's no real definition of what T20 is in the lead.
  • Sure, but it is linked, and explained in the prose. I'm not sure that going into too much detail in the lead should be necessary? Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, partly because of the later point, I've reworked this slightly, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " won the Twenty20 Cup in 2005." that links to just the tournament, not the "final" which seems odd.
  • Now links to the final. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Somerset chose to bat first a" was there a toss?
  • I had considered this excessive detail for the lead, but sure, added. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " Kieron Pollard was hit in the eye by a bouncer," not clear to non-experts that this was while he was batting.
  • Clarified. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "not subsequently available" not sure there's any need for "subsequently".
  • Fair point, removed. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " six-over powerplay" yeah, so linking "over" here is odd, and a mini sea of blue, so talk about 20 overs and link over before this.
  • Tweaked. Harrias ^talk 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• As a veteran of the "play-off" GAs, I'm interested if there's a consequence to winning this. The lead just stops, matter of fact, at Hants winning. No more than that. They won, end of story. You get me?
  • English teams didn't take part in the 2010 Champions League Twenty20. So yeah, they won, that was it. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the lead. More tomorrow (or today, depending how pedantic we want to be). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• " established in England" really? What about Wales?
  • I hate this about cricket. Added. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strictly the source doesn't mention "families" but it does talk about encouraging "women and children" (to the lifeboats first..)
  • I think that is acceptable paraphrasing. It is clear that "families" and "women and children" are synonymous in this case. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " first-class county cricket" sea of blue.
  • I think the negatives of awkward phrasing might outweigh the positives of avoiding a sea of blue here, but I'm open to suggestions. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " fixture list since ... Twenty20 fixtures t" fixture quick repeat.
  • Changed the second to "games". Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Within each group every team played the others within that group" within ... group ... within... group.
  • How would "Within each group every team each other twice"? It adds repetition of "each", but overall that might be better? I can't think of another way that stays tight. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's better. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Done. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• " in one-day cricket,[6] had never reached the final of the competition before,[7] but had enjoyed recent success in one-day cricket," a few run-ons in this sentence and linking one-day cricket on its repetition...
  • Rephrased a little, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Their spin bowlers... " whose?
  • Clarified. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " took three important wickets" what made them "important"?
  • George Dobell called them "crucial". I think it is acceptable paraphrasing without the need for explanation, but if you're not happy with it, I don't mind cutting it. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that picture of Adams is of any use to man nor dog.
  • In my opinion, it's better than the pictures we sometimes get of sportsmen 30 years after their retirement; at least it shows a cricketer cricketing... Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "as part of a package of matches" + " All three matches were broadcast"... this sequence implies that the "package" of matches were the three that were broadcast whereas I think you're meaning that the semi-finals and final were the "three matches".
  • Did you address this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Tweaked things around. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• "giving them the longest odds of any finalists; 7–2 on" now, I'm no expert by that sounds like they're very much the favourites? 7-2 against would make them joint-outsiders with Essex. Yes, and that's the other thing, they had equal longest odds with Essex.
  • I'm really thrown by this. You are right. Either I have misinterpreted "On Betting", or the odds and the written previews are completely at odds (ha) with each other. I can't really see anyway out of this other than removing it? Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I simply think that when it says "final on betting" it doesn't mean those odds are "on". I would treat them as against. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay, tweaked this, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 11:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would link chink in one's armor because I've seen this create all manner of upset with people not really understanding it and thinking it is pure racism.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "of 9–4 on.[18]" same again, that looks like 9-4 against to me.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Abdul Razzaq " doesn't link to what you want it to.
  • Sorted. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "bowled very economically. Essex bowled well " are you saying the same thing sort of twice here?
  • One is talking about Cork and Razzaq, the other about Essex generally. I don't know, maybe. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "but aggressive play " I understand this to mean aggressive batting, i.e. scoring at a high rate. Do our non-expert cricket readers understand that "aggressive play" equates to chasing down that target with ambitious/flamboyant batting?
  • I think I was trying to avoid repetition of "attacking" which I use twice in the next paragraph. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "were chasing a" -> "required".
  • Changed. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Up to the Match section. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• "the match was billed" -> the final. And why "billed", wasn't it actually a day/nighter?
  • Trimmed. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "faced the majority of the early deliveries; after three overs, he had faced" faced/faced.
  • Trimmed. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• A nuance, 19 deliveries in three overs may confuse people just getting into the swing of things...
  • Added a note. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• What's "deep cover"?
  • It's a fielding position: I thought you watched cricket?! But seriously, linked. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " 97 for two" suddenly, out of nowhere, words! I would stick with "for 2".
  • I had missed one, but in the prose the notation, which is explained in the note in the lead, always uses words for the wickets. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "to accelerate the innings" it was really accelerating the score, the innings progressed at the same ball-by-ball pace.
  • Removed it completely. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• What's "extra cover"?
  • As above. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " score "did not really ... significant score" - score repeat.
  • Changed the first to "performance". Harrias ^talk 14:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "149 for four, " see above. Etc.
  • As above. Etc. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "retire injured" is overlinked. In fact it's quite confusing to a non-expert why that's linked to "not out"...
  • Changed the link to Retired (cricket). Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "eye.[26] Pollard's eye" repetitive.
  • Changed the first to "face". Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "opened the batting " is overlinked.
  • This was at the request of reviewers above, as the phraseology was different. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• I missed what happened in Somerset's powerplay.
  • Nothing notable. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "conceded 16 runs, while Ben Phillips conceded" conceded repeat.
  • Changed the second to "allowed". Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• You link "inside edge" after not linking "top edge"?
  • I blame the GA reviewer, he asked me to link "inside edge", but never mentioned "top edge". (Linked now...) Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• " scored two byes and two runs, only managing to hit the ball once" just an observation, I love this, and it will cause consternation in some of our readers who think cricket is like baseball or that you have to run if you hit the ball etc.
  • I had to restrain myself from writing a paragraph about each ball of that final over! It was possibly the craziest over of cricket I've ever seen. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• James Hildreth doesn't need to be disambiguated.
  • You can tell which bits I did before and after that April page move! Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "retired hurt (not out)" not out isn't linked here but it is on subsequent lines of the table.
  • Linked, and added a link to Retired (cricket) again too. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Result: Hampshire won..." isn't it "Result: Match tied; Hampshire won..."?
  • Apparently not. I thought so, but no sources list this as a tied match, it is exclusively listed as a Hampshire victory. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• "2011 one-day cup competitions" put "one-day cup competitions" in the pipe to avoid easter egg links.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Daily Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph?
  • Should be consistent now. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Be consistent with linking your sources, Wisden seems linked every time, newspapers seem linked just first time. Apart from the ones that aren't....!
  • Should be consistent now. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Is ref 30 really BBC Sport?
  • Indeed it is. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it. This'll go into the ol' WikiCup melting pot if you don't mind. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for that. I think I've addressed (or at least queried) everything now, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Curiously when you say "got rid of" (yuck, reword) their nickname in 2009, the 2010 Guardian source calls them the "Somerset Sabres"! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I addressed this in Kosack's points above. The Guardian was just wrong. It was quite common in 2010, the media didn't really pick up on it, and kept calling them the Sabres anyway. Harrias ^talk 11:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (And reworded). Harrias ^talk 11:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Cheers, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 11:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: When you get a chance, could you take a look over, and see if my edits have resolved your concerns? Harrias ^talk 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Good enough for me, happy to support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review

spotchecks not done

• FN24: the commentary itself does identify the speaker, who should be attributed
• FNs24 and 33 appear to be the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. It looks like ESPNcricinfo have changed the formatting on the page slightly so that the direct links to each innings don't work anymore, so I have merged the references. I could probably have found archived versions instead, but I don't think there is a real need. Thanks for highlighting the authors; I thought they normally listed them at the start, so I hadn't looked at the end. I have added them in. Harrias ^talk 19:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: If you get a chance, could you take another look over, and see if my changes have resolved your concerns? Harrias ^talk 10:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free. Image placement meets MOS. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [52].

---

Infinity Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine of the late 1950s. Its main claim to fame is for publishing Arthur Clarke's story "The Star", which was rejected by The Saturday Evening Post as blasphemous, but which went on to win that year's Hugo Award and is now considered a classic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review

"The Star" is one of my favorite SF stories. All sources appear encyclopedic and properly and consistently used except as follows:

• There are at least three different formats for ISBNs.

  Gateways to Forever only lists a 13-digit ISBN, and some of the others only list a 10-digit one. If there's a way to look up a 10-digit one from a 13-digit one I could do that but I don't know of a way. For the McAleer, I used the ISBN on the ebook I found online, which doesn't divide it, but I just found a cheap used copy online and will update the ISBN when it arrives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Westport, CT or Westport, Connecticut?

  Fixed. I keep copying over references from old articles and forgetting to fix them; I need to just go through and fix all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why are the dates in day month year format in an American English article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Because I'm mid-Atlantic and can't remember which is which. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ian

Recusing from coord duties to review... Copyedited as usual, but pretty light -- some outstanding points:

• The Steins also launched Suspect Detective Stories, a crime magazine, the same month, and gave it to Shaw to edit, but converted it to science fiction after five issues, retitling it Science Fiction Adventures. -- this reads as the Steins converting it to sf, rather than Shaw, which is fine but can I just confirm that is in fact what's meant?

  Yes, that's the intent. I could make it "the Steins converted", if that would be clearer. In fact Ashley says "Stein", since I think Helen Stein was much less involved than Irwin; after initially making it clear that it was the two of them that started Royal, he mostly says "Stein" rather than "the Steins". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine, the fact that it took me two reads of the sentence to be sure doesn't necessarily mean the fault is with the sentence... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• The title page of the first anthology, Infinity One, said that it was "a magazine of speculative fiction in book form", but other than some brief introductory material, all five volumes printed nothing but fiction. -- maybe I'm missing something but is it surprising that "a magazine of speculative fiction" would print "nothing but fiction"?

  The quote from Ashley is "Such were Infinity's claims to be a magazine in book form. Unlike the later Destinies, however, Infinity concentrated solely on fiction and carried none of the features traditionally associated wtih magazines such as review columns, nonfiction departments and editiorials." I've changed this a little; see if that works better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  Got it -- yes the tweaking helps explain it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

For the "assessments of Infinity paragraph, I see you removed some of the connective tissue between the opinions -- I'm curious to know why? I do that sometimes just for flow, to carry the reader from one opinion to the next without reducing it to a staccato list of opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case it wasn't just my habitual trimming of (what appear to me) excess words but because connecting the info from the different sources in that way seemed like editorialising... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

OK -- I didn't see it like that but I'm happy to leave it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tks Mike. I'll take Nikki's image review as read and I think between Wehwalt, Sandy and myself we've established that the sources are reliable, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SG review (Support)

I will review this next ... on my ToDo list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• ISFDB looks like a wiki ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  It's a wiki with editing oversight. There's an RSN discussion here, which refers to a couple of previous posts by me to try to get a ruling. See here, for example; the SFE3 (the source you list below) regards them both as highly reliable, which I think is strong positive evidence (not for biographical information, though, just for bibliographic data). I mostly use the ISFDB for convenience instead of citing the individual issues of the magazines, which is a lot harder for a reader to find and use to validate the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia of Science Fiction looks like a Wiki ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, it's editorially controlled. It's the online version of a print encyclopedia that was last physically printed in 1992. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike ... will continue review tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, after a few minor tweaks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support -- and the tweaks look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully scare up a bit more reviews. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Support but with some suggestions for improvement...

• United States link doesn't need to be there

  Removed; that's been there since 2006, and I never noticed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "a planet destroyed by a nova that turns out to have been the Star of Bethlehem" - if someone doesn't know what a nova is, this is a bit ambiguous in its phrasing. Suggest reworking

  I added "(an exploding star)" to the lead, but am hesitant to do more than that for fear of overwhelming a short lead. In the body I've made it "a planet destroyed by a nova (an exploding star): the light from the nova was seen from earth as the Star of Bethlehem". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• When Shaw was originally hired (before the hot-rod), what was his role?

  Editor; I've reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• "To save money over the last two issues Stein made a deal to acquire some lower-priced material" - what is "lower-priced"? What prices were paid previously? What was standard at the time?

  Ashley doesn't say. I know from various sources that a typical low-paying market would have been around one to one and a half cents per word, and a high-paying market around three or four cents. Stein probably paid between one and two cents for most stories. Getting low-priced material could be done a couple of ways; it's likely that Stein contacted one of the agencies, such as Scott Meredith, and let them know he would take material that had been rejected elsewhere, on condition the rate was low. This is speculation, though, and I don't see how I can put anything in the article. Even a "typical rate" (which I'm not sure would be easy to source) might be misleading because I don't know if Stein paid a typical rate; Ashley doesn't comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• earth -> Earth.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Short, and tagged (incorrectly) as a stub, but looks good to me. I have no comments. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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) 7 August 2020 [53].

---

Bob Mann (American football)

Nominator(s): Gonzo_fan2007 and Cbl62 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann was an American football player in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He was a star end (wide receiver in today's terminology) for the University of Michigan, where he teamed up with future Hall of Famer Len Ford to form a dynamic pass-catching duo. He entered the NFL with the Detroit Lions, where he played for two seasons. After a salary dispute, he was released and signed with the New York Yanks (not to be confused with the baseball team), although he never played for the team in the regular season. After being released by the Yanks, he claimed NFL owners blackballed him by all agreeing to not sign him. After a few months, the Green Bay Packers signed Mann, where he would play parts of five seasons until a knee injury ended his career. Mann would go on to become a lawyer in the Detroit area until he died in 2006.

The quick overview above would make it seem like Mann was just another college football star who played in the NFL for a few seasons before professional football became what it is today. However, Mann's legacy goes far and above his statistics and physical abilities. Mann was a black player in football during a time of great racial prejudices. He broke the color barrier for both the Lions and Packers, he was cut by the Lions for not taking a pay cut (and possibly for supporting a boycott by the black community of a beer that he was a spokesperson for), even though he led the NFL in receiving yards the prior season. He was (arguably) blackballed by the NFL for his race and for not agreeing to take the pay cut from the Lions. Then he played for Green Bay, a town at the time that had only a handful of black residents. He has been called a pioneer for the dignified way he handled himself is such difficult situations.

This article has a fun history. Cbl62, as a fan of the University of Michigan, expanded this article in 2010! For the next 8 years, it received only a handful of minor edits. Then Gonzo_fan2007 came across it in 2018 and as a Green Bay Packers fan, they decided to work on it. In 2019, we decided to collaborate on this article and bring it to GA-status, and then, hopefully, to FA-status. This is Gonzo_fan2007's second FAC (after Packers sweep) and Cbl62's 1st FAC. The article received a pre-FAC review and WP:NFL was given a chance to review it, with at least one editor reviewing it. Thanks to Eagles247, Casliber, and MWright96 for your help in developing this article. Thank you all for your time in reviewing this nomination. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) and Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I know almost nothing about American football, so am coming at this with what could be optimistically termed fresh eyes. Here are my comments:

• "Mann transferred to Michigan in 1944, with his father hoping that he would attend the school's medical program" - which school?
  • The University of Michigan. I clarified this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• " Mann took a year off for military service" - this sounds rather odd. People volunteered or were drafted for the duration of the war, so didn't take time off from their civilian lives.
  • It is somewhat colloquial language in sports for the era. I reworded. No source mentioned whether he was drafted or volunteered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • "Mann left the university for a year to serve" still is unlikely to be correct - I very much doubt that the US Navy was offering one year periods of enlistment. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The key here is that his college "career" was delayed while he served in the military. Both sources for this statement just note that "he served" from 1944 until the end of the war. Nothing about volunteering or draft. I reworded a little bit more, let me know if this satisfies your concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Do we know what he did in the Navy?
  • No source has mentioned this. Cbl62, have you seen this mentioned in any sources? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

White newspapers of the day tended to give minimal coverage to military service by African Americans. Some of the old African-American press is available online, but I've been unable to find details there of his military service. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• "McMillin thought it would be best for everyone to not incite any further racial issues in the city." - this is euphemistic (e.g. what racial attitudes are being referred to and why did McMillan think this?). Can clearer language be used?
  • I deleted the sentence. It doesn't say much more than the previous sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• " Despite a good training camp" - I'm not sure what this means. Should it be "Despite performing well during the team's training camp" or similar?
  • Yes. Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• " John Rauch, a rookie quarterback, told Mann that he had been ordered not to throw to him." - do we know who issued this order, and why?
  • I think I addressed this. It was the Yanks coach, and Mann understood it to be racially motivated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• "He claimed that, despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." - is 'claimed' needed here given that this is stated as a fact earlier in this article?
  • I changed to "asserted". I am trying to make the point that these were Mann's claims, but I kind of see your point. Let me know if this makes sense or if it should be reworded still. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm still not sure why this is being presented as anything other than a fact? Surely Mann was correct in stating this? Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. The pay cut part is fact, the claims after that were assertions. I revised it Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• "He married in 1956" - the article earlier describes him as being married in 1949?
  • Welp, this may take a second. I have two sources, one saying "his wife Dorothy" in 1949, and one saying he he had a wife named Vera who he had been married to for 45 years in 2002. Let me do some digging. In the meantime, Nick-D, let me know if you are good with the other responses and if you have any other comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I found a reference in Jet (magazine) saying that him and his first wife Dorothy were divorced. No clear timeframes on the marriage though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Can anything more be said about his legal career?
  • Honestly, we have tried but the sources just aren't out there. You can see a little of this discussion on tha talk page in the various reviews. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Just to check, but have you checked online archives of newspapers in Detroit? He might well have been the type of lawyer who doesn't get in the media though (e.g. by only handling routine matters) Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, about 3/4 of our sources are articles from a fairly diverse number of newspapers. There just isn't much said about his later life and career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Have sports historians and/or historians of desegregation in the US written much about Mann? Given his pioneering status and the barriers he faced despite being an elite player the amount of analysis and discussion in the article feels a little thin. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this really speaks to the times. There just wasn't much written about him at the time (racially speaking). What was written is included in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, I have resolved or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Those changes all look good, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination on prose, noting again that I can't comment on comprehensiveness, etc, due to my near total ignorance of American football (and all other kinds of football other than Australian rugby league for that matter!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from TRM

WikiCup review

• I don't know why "professional" is in the pipe to American football. There are lots of codes of football with professionals.
  • This came from a discussion at WP:NFL. Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO says a person's nationality should be in the opening paragraph. NFL bios routinely say "Person was an American football player." In this case, "American" refers to the type of football, not nationality. And since non-Americans play in the NFL, the sentence would have to say "Person was an American American football player" or something similar. I am definitely open to suggestions, but this was my way of clarifying that "American" was his nationality". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "l football player in " why not "footballer who played in"?
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• As a non-expert, I'm mildly bemused by terms like "receiving yardage", "undrafted", "yards per reception" etc.
  • I linked a few of these, but this is somewhat par for the course. The NFL uses this terminology, so not sure how I could get around it. We only have an article on Reception (gridiron football). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Surprised to see that List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders isn't linked here in the prose.
  • Linked in lead and body. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "a lawyer and practiced law " repetitive, probably don't need "law".
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• The NFL.com link in the infobox is dead.
  • Fixed. NFL.com likes to change their url linking every few years for fun. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Hampton's final game" of the season or ever?
  • Clarified. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "with his father hoping" -> "where his father hoped"
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "African-American players" that wasn't hyphenated in the lead.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "ended up being" not really encyclopedic in tone.
  • Changed to "was" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "he caught three passes for 74 yards and two touchdowns and als..." and and run-ons, presumably something like "he caught three passes for 74 yards, scored two touchdowns and als" would be marginally better?
  • Changed to "while also gaining 26 yards on two end-around runs" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Similar, following sentence follows a near-identical structure/wording so it's got the same problem and is repetitive.
  • I reworded the whole sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "a nickname as the "fifth man" in Michigan's backfield" I suppose this is meaningful to those "in the know" but to me it's meaningless.
  • Explained a little. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Is it "at left end" or "at the left end"?
  • "at left end". It was a position back then, basically lining up as an End (gridiron football) on the left side. I link "end" in the first instance of "left end". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• East-West needs an en-dash in this context.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Any reason Associated Press isn't linked?
  • It is already linked in the first instance of its use "Mann was also selected by the Associated Press as a first-team end for its All-Big Nine team" and in each ref. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "America, and Michigan coach " I would stop after America, new sentence then relating to his acclamation from coach and subsequent induction into that state's HoF.
  • Revised. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• " receive feelers " is that encyclopedic?!!
  • Changed to "interest". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "(NFL).[25] In April 1948, Mann signed with the Detroit Lions of the NFL;[26] his first NFL " NFL overdose, perhaps mix it up a little to reduce reptition.
  • Removed the last NFL, as unnecessary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "He was also hired to a sales position..." curious, so this wasn't a fully professional football career at this stage?
  • It was very common back in the day for AmFootball players to have second jobs, especially ones related to the NFL (in this case, working for a beer company that was owned by the Lions' president. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "became the first African American to play for the Lions" the source doesn't back that up. "one of the Detroit Lions’ first black players".
  • Reworded to match the source more closely (basically including Mel Groomes in the discussion). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Although team owners denied the existence of a ban, no African American had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945" very close paraphrasing to the source: "Although team owners denied the existence of a color ban, not one black player had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945".
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "African American players. Even after African American players" repetitive.
  • I reworded a bit, but not sure how I can get around not having "African Americans" in each sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "began appearing"-> "began to appear".
  • Reworded based on the previous comment. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Mann appeared in all 12 games for the Lions," + in the 1948 season...
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• It's worth noting how Detroit did that season, coming bottom of the Western Division.
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "He had played two years of college basketball at Hampton" who? Mann? We know. Owens? Not clear.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "not be able to play in the game.[2]..." no reaction from Mann? Or any of his teammates?
  • The source just notes the event and says that Mann doesn't dwell on the racial issues that he faced in that era. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Mann objected and held out" and "Mann became a hold out when" repetitive use or are they different things?
  • Reworded, removing "held out". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Link quarterback, free agent etc.
  • Linked. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "October 1950, Mann was jobless. At the end of October 1950," repetitive.
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." haven't you already said all this?
  • Reworded so that this sentence is more of a callback to the previous explanation of the pay cut. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "colluded to avoid signing", "colluded to avoid signing" repetitive.
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "ending his suit against the NFL" was it a condition or did he just decide that because he'd been signed the misdemeanours of the past were forgotten?
  • The couple sources that mention this just note that the suit ended. Speculating, since he was signed he no longer had claims against the NFL for blackballing, so it was dropped. Let me know if you think I need to reword this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "becoming the first African-American to play for the team.[7][53] It was later determined that Walt Jean, an offensive lineman for the Packers in the 1920s, was African American.." well, odd. I guess "what was thought to be" should be in there really, this is an encyclopedia so we shouldn't make an assertion to then immediately nullify it.
  • Reworded to clarify he was the first "known" African American to play for the team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Can we link the 1950 and 1951 NFL seasons in the prose? And the subsequent ones?
  • I think I got them all. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "three or less " fewer.
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "2–9–1" what does that mean to a non-expert?
  • Explained using {{Abbr}} template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• " racial diversity, Mann's time with the Packers was largely free of overt racial incidents.[69] However, racial " racial x3 in quick succession, repetitive.
  • Removed the first " racial". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Green Bay Gazette" this was called something different last time and already linked.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a first pass. As noted, I am certainly no expert, so I may have misunderstood some things. Having said that, if I have, maybe some of our other non-expert readers will too... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, I believe I have either addressed or responded to all of your comments above. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, happy with the above and just removed one instance of overlinking. Good work, good luck. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your thorough review The Rambling Man. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just here for the cookies! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• End is linked to a redirect in the lead, this seems unnecessary when you're actually piping in the first place.
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Worth linking segregated to Racial segregation?
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Also, link University of Michigan?
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• "Although it was unclear why he was not being thrown", might be a terminology issue, but should this be thrown to?
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• Detroit is over linked in the Legal career and personal life section.
  • All I see is Detroit linked in the first sentence of the paragraph. Detroit College of Law is also linked. Let me know if I am missing something. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
    • My error, I mistakenly thought I saw Detroit linked before this. Kosack (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A few very minor points, the two very thorough reviews above have already covered pretty much everything for me. Kosack (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Kosack, all your comments were addressed or responded to. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No further issues for me, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Kosack. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Adding this to the urgents list and also for a source review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, based on the reviews above we have consensus for promotion but when I looked over the lead I couldn't help feeling there's room for improvement. I realise articles on footballers have their challenges but "football player who played" in the first sentence, followed by "played" and "playing" in the next two sentences seemed a bit much -- is there no way to vary this? Also "After not being drafted in the 1948 NFL Draft" seems a bit clumsy to me. I haven't looked at the rest. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, thanks for the comments. I removed/replaced two instances of "play" from the lead, but as you mentioned, it is a challenge because there isn't an easy synonym for "play". "Engage", "participate", etc all sound clumsy and abnormal for American football. I changed the second sentence to After not being selected in the 1948 NFL Draft, which seems to be on par with other FAC's (Scott Zolak, Tyrone Wheatley). Happy to address any other comments you have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Tks for your prompt response. I guess "not being selected" is better but still... Do we even need to know this in the lead, could we not just drop that clause? Further, last I looked MOS tends to frown on single-paragraph subsections and while some might be justified, there are quite a few in this article. At the very least I think you could safely make New York Yanks section just the two paras, without the Charges of blackballing subheader. Leave the rest for now, I'll try and take another look tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I dropped a couple single-paragraph sub-sections, as recommended. Regarding the draft status, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format (which, admittedly is an info page) recommends having the player's draft status in the lead. Of the 5 NFL player WP:FAs from the draft era, four mention their draft status in the lead (Otto Graham being the exception, although he never played for the team that drafted him). At this point, I would prefer to keep it, as it provides a natural transition from college to professional career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Tks, how do you feel about "After missing [or even "missing out on"] selection in the 1948 NFL Draft"? I won't hold up promotion though, your call... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose. I think I will stay with the original text; it matches more closely with the standard language the NFL uses when discussing the draft.. I do want to point out that a source review hasn't been completed for this FAC. Is that something that needs to occur before promotion? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well wouldn't you know, I'd overlooked that, even with Ealdgyth's reminder above -- I spent some time double-checking whether a spotcheck was required but not the source review in general. Nikkimaria, could I trouble you to have a look at this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose, the source review has been completed below. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose, just wanted to follow-up and note that the source review has been complete. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I got quite a few messages the last couple of days, only now able to get to this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Which stats in the infobox are meant to be cited to which source?
  • NFL.com, removed the other to clarify. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • It looks like that source doesn't include date of death, and the exact date is not present in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Nikkimaria, when you said "stats" in your original comment, I thought you were referring to Mann's football statistics. I have added his full death date to the last section of the article and to the lead. Ref 74 supports the death date. All the other information in the infobox is supported by multiple sources in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • Reworded to drop the quotes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Fn2: the title here doesn't match that in the source, unless there's a different title on the first page?
  • See comment below about Source 12 and 13. This is the same thing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean, could you explain? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Source #2 is another news article that is split on two pages, with the first part cited separately (source 29) from the second part, similar to source 12 and 13. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not objecting to them being split into two cites. But in this particular case it appears that the second part has a different title, so if you're going to split them into two cites the second part should have the title specific to that part. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Nikkimaria, it is my understanding that a title on the second page of an article is considered a subhead and not the title of the article. Each article can only have one title, which is why I kept the article's title from the first page and added "Part 1" and "Part 2". Let me know if there is an MOS or guideline for this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Nikkimaria, does my explanation work for you? I have three sources in the article that are newspaper clippings where the article goes from one page to another. They are all set-up the same way, with two citations using the main title with Part 1 and Part 2 appended to the end of the title. I haven't been able to find any guideline on how this is usually handled, so I am hoping that this solution works. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
              • That's fine. Looks like we're still pending a source for date of death as per above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
                • Not sure I know what you are referring to Nikkimaria. His date of death is sourced and I don't see any comments above about his death date?? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • See my response on point 1 - it's not in the NFL source used for the infobox AFAICT, and the exact date is not in the article body. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• FN9 credits Newspapers.com but is from a different source
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Fns 12 and 13: when the in-source location is more than pages, |at= is more appropriate
  • I disagree, separating out each page of a newspaper article makes it easier to verify the information and is the only way that each page of the article can be easily archived. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your argument. You could easily present the information currently presented, just using a different parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Do you mind providing me an example of what it would look like. I guess I am not understanding how that parameter would be used in a way that would allow me to link directly to two separate Newspaper.com links, plus two separate Wayback machine archive urls. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Currently part one is

Smith, Wilfrid (December 22, 1946). "Colleges Have Greatest Year for Football: Part 1". Chicago Tribune (clipping). p. Part 2, Page 1. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020 – via Newspapers.com.

All I'm suggesting you change is

Smith, Wilfrid (December 22, 1946). "Colleges Have Greatest Year for Football: Part 1". Chicago Tribune (clipping). Part 2, Page 1. Archived from the original on February 11, 2020 – via Newspapers.com.

And then the same with the other, keeping them as separate refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my bad. I was confused at what you were asking. I have made the change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fn18 is missing agency credit
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Fn42 should use |pp= and an endash
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• FN57: title doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria for the review. I have addressed or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.