Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [1].

David (son of Heraclius)

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC), User:Haukurth[reply]

This article is about David, one of the co-emperors of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a perfect example of a victim of Byzantine politics, he was raised to the throne as a child, was the subject of intense dynastic scheming, and was hated as the product of incest. And of course, in the end, he was deposed, mutilated, and then ignored. While in some ways more a receiver of history than a mover of it, he still held the throne during a period of vast controversy in the empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Z1720

edit

I have written historical biographies, but I am unfamiliar with this person, time period or location.

  • " November 7, 630," The other dates in the article have the day first, so this should be standardised.
  • Done.
  • "September 1, 641." Another date inconsistency.
  • Done
  • "But according to Theophanes they were ousted by the Senate" I'm not thrilled with this sentence starter. Maybe, "Theophanes states they were ousted by the Senate" The reader already knows there are contradictory sources so it does not need to be emphasised at the beginning of this sentence.
  • done.
  • "Haldon, John (1990). Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521319171." Since the other refs have dashes in the ISBN, this one should have them, too, for consistency.
  • done
  • I checked the lede, no concerns.
  • In the infobox, the reign says October-November, but the article says the co-orination took place in September or October. Perhaps this needs to be clarified.
  • done

Those are my comments. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: All concerns addressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

My only comments are these:

Funk

edit
  • Will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link more names and terms in image captions?
    Done
  • Link Byzantine at first mention in article body?
    Done
  • Since there are no images of David, and the plates comes cloest to being tied to him, perhaps show more of them[2] by using the multiple image template (like in quagga)? Would also make the image smaller so that it doesn't clash with the quote below.
    Done
  • "literally "David Caesar, may you be victorious."" Shouldn't the period be placed after the quotation mark?
    Done
  • "The high number of titled princes under Heraclius had not been seen since the days of Constantine the Great." How many siblings were there, and how many from the same mother?
    Done (in first paragraph)
  • "An agreement was reached, one part of which was that David was to be crowned as a co-emperor." It seems unclear who he was to be co-emperor with (at least until much further down, and stated as an aside)? And which of them had highest rank?
    Resolved by your solution.
  • This explicit sentence in the intro is what could be good in the article body to solve the above: "As part of a compromise, David was raised to co-emperor with the regnal name Tiberius, ruling with his brother Heraklonas and their nephew Constans II."
    Done.
  • Likewise with: "All three emperors were children and the Empress Dowager Martina acted as regent."
    Done
  • It would seem the map showing Muslim conquest would make more sense under Downfall, after it has been mentioned, than where it is now, Succession struggle, where this is not yet mentioned, and has little relevance?
    Done
  • Should Blue faction really link to Chariot racing?
    Unfortunately, yes, as there is currently no page for each Chariot racing faction, the general explanation of them at Chariot racing is the best we have.
  • Link Bulgar?
    Done
  • "and Marinus" Earlier you spell it Martinus.
    Done (result of page move, didn't catch it)
  • Link Jerusalem in intro.
    Done
  • "given the senior court title Caesar at the age of 7" His age only seems mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    I haven't been able to track down the source that gives him as 7 (although this is obviously correct), so I've changed it to "in 638" in the lede; strong possibility I did the math when crafting the lede in my userspace and assumed there would be a source to give the number in the body, and that never ended up being the case, good catch.
  • "in an early example of Byzantine political mutilation" Only the intro states it is n early example.
    Done
  • "and the noses of her sons were slit" Unclear what "slit" means, probably better to be as explicit as the article body, "cut off".
    done

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

Curious about a completely new topic for me. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that some things are not as I usually see them, but may be fine for this kind of article:

  • The side navbox, which sandwiches the text opposite the images. The images should be there because of the context. Could the navbox go further down?
    Done; the navbox right after the infobox is traditional, but I don't believe strictly required.
  • I am not used to more than three citations for one fact.
    Removed some.
  • Bibliography: I am used to differentiate Cited sources and Further reading, but understand that all in Bibliography are cited.

Under the reign

  • I am surprised by Nikephoros, without link, while there's Nicephoros later, with link, and no obvious connection to the previous sentence.
    That's actually supposed to be Heraclius, not Nikephoros, text has been fixed.

Tiberius

  • I'd link monothelitism, - yes it was linked in the lead, but I forgot.
    Done (it was linked previously at Monothelete in the quote above, but I moved it down to the first actual word.
  • I'd move the coin images to the numismatics in the text.
    Done.

Lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the changes, all fine for me. So now lead:

  • "David (Greek: Δαυίδ, born 7 November 630), who had the regnal name Tiberius, was one of three co-emperors of Byzantium for a few months in late 641 (or early 642)." some concerns:
    • Yes I know that we usually first have names but in this case I believe it would make more sense to first mention co-emperor and then the regal name, which by being bold would still stand out.
      Done.
    • the "early 642" suggests to me that the whole reign was perhaps that year, but I understand it's only the end.
      Done.
  • the David Plates: yes, I understand there's a link, but in this case would like a very short description, because it could be almost anything made anytime, and is a very important thing to say about our subject (about whom we know almost nothing). Many readers will never get beyond the lead, and may be too lazy to click.
    Done.
  • likewise, I believe it wouldn't hurt to add at which young age he was named Caesar.
    Unfortunately this cannot be done as none of the sources feel inclined to give that age; I can say with absolute certainty that it was 7 but no sources will outright say that, so it would be a very technical OR I think.
  • I could imagine , for chronological order, to first have the (now last) sentence about the reign, then its end, but also understand the current order, to not leave the cut-off noses as the final line. Perhaps a line about their possible later life, as in the body? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done

Comments (incl. source review) by A. Parrot

edit

I made a few edits to wording and punctuation as well.

  • "Byzantine art historian Cecily Hennessy points out that the birth of David occurred after several children of Heraclius and Martina had been born malformed or died in infancy." This sentence isn't supported by a citation and is redundant with the paragraph below it, so I don't see why it's here, unless Hennessy draws some conclusion that is missing from this sentence.
    Accidentally split a paragraph, now cited; the two are meant to be together. The conclusion is that the David Plates were not just for Heraclius, but a celebration that Heraclius had multiple "good" heirs.
  • "but the accusation that Martina poisoned him was later officially propagated." When, and by whom?
    Fixed, it's by Constans II; the exact time scale isn't known, but probably soon after he took the throne.
  • The text says the mutilation of Martina and her sons may have been the first instance of the practice, but the article on Byzantine mutilation lists John Athalarichos as the earliest instance. Do any sources discuss this uncertainty? A. Parrot (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the sources agree that it was early, Moore alone states it was the first; it's possible he was simply unaware of John Athalarichos, as he doesn't mention him at all. Seems like it might have been #2 after all.

Source review

Sourcing is excellent. All look like highly reputable sources, overwhelmingly from the past 50 years or so. Older sources are used exclusively for treatment of primary documents, not for analysis. I only see two slight irregularities in the bibliography. The Reiske source is an edition published long after Reiske's death, which seems to have been edited or corrected by Barthold Georg Niebuhr; could Niebuhr be incorporated into the citation template? Also, the author link to Warren Treadgold appears the second time Treadgold's name shows up rather than the first, because of the inflexible nature of the template for Treadgold 1997, but I don't know if there's anything you can do about that.

Spot-checking ten citations reveals no verifiability problems.

I have one complaint about citation style: notes are placed before ordinary citations, which makes them hard to see, especially because the note format uses lowercase letters. Experienced Wikipedia readers' eyes gloss over normal citations when they're reading the running text rather than checking the sources, but because discursive notes are to some extent part of the article text, I think they should be as visible as possible. I use a more visible format for them ("Note 1", etc.), but at minimum, the notes should be placed after the numbered citations, so that the space following the citation allows them to stand out more. A. Parrot (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Replaced Treadgold template with regular cite book to fix the author-link issue, have added Niebuhr as an editor, and converted EFNs to NoteTags and moved them to the end of their citations. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and support from JeBonSer

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [3].

Corinna

edit
Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinna is, after Sappho, the ancient Greek woman poet with the most surviving fragments, so we know almost nothing about her, rather than absolutely nothing. Three fairly substantial fragments of her poetry survive, and her works preserve versions of Greek myths not otherwise attested. Despite this, the main scholarly interest in Corinna over the past century has been the surprisingly contentious debate about when she actually lived – despite this being the one fact about her life which is unanimously agreed upon by the ancient sources!

I brought Corinna up to GA back in 2019; this year I submitted it for peer review and got helpful comments from Mujinga, SusunW, Kaiser matias, and Tim riley. As far as I can tell, I have read nearly every piece of English-language scholarship about Corinna written in the past century, and I think the article is now ready to be examined at FAC. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

  • File:Frederic_Leighton_-_Corinna_of_Tanagra.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Statue_of_Corinna_(Revue_archéologique_1898_32,V).jpg
  • File:Stückelberg_Myrthis_und_Corinna_beim_Töpfer_Agathon_1897.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:"CORINNA_(THE_LYRIC_MUSE)"_"WILLIAM_BRODIE"_from_-Sculptures_of_Andromeda,_the_Toilet_of_Atalanta,_Corinna,_and_a_Naiad-_MET_DP323119_(cropped).jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sculpture was by William Brodie, who died in 1881 (and it was published no later than 1859, when the photograph in question was published); I've added PD-old-auto-expired to this image which I believe is the correct tag? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some further research, if I do have to remove the Stuckelberg and Compiègne images, there's this Blake drawing, but it's also missing a US public domain tag. It's likely that either PD-US-expired or PD-1996 apply, but I haven't yet been able to demonstrate either. There's also this, which doesn't have a tag for the artwork but I think ought to be PD-old-auto-expired – it's in a public place and both the artists who painted it died before 1927. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I've managed to find a 1901 publication with an illustration of the Stückelberg painting! That one is safe, I think. I think the only remaining question is about the Compiègne statuette photo – I have not been able to track down any evidence that Michel Berthaud rather than one of his brothers was the photographer, and the uploader is now inactive and has not responded to my talkpage enquiry. I have replaced the Commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired with Commons:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. I hope this is sufficient, but I can't find any discussion about the use of this template on en.wiki; if this is not an acceptable license here then unfortunately I think the photo will have to be removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Support from Tim riley

edit

I had my say at the peer review, and I'm not going to make a song and dance about the spellings "romanized" and "archeologists" (I understand the reason for the former, and the latter has the merit of being one letter shorter than the spelling I favour.) "Set forth" strikes a slightly archaic note, but that's hardly a bad thing in an article on an archaic subject. The only thing I knew about Corinna was the line about not sowing with the whole sack – still good advice for all of us – and I have much enjoyed meeting her again here. I can't begin to judge the content or the comprehensiveness of the article, beyond recording that to my eye it looks authoritative, and it is clearly well and widely sourced. Splendid illustrations, and highly readable prose. As far as I can see it meets the FA criteria in every respect, and I am happy to support its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks again for your useful comments at peer review, Tim! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

I did go through pretty thoroughly during the Peer Review, but I'll give it another read in the next day or so, see if anything else should be edited. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went through it again and nothing stands out to stop me from supporting it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aiship

edit
  • Should papyrus be linked at all?
  • "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" seems awkward. "often-unique mythological innovations" or something?
  • Note C has just Suda, whereas all other uses include the article: the Suda. Any reason?
  • "now in the collection of the Berlin State Museums" is repeated, albeit once is in a note.

That's pretty much it. Well done.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Changed the easy things ("Suda" without the article is a dated use an should probably be avoided; linked papyri in the lead). I agree that "mythological innovations which are often unique to Corinna" is clunky, but I'm not sure "often unique mythological innovations " is any better; I shall think on it further. The discussion of the papyri could probably be rewritten to avoid the repetition – I will work something up. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I've had a go at rewriting the two points you raised – how does it look now? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Nothing to stop me from a support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • A minor suggestion which can be ignored: I would link the publishers as I generally find it to be helpful.
  • Does MA in Cambridge, MA refer to Massachusetts? If so, I would write out the full form. People not familiar with the city/state might not know the abbreviation.

Otherwise sources are of appropriate quality and formatted correctly/consistently. Spot-checks not included. Version reviewed. FrB.TG (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I've expanded "MA" to Massachusetts, wikilinked the publishers and made a slight tweak for more consistent ISBN formatting. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog. These were two minor "concerns", one of which was optional so it was almost a pass at the time. Anyway, good to go from my end. FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [4].

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

edit
Mathsci (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of the most beloved, so here we try a third time. Thanks to all who commented and improved in the long article history. This cantata is a solo cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle, - both aspects not yet covered in a FA. It is one of few cantatas that Bach called a cantata. The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash!. I asked Mathsci to do a third round, because he contributed most after the last nomination, but he was banned. - Today is the birthday of the conductor with whom I sang it. Those attending a memorial concert for him joined singing the closing chorale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

licensing concerns:

  • File:BWV56 aria Da leg ich den Kummer auf einmal ins Grab.jpg, File:BWV56 recitative Mein Wandel auf der Welt.jpg, File:BWV56-excerpt-aria-Endlich wird mein Joch.jpg, File:BWV56-4 final adagio.jpg, File:BWV56-5-harmonized-chorale-No-87-Becker-1831.jpg who is claiming copyright on this? What original contribution exists? Buidhe public (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All files uploaded recently by Mathsci, with detailed information about the IMSLP file, and licensing. GRuban is my help with images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I was summoned. Insert puff of smoke and smell of brimstone here. All of these are musical scores in an unremarkable font, which are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text except for the contributions of the composer; you can't retype a piece of music in a perfectly standard font and claim copyright on the end result. The composer is, unless I misunderstand, Johann Sebastian Bach, who died in 1750, and the works were published in 1831 or so, yes? All of that easily meets public domain standards for Germany, the US, and basically any countries we know of. There are no 190 year copyright statutes. --GRuban (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that would suggest the current licensing of CC BY-SA is not correct, so the tagging needs to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-tagged.--GRuban (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you can. Copyright on the composition and copyright on the typography are two different things. Without acknowledging the author of the typography and the license it is released under, these files are in violation of their license. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I humbly disagree, for the reasons as stated. PD-text is quite clear that we, Wikimedia Commons, do not accept copyright on mere typing. Neither can anyone retype Gulliver's Travels or The Merchant of Venice and claim copyright on that. If the esteemed administrator wants to add an additional template of CC BY-SA, I will not object, due to my respect for the mop, but I am quite sure it is not necessary. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Musical notation is not text, and publishers get valid new copyright on new typography. If you are unaware of the difference between musical notation and text, please stay out of this discussion. See [5] for the author. There are two ways to rectify Mathsci's copyvio here, to properly follow the file's CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or to delete it. I feel too esteemed to add any templates, but may nominate for deletion if the false PD claim isn't corrected. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, let me expound a bit, as this is bugging me. Copyright, as the first sentence of our article about it says, is granted not just for work, but for creative work. Retyping is not a creative work. If the typist or the printer employs their creativity in retyping the Cantata, if they intentionally change a C# to a D here and a B to an A there ... it's just not the Cantata. It may be a closely related derivative work, but I don't see anyone claiming that is what happening here. As best I can tell, these are exact reproductions of Bach's composition of 1726, as published in 1831, as best the printer could manage it, correct? If so, the only creativity involved was choosing which font to use, and PD-text is quite clear, we, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, don't consider that single choice sufficient to establish copyright. And I'd say, neither do most courts, but as those of us in the US recently learned, relying on a court to continue ruling the way it has for the past many decades is not at all a matter of certainty! So the best we can do is rely on Wikimedia Commons rules, which are quite clear here. --GRuban (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Neue Bach-Ausgabe is PD in Germany (where the copyright in such editions last 25 years), but not PD in the United States (because the US managed to kill half of the public domain in 1996). Why do you think you're smarter about musical scores copyright than the specialists at the International Music Score Library Project? —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we should take this discussion outside of the FA candidacy, wherever you prefer, Commons deletion, third opinion, RfC, whatever. How about https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright ? Can we stipulate that if the community decides with Kusma, we will place whatever license he chooses on these files, and let the FA proceed meanwhile? I'm quite sure Gerda will accept whatever the community decides, as this is a very hair-splitting point, since whether CC BY-SA or PD, these files will look exactly the same in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of the PDF that the files are extracted from has already chosen a license that we could just follow. I am happy to believe in the licensing given for several versions over at the IMSLP wiki page I linked above, which means we could just end this by being nice and acknowledging the person (Markus Müller of bachsoboe.de; this may even be the best source as it gives author information) who typed this up by following their CC-BY-SA license instead of saying they have no right to it and claiming we can use it unacknowledged. I think what you are proposing is a very poor way of treating the work of people contributing free content. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will restore the license on the files, pending any discussion. --GRuban (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma:  Done, all four files, also added acknowledgment of Markus Müller of https://www.bachsoboe.de/blog/2014/01/31/bwv-56/ under Bach in the Author slot. Satisfactory? I admit I would like to have the public domain for music typography discussion, since it seems likely we will have these issues again. Do you know where it's been discussed before? If not, will you join me at the Commons Village Pump for Copyright, and possibly invite other people who may be authoritative or at least knowledgeable? --GRuban (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm happy now. I tried to do some research but ran into contradicting claims in two different German Wikipedia articles, making me less certain of my position (apparently there is some degree of debate). There is probably a difference between "mechanical" reproduction and a "new edition", but I wouldn't know how to tell. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem complex. Asking at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Is_there_a_copyright_for_typography_of_sheet_music? I hope I explained the question well enough, but if I missed something, please do help. --GRuban (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brett

edit

The Legacy section starts, "Raised in Alsace, the polymath Albert Schweitzer..." Unless being raised Alsace is somehow pertinent to the cantata, Bach, or the biography in ways that I'm missing, this should be cut. Brett (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done, - hopefully most readers will known him anyway --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by VersaceSpace

edit

Nothing major to add, as I'm largely unfamiliar with the topic, but I would move ref 1 out of the lead. Hopefully what it cites is inside the body, if not that's likely a separate issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, but quotes have to be cited in the lead. - Fell free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fe[e]l free to read more, because feedback by someone unfamiliar is especially valuable to tell if the article is ready to be understood. Wise words! I'll be giving the article a full read at a later date, and giving my thoughts. What I will say prior to my absence is that I believe the lead is a bit long and includes some information that isn't of the utmost importance. An example: Bach not referring to his compositions as cantatas. Much less necessary (to me at least) is the one time he did refer to it as such. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem lead-worthy. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It singles this one out, from his perspective, therefore it seems worth mentioning to me. But I'll see what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kusma

edit

I think this may still need some source work and checks.

  • I just read the "Recordings" section, where the sentence about "complete cycles" is unsourced (and quite unwieldy). You probably mean "The cantata was recorded before people like X, Y and Z did complete recordings of all cantatas".
    The recording section was in this article in detail, and was mostly placed in a separate article, as getting too heavy. What is left wasn't written by me, but I'll check. --GA
    Kusma: I'm now in the process of making the recording section prose. ---GA
    I think prose is better :) There are some issues with it still: As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times.. The website by now has 102 entries for complete recordings, and some of these are a bit dubious (not much is known about the second one from the 1940s; two of the 2021 entries are the same). Maybe something more attributed is better ("As of 2022, the Bach Cantatas website lists 101 recordings"). —Kusma (talk)
    So what is your source for 101? —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took your wording, and said "more than 100". - It's not the exact number but an idea of the range. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence, "The earliest extant recording was a live concert performance ..." is sourced to a dead link, but it is archived. The source says "American baritone Mark Harrell is heard in a 1939 performance of Bach's Cantata No. 56, a performance that shows the big-scale influence of Mengelberg's interpretations of that composer." and says nothing about "earliest extant recording".
    archive-url taken with thanks. - If you insist, we could say "early" instead of "earliest", but it's unusually early, and we don't know of any earlier one according to this. --GA
    Just write only what you can verify from sources. Either just say "In 193x, it was recorded" or say something like "The earliest recording listed at ThatListOfBachRecordings is ..." Claiming this one is the earliest without a source saying so is WP:OR.
    done ---GA
  • The sentence "The cantata is often coupled with Ich habe genug, BWV 82" is sourced to a review that only says they have been "frequently recorded in the past", not that they have been recorded together.
    What can we do? Of the items in the table, 8 have them together. Should we list references for all eight (or more) for that one sentence? Should we drop that sentence as redundant, because naturally cantatas for bass are frequently grouped together, especially when related in content? --GA
    You could state that they have been recorded together eight times, out of X recordings listed at SomeGreatPlace.
    That's now becoming a sourced section, - please check. ---GA
    I like it better now. A few more comments: well focused voice in an intimate rendering full of devotion sounds like it might be better off as a quote instead of in wikivoice. Thomas Quasthoff recorded them in 2004 it is not obvious that Quasthoff is the singer here. three works was released sung a comma might help, or generally a bit more copyediting. —Kusma (talk)
    thank you for looking! - Sorry, I can't access the Cookson saying (and other pages on the site, but some I could see - strange), will check again later. I added baritone to Quasthoff. Not sure about the comma, because we have already one after the year. Move or add? (I'll never learn commas in English, I'm afraid.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the following "bass cantata" sentence also mentions a fourth cantata. It is unclear to me whether these cantatas should be mentioned at all.
    The fourth cantata, Traitor Love, is secular, and doesn't need to be mentioned. --GA
    I don't understand this argument. The third cantata is incomplete and yet both are mentioned in the source. Secular/Non-Secular doesn't seem to be a dividing line for some of the people interested in bass cantatas.
    This is about a church cantata. It seems noteworthy to talk about the other church cantatas, but less so for the one secular work that I see only that one time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amore traditore is now mentioned. ---GA
  • What are the selection criteria for the list of recordings here versus those in the dedicated sub-article? Many of the entries appear to be unsourced.
    I don't know, Mathsci did it. We could drop the table completely, or add from the many recordings. --GA
    no more table here, but expanded in the discography ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, from just looking at this section I don't think the article is ready. —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does look better now. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing in the Recordings section: "Helmuth Rilling, who recorded all Bach cantatas from 1969 to 1985, in time for Bach's tricentenary, recorded the cantata in 1983, with Fischer-Dieskau in his fourth version, the Gächinger Kantorei and Bach-Collegium Stuttgart." Split this overlong sentence and reword it. I currently take home the message that Fischer-Dieskau's fourth reincarnation is the Gächinger Kantorei. Perhaps "From 1969 to 1985, Helmuth Rilling recorded all Bach cantatas in time for Bach's tricentenary. His recording of BWV 56 was sung by ..." or similar.
    • After "three virtuoso solo cantatas", a colon instead of a comma would eliminate potential for misunderstanding. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the "Poet and theme" section, I find the research by C. Blanken that is cited to be fascinating, but there's probably more that can be taken from her article, for example Birkmann's interest in the cross-staff as a mathematical/geodesic/navigational tool (pp. 25–28) could be joined to the mention in the next paragraph. The "cross staff" pictured here is not that tool.
    Yes. --GA
    having looked there more: I am not sure what to say. He was interested, but would the text mean to "tragen" such a thing gladly? Could you suggest a wording. I find also interesting that the poet was torn between scientific studies and theology, but again wouldn't know how to integrate that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks fine to me now. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put "The text is rich in biblical references" before "Birkmann's text alludes to Matthew's gospel"; this way is a bit redundant/repetitive.
    I am not sure, because biblical references are one thing, and solo cantatas sometimes have few (to none), and the specific Gospel reading for the occasion is another. --GA
    Then at least put "other biblical references". You currently first tell us that the text alludes to the gospel, and then tell us the more general fact that it alludes to the Bible, which we already know because you told us it alludes to the gospel of Matthew.
    done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of this is about the text, more than the "theme". "The final lines of the opening aria ("There my Savior himself will wipe away my tears") are repeated just before the closing chorale.", for example, is not "theme". Neither is the rebus on the title page. BTW, the source mentions that Bach used χ for the cross, but "On the title page [of BWV 56], Bach replaced the word "Kreuz" by the Greek letter χ" is not in the source given, which is about other cantatas.
    I added "text" to the header, although I found it a bit redundant. - The X on the title page can be seen, which other reference would you want? --GA
    I did not see that. Could you mention this in the caption? Or perhaps move the whole sentence into the caption if it is not sourced without the image?
    I restored the χ to the image caption. It appears also in the complete quotation of the title page above the movement table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chorale: So apparently this part is not written by Birkmann? It could have been mentioned earlier that not everything is by him.
    It's rather basic about Bach's church cantatas that they have up to three text sources: Bible - contemporary poetry - chorale. See Bach cantata, adding a link to it. It's not normally repeated in every cantata. The second para of the lead says that the chorale is from Johann Franck's hymn. --GA
    I tend to expect articles to be complete also without their lead section. I would suggest to explain the basic structure of Bach cantatas here; should this ever become TFA, it should be well readable for people who know nothing about Bach cantatas.
    For those readers, we have the links to Bach's church cantatas and Bach cantata. Please compare current FAs about Bach's cantatas, such as BWV 1 (2022) and BWV 165 (2015), - we can't repeat the basics in all 200 articles about his cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on how long the discussion of the basics is, I guess, but I won't argue this point further. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First performance: do we know in which church this was?
    Sorry, no. Bach digital has just Leipzig, same Dürr/Jones. --GA
    Do they say that the specific church is unknown? That would be worth mentioning. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No. they say just Leipzig. For many cantatas, it was Thomaskirche in the morning, Nikolaikirche in the afternoon the same day, or Nikolaikirche in the morning, Thomaskirche in the afternoon. But that was more for festive seasons such as Christmas (compare BWV 40#History). In ordinary time - as for this one - rather only one service. Does it matter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave checking other sections to others. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I hope I could clarify some, and would be interested in how much table of recordings you'd want, now that we have the other article for them, for example, and how much more you'd like about the navigational instruments, which is one of the several meanings of cross staff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to make a table of recordings, sorry. Personally I would probably use prose and only talk about those with excellent sources. For the navigational instruments (or alternatively the question "what is meant by Kreuzstab?") I just see that both Blanken 2015 and Corral 2015 (both seem like excellent scholarly sources; actually, both are "journals", see Understanding Bach) both spend some time discussing this. While we're on the topic of sources: any reason why you're not citing Wollny 2017? One obvious piece of information in there (probably also in better scholarly sources, but I haven't tried hard) is the name of the bass in the first performance (Johann Christoph Samuel Lipsius). Other uncited sources are Ambrose 2014 (probably not RS) and Bayer (dead link). Is the "Carus 2000" source meaning the printed book or the webpage (which, incidentally, attributes the chorale to Johann Rist)? —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only few replies (need to do a bit more for Alice Harnoncourt): used Wollny, made Ambrose external link. Will think about the others, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By now, the recordings table is gone, there's more detail from Blanken and about her (want to write her article, perhaps?), and the bass mentioned. Anything else, Kusma? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many improvements! I can try to read more but not today. —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my source comments: please move Blanken 2015 to "Journals" subsection (it clearly is from a journal). —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than my handful of new comments seemingly randomly placed in the text above (look at the diff if you get confused) I think I'm happy with the sections I looked at. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and please check if I found them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented one myself (comma->colon), and I'm still not too happy with "in his fourth version"; the source has the much clearer "This is the fourth recording Fischer-Dieskau made of this work, and one can hear in his voice a mastery of the music and content. His voice is less flexible and colourful than in the three previous recordings of this work, but he remains, nevertheless, the standard by which other singers of this cantata are measured." Other than that I think you've done what I asked for. —Kusma (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you suggest to use the full quote? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just suggest to be clearer about the "fourth version" thing (or to not mention it). The sentence is still trying to say too much at once. —Kusma (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped it, although I find it interesting. No time right now to find the third. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I haven't read enough of the other sections to be qualified to support the whole article, but I have no more complaints about Sections 2 and 5. So I guess this is a "partial support" or something :) —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [6]
Formatting
  • You could consider including 'R.E.B.' as the author for the classicalcdreview.com ref
    Or even better, Robert Benson? —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your linking of publishers in the books section is inconsistent (i.e. A & C Black is not linked)
    linked now --GA
  • Your inclusion of locations in the Books section is also inconsistent (Rowman & Littlefield)
    loc added the second time --GA
  • Since Gramophone is not a 'Journal' but a magazine, the subheading might be out of place. Perhaps 'Articles', instead, though you would probably have to move some online sources up then? It might be best to keep 'Journal' and move Gramophone down to the online sources section. Also, it should probably be 'Journals', right?
    moved to online for now --GA
  • Bach (journal) and jpc (retailer) (in online sources) should probably be linked
    done --GA
  • Blanken, Christine says 'in German', but appears to be in English?
    fixed --GA
  • The The Bach Choir of Bethlehem should probably be the publisher, not website, as the website is a different name
    done --GA
Reliability
  • I'm not convinced that classicalcdreview.com is a high-quality publication for FAC purposes.
    Understand. The original source for the earliest recording we have was Bach Cantatas but came Francis Schonken and said it's not reliable. One thing is certain: that recording exists, there's even YouTube, and it was reissued. I'm sure it's mentioned in the "milestones" book, but don't have it. Is this better? A combination? Help, anybody?
    In the context: what do you think of this one for a different recording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The muziekweb.nl source is a lot better, even has a WP page (Muziekweb). I think the Audiophile Audition source is okay. Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I replaced several refs, including classicalcdreview.com. Will tale Audiophile on board. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so it is addressed: I am okay with the use of Schweitzer 1911, as it is limited and directly attributed in the text (or a quote every time); except once where another source is used in addition
Verifiability

JJE

edit

I'll review this section. With the caveat that I know next to nothing about the topic or its sources, the prose and writing seem OK to me. Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1? Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead? Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't. What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking, and the less someone knows before, the better we can tell if the writing makes sense. Breaking it up:
  • Why does Schweitzer 2011 need a direct link in reference #1?
    not sure I understand the question, do you mean why a referenence in the lead? Because all quotes in the lead need one. "2011"? --GA
    I mean in the reference section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    still don't understand, sorry, no 2011, and link to what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Schweitzer 1911, p. 255." vs "Wolff 2002, pp. 237–257." for example, in the "References" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the link to the pages? In the Schweitzer book, it's several different page locations. For Wolff, it's the whole chapter explaining Thomasantor, unless you say it needs to be more specific. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the first has a link under p.255 and the others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has Christine Blanken's research been widely accepted, so that it can be stated unqualified in the lead?
    yes. I might add more refs there to support it, - saw one yesterday in what I added to recordings. --GA
    yes, see [7] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source formatting looks fairly consistent, except where in the "books" section sometimes you have page numbers and sometimes you don't.
    When the use of a ref is restricted to a certain part, I have page numbers there, but if different bits from a book are cited, rather not. There may still be inconsistencies, please let me know. Several authors worked on this. --GA
  • What is the table in "Structure and scoring" sourced in?
    As it's intro sentence states: Dürr/Jones, the bible of Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose seems OK but as I said I don't know anything about the topic. I think one thing to consider - but don't consider this mandatory - is to footnote terms like "cantata" and "rebus". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the approval. Would you footnote "symphony"? Rebus seems a common word, but in English I never know. There's a link, so what would a footnote do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes are easier to use w/o having to leave the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see the slightest difference between going to another article and return, and going to a foonote and return. Therefore I prefer article, because that will be monitored and updated better than individual footnotes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

edit
  • "In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata" — will "musicologist Albert Schweitzer" be better? We have quotes by him in the lead, so the reader should be aware that, in this case, the biographer is a subject matter expert, and not just a writer.
    tricky. I'd expect readers to him just by name, but "musicologist" is possibly the least appropriate of the many descriptions we could give him. He came from being an organist, and went on to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his humanitarian work in Africa as a physician. --GA
    Oh yeah, he was a "theologian, organist, musicologist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician"!! --K.S
  • "Until recently the librettist was unknown" — Year in place of 'recently' would be better and more accurate.
    Which year, of first thought it was Birkmann, or generally accepted he did it (and then which would it be)? --GA
    What I meant was that 'recently' is pretty vague here. I think it would be 2015. --K.S
  • "The third movement expresses joy at being" — fix the disambiguation link at "movement", probably to Movement (music)
    sure, sorry about that --GA
  • "Jones, Richard D. P. (2013). — we need an {{endash}} instead of hyphen in '1717-1750'. Same with Barfoot, Terry (February 2002), Cookson, Michael (10 March 2010), McElhearn, Kirk (2 April 2002).
    what I get for just copying titles ... - thank you --GA
  • ""Ton Koopman / Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir / Solo Cantatas for Bass"" and ""Johann Sebastian Bach: Kantaten BWV 56,82,158". jpc.de. 2006." are never used in the article.
    Thank you, to be used. --GA

That is it! Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful comments! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
More soon.--20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "sets all stanzas of a hymn unchanged" Unchanged from what? This reads a little obscurely.
    better wording welcome, - in most of Bach's chorale cantatas, only the first and the last stanza of a hymn (or chorale) were retained unchanged, while the inner stanzas were paraphrased by a contemporary poet, - see lead, for example. (Let's not forget that Bach lived 200 years later than let's say Luther, so chorale text was already sort of old-fashioned.) In a few cantatas, this was not the case. "omnes versus" literally translates to "all stanzas", but this "unchanged" is implied. --GA
  • "published in 2015 her finds suggesting that Christoph Birkmann wrote the text of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen.[16]" I might say "researches" for "finds" if the source will support it. It seems more formal.
    fine, only she was introduced as researcher in the previous sentence, - is there an alternative perhaps? --GA
  • " As of 2022, the Kreuzstab cantata was recorded 101 times" I would say "has been" rather than "was"
    English remains a miracle for me - I though past tense for things past, no? --GA
  • "In 1964, Barry McDaniel was the soloist for a recording in a series Bach cantatas of Fritz Werner with oboist Pierre Pierlot, the Heinrich-Schütz-Chor Heilbronn and the Pforzheim Chamber Orchestra. " Should there be an "of" before "Bach"?
    yes, thank you --GA
  • " related to peace (Friede) has been added.[68][28][69][70]" Refs out of order, intentional or not?
    not, thank you --GA
  • Thomanerchor is linked more than once in the body.
    no more, thank you, same for Thomaskantor --GA
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

edit

With the caveat that I know nothing at all about classical music, I have a few comments. I have also done a bit of editing, making links mostly, or readjusting them. Please revert any you feel are mistakes. The lead is a little longer than I initially expected for a piece of music. But there is actually nothing that I would scrap.

Thank you for the edits. While I felt that some border overlinking (such as church cantata after the more precise Church cantata (Bach) was linked), they may help readers. --GA
  • Bach was appointed by --> Johann Sebastian Bach was appointed by
    not in any other of the cantatas, compare BWV 22 where the appointment is actually discussed. Mozart, Beethoven, - they go just by surname once it's established that not Mozart's son or Beethoven's father is meant. --GA
    I was under the impression that there is a rule that any person should be introduced by full name and subsequently referred to by just surname. And that this excludes the lead, as in an introduction in the lead does not count (something I find a little odd). So all I'm saying is treat Bach the way you treat for instance Gustav Leonhardt. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under a different impression: that once a person is introduced with given name and surname in the lead of a biography, the given name (like a translation) is not used again unless to avoid disambiguation. Similarly, once J. S. is introduced as the Bach we mean, no repetition of the given name is wanted. Compare BWV 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am all too happy to change my conception of the rules. I like taking the lead into account, because the reader read the lead. So, fine, no changes needed.
  • and includes Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen --> I guess that here, like in the lead, the translation should be given. Should BWV 56 also be given here? Plus, actually, I miss a description of what BWV 56 means in the entire article.
    No second translation, please. For a person, we give the name in an original language once in the lead, but not again. Some users would refer to the cantata just by BWV 56 alone, but I feel that is too technical. BWV is the catalogue for Bach's works, as the link shows. Mozart has a catalogue of his works, abbreviated K., Schubert D. and there are others. Beethoven's works and those of many go by Opus number (work number). --GA
  • rarely used this style in his chorale cantatas, except in the early Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, and later chorale cantatas --> to me as a layperson with no idea how many chorale cantates there are, it seems that "rarely" could be a bit of a stretch. What are we talking about, 5%?
    if you click on Chorale cantata (Bach), you get about 40, so 5% is close. --GA

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you interest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I went back to some previous FACs you nominated (e.g. Der 100. Psalm way back in 2017) and I feel I slowly but surely get educated in the field. Very slowly :) In any case, nice work. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus

edit

Sorry, I don't think I can support atm, mainly because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject. I'd suggest adding footnotes for terms like declamatory recitative, omnes versus, accompagnato, etc. or to use less technical words there. The lead is a little long and I agree that the Schweitzer quote is putting too much weight on one commentator. Also:

  • "A reviewer described the cantatas" – who?
  • Is musicweb-international.com reliable?
  • "Ich habe genug, BWV 82, a paraphrase of the Song of Simeon" What is the relationship between these? Three items, two items, or one item?
  • "for the 19th Sunday after Trinity" I'd prefer something like "to be performed on ..."
  • the English translation "There at last I will lay my sorrow in the grave" appears before the German original, is that intended?
  • Maybe a bit too much interpretation in wikivoice, like "like that of a sick pilgrim struggling to make his way along the dark recesses of an unfamiliar flight of steps", "the sea is evoked by the undulating cello" (probably prefer a weaker word like portrayed—evoked implies a response by the listener)

Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Ovinus (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking, and the views of those unfamiliar are especially valuable. I usually reply point by point, but will try in one batch:
  • I do't see needfor a footnote for "declamatory recitative", because recitative is linked, and I believe that declamation and declamatory are common words. I may be wrong, of course, because English is not my native language.
    • Ah, I thought it was a specific term. I've replaced it with impassioned in one instance
      well, that's a word I didn't even know, - I knew only "passionate" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      passionate works just as well!
  • omnes versus is explained right next to it: "all stanzas of a hymn unchanged", - how could that be changed to be clearer?
  • I believe that accompagnato is so close to accompanied that an explanation is not needed, - wrong?
  • I dropped the reviewer's view. While I think a bit more than just someone performed it is nice, this is not too specific.
  • Musicweb is a site composers wait for. It has caused no problems in source reviews of previous cantata articles, not the source review for this one.
  • BWV 82: I don't understand the question. Relationship between what? BWV 82, BWV 56, BWV 152: all for solo bass. BWV 82 and BWV 56: both dealing with death.
    • Ah, so these are three distinct pieces. I couldn't tell whether BWV 82 was Ich habe genug. Could you put BWV information in parentheses for the first and third pieces?
      please no after it's standard practice to have catalogue numbers separated by commas, and our article titles reflect that, same for Mozart's and Schuberts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So Ich habe genug is BWV 82! I should have remembered that from earlier in the article. I've used dashes to separate the entries; it's just that a sequence of commas is easy to confuse
  • "for the xth Sunday" is a standard phrase, almost part of the title, and adding "to be performed" seems redundant, - what else. Compare other cantata articles and Church cantata (Bach). At Bach's time, this music would have been performed at no other day.
    • I suppose it's clear enough
  • English before German: I don't know, Mathsci wrote that. It's long, so makes sense not to frustrate a reader but present the German afterwards for those who can read it.
  • "sick pilgrim" - perhaps we should say more clearly that a 1907 author saw it like that, - will try.
    ... but that whole paragraph is clearly introduced: "In his book L'esthétique de J.-S. Bach, André Pirro describes Bach's use ..." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pirro's book was written in 1907 so is trivially public domain; maybe just use a blockquote English translation, w/ a footnote to the original French? Indeed I think it'd be nice to capture Pirro's voice.
      I'll think about it, - was out all day, tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • certain "waves" in music evoke the sea, regardless of the response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • evoke: "bring or recall to the conscious mind". portray: "describe (someone or something) in a particular way". The former is dependent on the listener, the latter is an artistic choice. But I don't feel strongly about this one.
      always learning, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern I have is WP:NPOV and, to a lesser extent, WP:WEASEL. Bach's music is rightly exalted, but we capture this aspect in analyses from others, and it's unwise to write any non-obvious interpretation in wiki voice. Ovinus (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks, and am less concerned about tone now. I'm not sure what to do about stuff like "A reviewer observed his clear diction and phrasing, and his expressiveness", as I'd prefer it be along the lines of "A reviewer characterized/opined/said ..." Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offers, - "characterised" works but not for this example, "opined" is probably good just that it's not in my (limited) vocabulary, and needs a construction with "that", and "said" is wrong, he "wrote". I begin with "noted" but want some alternatives. How about "emphasised"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used "wrote". The article is in good shape imo. Last issue is the lead section, which is five paragraphs. The four-paragraph rule MOS:LEADLENGTH is under perennial debate but since FAs are supposed to follow the MOS strictly, I suppose it's required unless there's a compelling reason not to. (I often see it as an aesthetic reason than a length one.) BWV 1, for example, is three paragraphs. I'd suggest just concatenating two of the paragraphs and call it a day. Ovinus (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why two different topics should be connected for what looks like a formality to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Alright, after another look through, support. Ovinus (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit
  • Hi Gerda. I think you need to ping some of your reviewers to see if they are able to support the nomination. Four weeks in and only one support looks, on the surface, like a lack of movement towards a consensus to promote. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those who made one observation could support or oppose. I pinged several who had come to review former Bach cantatas for FAC, and some said they would, and four of them came came. Vacation, it seems. I'll go for another round right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Amitchell125

edit

​ The following comments refer to the lead section:

  • I would unlink soloist (MOS:OL).
    I had it unlinked, but some helper will have linked. Unlinking again. --GA
  • The work is regarded as part of – why not ‘The work is part of’?
    Because that cycle is not clearly defined. The first cycle was Bach's first year in Leipzig, the second his second year, but the third is seen over more than one year, and I am not sure if all agree about its extension. --GA
  • Introduce Christoph Birkmann.
    tried --GA
  • You linked violin and viola, but not cello or oboe – consider not linking any of them.
    That's what I had, - thank you for the support. --GA
  • Bach rarely used the word cantata to refer to a composition: the autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where he did – I would reduce the unnecessary detail here and amend it to ’The autograph score of BWV 56 is one of a few cases where Bach referred to one of his compositions as a cantata’.
    taken, thank you --GA
  • Consider replacing This final desire for death with ‘This yearning’.
    done but repeating from the previous sentence --GA
  • Bach composed the cantata in his fourth year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. is in a paragraph devoted to the structure and scoring of the work, and also seems rather redundant (Leipzig is already mentioned, for instance). I would amend the text to start ‘Bach structured the work in five movements’
    I moved the first sentence up, omitting the redundant Leipzig. --GA
  • He scored the work for a Baroque instrumental ensemble of three woodwind instruments (two oboes and taille), three string instrument parts (two violins and viola) and basso continuo.- this could be reduced to ‘He scored the work for three woodwind instruments, three string instrument parts and continuo’, especially if the infobox reflected the instruments used in greater detail.
    taken --GA
  • Five paragraphs for this article? I would move what remains of the third paragraph to join it with the first one.
    I prefer first text then music. --GA
  • edited by Wilhelm Rust; edited by Matthias Wendt; published by Carus-Verlag – is this information notable enough to be included in the lead?
    I dropped the editors --GA
  • In his biography of Bach, Albert Schweitzer praised the cantata – it’s not clear to me why a review that is this old needs to be quoted (or even mentioned) in the lead.
    It's about the shortest way someone summarised what's outstanding about this work. But I dropped the "praised"--GA
  • by the closing chorale – chorale is already linked in the lead.
    yes, thank you for noticing

Amitchell125 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helpful comments! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

edit

​ I'm certainly no expert on Bach, but this has been picked over by editors more knowledgeable than I. Just some suggestions you may wish to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kreuzstab cantata. Do you need to translate the German word again?
  • Thomaskantor appears in the lead, but the churches concerned much later.
  • Wo soll ich fliehen hin, BWV 5 (Where shall I flee), based on Johann Heermann's penitential hymn "Wo soll ich fliehen hin".[14]. Perhaps Heermann's penitential hymn with the same title
  • Christine Blanken Nationality and job.
  • You have harbour and saviour and then There my Savior. Since they are translations, it's difficult to see why you have British and US spellings of the same word.
  • (SATB) I worked this out, but why not list the voices properly?
Thank you for looking support and trust. I was out all day yesterday, and today first had to look into Sempé.
  • No second translate needed, thank you for noticing.
  • The churches would make the lead longer, and we don't even know which of them had the premiere.
  • Yes, taken, I realised, however why not sooner: because it's tough to avoid two links in a row like that. Please check.
  • She should probably get an article. Until then a bit more.
  • I don't know if I may change a quote for US-UK difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit

No issues I can find and this seems like a comprehensive and well-researched presentation of this topic given how old the subject is. Unrelated but I would appreciate anything you may want to contribute to my current FAC. Regards!--NØ 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2022 [8].

Rupert Downes

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Rupert Downes, an Australian general of World War II. It was part of a series I wrote on senior Australian commanders in World War II. It was previously nominated back in 2011 and closed for lack of reviews. Maybeit can do better this time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support by Zawed

edit
  • Lead: The structure of the 1st paragraph seems a little odd to me, with the second sentence out of place chronologically with what follows.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education and early life section: the title of Downes' thesis has Thymus capitalised but the remainder, apart from the first word, is lower case. Just want to check that is correct.
    It is indeed capitalised that way in the source, But I see no harm in de-captalising it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First World War section: it feels like the 2nd para needs to start with a mention of the commencement of the Gallipoli campaign for a bit of context.
    Added a bit. It used to be that Australians knew this bit by heart, as it came up every Anzac Day, but I'm not sure about the millennials. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe place his substantive promotion to colonel later, for better flow of chronology. There is also repeated usage of 1916 when it is clear that the timeline hasn't moved into 1917.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • especially the DMS EEF: although it is pretty obvious what it is for, the abbreviation doesn't seem to have been introduced.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there another source that could be used for the Sinai campaign to reduce the reliance on Downes' own work?
    Sure. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the above helps with getting this to FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit

Looks to be up to your usual standard; just a few quibbles! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from ErnestKrause

edit

Reflecting most of the positive comments made above, I'm wondering if there might be room for expanding the Legacy section with some added details here mostly reflecting what was included in the Wikipedia article for Australia in the War of 1939–1945. If this was to be his magnum opus, then maybe something like an adapted version of the passage from the main article might work as an adjusted CWW. Possibly mention the team of scholars who took over for him, how long it took them to write it, etc. It seems like his great unfinished project. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a bit about it. The medical series was completed by Allan S. Walker. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice addition. Optionally, I think the very last volume of the series was written by new collaborators in addition to Walker. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Those are the only issues I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I paused at the list of children's names, surprised to see "Major" there as if it were their surname. I realize it's completely accurate, but perhaps to avoid the reader's surprise we could make this something like "They had three children, all given the same middle name as Rupert: Rosemary Major, born in 1914; Valerie Major, born in March 1918; and John Rupert Major, born in 1922"?
    Sure. Changed as suggested. (Note that Rupert's middle name was his father's first name.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until he returned to Anzac on 11 August": what does "Anzac" refer to here? I know what it stands for, but if it's the cove then shouldn't it be "ANZAC Cove"? I see instances of both all-caps and title case elsewhere.
    In this context, it refers to the Anzac Cove lodgement. And yes, it is Anzac Cove (Anzak Koyu). Unfortunately, the meaning of ANZAC has been drummed into schoolchildren, and it is a losing battle to keep changing all-capitals back to the (correct) sentence case. (And yes, we persuaded the Turks to name part of their country after people who came to invade the place.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking heat stroke. And I had to think what "defective evaporation" might mean; presumably it means a humid environment in which perspiration does not evaporate well and hence fails to perform its cooling function? If so I think it could be clearer, particular as the heatstroke article isn't going to explain it as it's not the cause.
    Linked. The source says:

    The cause of heat exhaustion and heat-stroke in the light horse and New Zealand troops was held by Lieutenant-Colonel C. J. Martin to be not only defective evaporation, as has been maintained, but excessive loss combined with grossly insufficient intake of fluid under conditions of heavy muscular effort. The moral is obvious, namely, that unnecessary water discipline may easily become a calamity if not correlated with a due regard for physiological requirements in regard to fluid intake. It is in limitation of the frequency of drinking in relation to the available water supply that water discipline is physiologically sound and militarily valuable.

  • Suggest "third from left" rather than "centre" for the caption of the 1936 picture, as there are an even number of men in the front row.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two men had discussed the prospect": what does "prospect" refer to? The prospect of writing about the events of the war?
    Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the chapters of the Official History": I think this is a reference to the book, not the concept, so italics would be appropriate.
    There are 15 volumes, three of them comprise the medical series. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that the paragraphs of the "Interwar years" section can't be ordered strictly chronologically, because the threads they cover extend across different ranges of years. I was going to suggest that the paragraph about John's illness and death be moved up before the previous paragraph, but after thinking about it some more I think it would be better to move it down one paragraph instead. The paragraph starting "On 20 August 1934" starts with Downes taking a full time position in the army, which would follow naturally after the end of the paragraph about John.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have; all minor issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It would be nice to clarify the "defective evaporation", but the source doesn't allow it. I searched for historical explanations of heat stroke in 19th century books, via Google, and found some relevant quotes, but nothing I think you can use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

edit

Hi Hawkeye, another fine bio. Just a few comments and questions...

Lede

Education and early life

First World War

Interwar years

Second World War

Death and legacy

Refs

Category

That's me. JennyOz (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I always enjoy reading your bios and am happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2022 [9].

I Need You (Paris Hilton song)

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that Paris Hilton released a doo-wop song as a Valentine's Day present for her fiancé Chris Zylka? Its lyrics are filled with holiday-related puns, such as “merry in your Christmas”, “the bunny in your Easter”, and “your forever Valentine”. The music video features Hilton wearing lingerie, posing in a bed covered with red rose petals, and popping out of a cake among other activities. This song is so unapologetically and unironically corny that I can't help but love it.

I created this article in 2018 and it received a helpful GAN review from @IndianBio:. I recently opened a peer review and I received a lot of great feedback from @ChrisTheDude:, @Pseud 14:, @MaranoFan:, @TheSandDoctor:, @FrB.TG:, and @Tunestoons:. Thank you in advance for any comments. I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG

edit

Support from TheSandDoctor

edit

Media review

edit

I'll take this ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALT texts are there, which is good. Most are satisfactory, though can the ALT for the cover art be trimmed? I find it shares more detail than necessary.
  • File:INeedYouSingleCover.png
  • File:Paris Hilton at the US Capitol (cropped).jpg
    • licensing is a-ok. Derived from a photo taken for a US Congress representative, so this is PD.
    • However, this is causing MOS:IMAGELOC issues on my screen, pushing the "Music and lyrics" header to the right. Can we shrink this using |upright=?
  • File:AmericanBeautyParisHiltonScreenShot.jpg
    • I skimmed the section in which this image is placed. The detail shown in the music video screenshot is covered substantially in the prose, passing NFCC #8. It also passes NFCC #1 since one can't make a free alternative image to this screenshot, and readers cannot discern what "classic Americana" aesthetic looks through words alone.
    • I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter and say why text alone cannot substitute the picture, which I outlined above.
      • Thank you for the suggestion. It is best to be more specific with these rationales as it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum (which is understandable). Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto with the single cover; I'd archive the Instagram link and include the archived version in the NFC rationale
  • File:INeedYouParisHiltonAudioSample.ogg
    • Of short enough length (10% of original song's) and low enough quality (50 kbps). The relevant section's prose significantly discusses the details intended to be illustrated by the sample. Hence NFCC #8 is satisfied. It also passes NFCC #1 since a free alternative is impossible, and readers cannot discern how doo-wop and pop sound through words alone.
    • Like with the MV screenshot file page, I'd fill out the Replaceability_text parameter for the sake of completeness
  • @Your Power: Thank you for the media review! It is great to get this kind of thing addressed early in a FAC and you have done a wonderful and thorough job as a reviewer. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if things can be improved further. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

edit
  • The cover seems to be 250x250px instead of the usual 300x300. This is totally OK though from a policy POV.
  • Do you think "Hilton's fifth appearance on the Dance Club Songs chart, the single peaked at number 31" might be a more climactic way of writing the lead's second paragraph's second sentence?
  • "Hilton posted photos from the music video on her Instagram account" - "Hilton posted photos from the music video on Instagram" might work just as well
  • Maybe it could be indicated somehow that this second album was never released
  • Unfortunately, I could not find third-party, reliable sources that confirm this information. There are articles that pop up every now and then about Hilton promising new music, but that's the tough thing with non-releases like this. They hardly ever get confirmation in the press. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dresden described the song as "over-the-top syrupy and smothering" - "over-the-top" sounds a bit critical to me so does this maybe belong in Reception rather than Music and lyrics?
  • Does it need to be mentioned the video was released on her "official" YouTube account? It would be rather unusual if they released it on an unofficial channel.
  • Would it be possible to be more specific while describing "Stash Konig, Dirty Disco and Nitemover" than just "artists"? Maybe their country, or if they are DJs or producers could be included.
  • I have included that they are all DJs, with an appropriate wikilink, but I am uncertain about their country. I would imagine that they are from different areas so that may be overly cumbersome to list here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necessary to include that one of the remixes was released through Facebook? If no secondary source covered this and the Facebook upload is the only source maybe this isn't very noteworthy.
  • Fair point. I was initially reluctant to cut this sentence, but the platforms that the remixes were released on is trivial and since it was nothing noteworthy (i.e. neither the SoundCloud or FaceBook releases received attention in secondary sources), I cut the whole thing. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else I can see of concern. Hope you are having a great week!--NØ 15:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

edit

Comments by Z1720

edit

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Through the track, Hilton sings about love and how she will" -> "The lyrics describe how Hilton is in love and how she will..." To emphasise that this paragraph is about the lyrics.
  • The next sentence already starts with "The lyrics ... " so it would make the prose repetitive. I am not sure if the change is beneficial since the transition from the production to the lyrics is already quite clear (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Michael Love Michael viewed the track", "Raisa Bruner cited "I Need You"", since these people don't have wikipages, their credentials (stating that they are critics, or which publication they are writing for) should be included in the article.
  • In the lede, Hilton is described as a socialite, but this is not cited in the article body.
  • I do not believe this is necessary. I have not seen similar things in other featured articles about songs (i.e. having the descriptor backed up by a citation) and the primary Paris Hilton article already make this descriptor quite clear. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia does not typically ask editors go to other articles to verify information. While a citation would not be needed to say someone is a singer in a song article (the fact that a person released a song is enough to verify that they are a singer is verified because they sang the song, so it doesn't need to be explicitly stated), the fact that someone is a socialite is not inherently implied by the release of a song. It doesn't need to be cited in the lede, but I would imagine that it would be mentioned in the body with a citation. Since I am not very familiar with song/music articles, I will leave that to your discretion on whether it should be added and won't let this affect my support, because at the end of the day this is relatively minor. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best way I can think of to do so is in the first sentence of "Recording and release" to say, "American socialite Paris Hilton co-wrote "I Need You" with its producer Michael Green..." Again, I am not very familiar with song articles, so if this seems awkward then I do not recommend putting it in the article unless another reviewer also flags this. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not work in my opinion. Look at featured articles on songs, such as "I'm Goin' Down", "Dear Future Husband", and "Sound and Vision", and none of them use a descriptive phrase for the primary artist. I thought about including a sentence or two in the "Recording and release" section about how Hilton is a socialite who first pursued a music career by an album in 2006, but it seemed odd to include this for something outside her first musical release and it came across like padding to me.
    For clarification, I am also hesitant to change the lede to say "American singer Paris Hilton" because Hilton is more commonly associated with other aspects of her career outside of music. I am just not sure how to best approach this to accommodate your suggestion. Apologies. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: Just so you are aware, I have added a brief paragraph to the beginning of the article about how Hilton was a socialite who pursued a music career. I hope that is helpful. Thank you for your review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede says, "The single peaked at number 31 on the Dance Club Songs chart," While body says "peaked at number 32 on the Dance Club Songs Billboard chart."

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if anything could be done to further improve the article. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • WP:QWQ issue in source 3 and 31d.
  • En-dash should be used instead of hyphen in source 5, 28 and 31. You can use this script to do the work for you.
  • Spot-checks: source 3, 4, 11 (in PR), 14, 15, 16, 20. No issues (just one extremely small point noted below).
  • @FrB.TG: I have revised this point. Thank you for catching this as I would not want to misrepresent a citation even by accident. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article further. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Consider it a pass from me. FrB.TG (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

I PRed this article and, although there have been some minor changes since then, there's nothing to pick up on so I am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from VersaceSpace

edit
  • Clear and comprehensive. Well-written and contains good media. My only complaint is that the amount of prose in the image caption has caused there to be a large amount of empty space. Still, very good. —VersaceSpace 🌃 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not get empty space in the article in my view, but I have attempted to trim the caption for the music video screenshot (which is what I am guessing you are referring to) to hopefully avoid that as much as possible for other readers. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

edit
  • I think it's helpful to add a brief introduction of Heiress Records i.e. it was created by Hilton herself
  • "Hilton's decision to experiment with a different musical genre" I believe it's helpful to discuss briefly what styles she did before to see how "different" this song is
  • I have hopefully cleared this up in the lede, and I have heavily revised the second paragraph in the "Reception" section to make these connection clearer in the prose. Feel free to let me know if these areas could use further revision. I will be looking at them again later when I have some distance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have credits from a more "official" source, like the digital booklet or Tidal?
  • @Ippantekina: Thank you for your review. You have helped to improve the article a lot, specifically the point about the different musical genres. I have addressed everything, but the curly apostrophe. I cannot see in that section, but I am more likely than not reading over it. Apologies for that. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Though it is nitpick-y, I have went on with fixing the apostrophe myself. Thank you for addressing everything else, and I support this article for promotion on prose. Ippantekina (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the support and fixing the apostrophe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nitpick-y as the article should meet all the requirements. I am not sure how/why I kept overlooking that one so thank you for catching it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

edit
  • @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted a status update for this nomination as it has been two weeks and it has received a good deal of attention from reviewers already. Thank you for your time and apologies again for being impatient. I hope everyone is having a good weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2022 [10].

Hrabri-class submarine

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specify in the infobox that the length figure is overall (o/a)
  • "but regulations restricted them to a maximum depth of 55 m (180 ft)" - is this internal regulations or one of those post-WWI international navy regulations
  • "En route one of the boats suffered from engine trouble" - Hvar or one of the submarines?

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF! All done I reckon. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sorry I forgot about this one. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Their maximum diving depth was restricted to 55 metres (180 ft) by regulations." Which/whose regulations? (Also in the main body.)
I think this fixed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hrabri was captured by the Italians at the surrender". Could we have a little elaboration on what "the surrender" was?
expanded to "at time of the Yugoslav surrender in mid-April". Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt." Any link? Ok, I see it red linked in the body.
Definitely article-worthy, but there isn't one yet. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they were deployed them around the world". ?
Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "aft" at first mention.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No link for Austro-Hungarian Navy?
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" and "10.5 kn (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)." Does 0.5 kn really equal 0.1 mph?
No. Good grief, default rounding... single figure rounding takes it to 0.6 mph, which is far closer. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during her sea trials ... During her trials ... during trials ... During the trials".
Good point, reworded this bit, hopefully smoother now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crews of all four vessels were commended for their good behaviour on the cruise." Optional: "on" → 'during'.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was captured there by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender. In the interim, the commanding officer of Sitnica had been willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece". The break in the chronological flow jars a little.
Fair enough. Re-ordered. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pending surrender". As with the lead, what is/was "the surrender "?
Added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 02:45 on 26 April, the group of vessels was met by a British warship and escorted towards Alexandria. At 12:20 on 27 April Nebojša's ..." Personally I don't like (or even understand) commas after dates, but you should be consistent.
OK. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The apparently random sprinkling of commas around dates in some articles is well beyond my comprehension or understanding; but seeing "In January 1943 comma Nebojša was" starting a paragraph while the next one commences with "In August 1945 no comma Nebojša was" does nothing to convince me that whatever convention is being followed is even internally consistent. The good news is, that as I don't understand it, or am even convinced that it is understandable, I am not going to let it get in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more images of these ships, or other relevant images to spice up the article a bit? Relevant places, people, or events?
Not of the boats themselves, unfortunately, although I have a 2021 book with a dozen or so, in each case it was the first publication I'm aware of. I've added a pic of a gyrocompass, the original AA gun, the tower Nebojša was (partly) named after, and a map of Nebojša's escape. Thanks for the suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far, FunkMonk. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't the Background section mention how many ships were part of this class and what their names were?
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One source indicates that on one 15-day Mediterranean cruise, Nebojša needed" Per above, by this point you haven't presented or linked the individual ships, and the link for this one only comes all the way down in the Service history section.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the names themselves, I would expect to see the meaning of the names mentioned already under background.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nebojša was named after the eponymous medieval tower near Belgrade" Link the tower in the caption.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nebojša was also named after the eponymous medieval tower near the Yugoslav capital Belgrade which had played a prominent part in battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence and again during the Austro-Hungarian Empire campaigns against the Kingdom of Serbia in World War I.[3]" All seems like background rather than service history to me.
Moved up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Gibraltar.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After immediate repairs her forward gun was replaced by a wooden replica" Funny, why, to act as a decoy?
A couple of reasons I can think of (although the source doesn't specify), silhouette recognition for friendly ships to avoid being attacked and/or to bluff an enemy merchant ship when surfaced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and two days later the crew were advised by their commanding officer" Do we know his name?
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the meaning of "KM" be explained in the article body too?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used as a moored classroom or hulk." I doubt that's the link you want...
LOL, no. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, FunkMonk. Thanks for your review. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

edit

Lead:

  • Prior to World War II both submarines participated in cruises to Mediterranean ports, and in 1929 the class was joined by the two smaller French-built Osvetnik-class submarines to complete the Yugoslav submarine flotilla.
Add a comma after World War II.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1933–1934 both boats were refitted, their superstructure was extensively modified and the 2-pounder gun on each submarine was replaced with a single 13.2 mm (0.52 in) Hotchkiss M1929 anti-aircraft machine gun.
Why is it not superstructures were?
superstructure (the superstructure of a ship is the part of it that is above its main deck) is a countable noun, but is usually rendered as singular when referring to a single ship. "Superstructures" is usually only used to refer to multiple ships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Thanks for your explanation, however, I should think that "the superstructure of each was" would be clearer and unambigious. (BTW, I spent several years as a member of the US Navy and served aboard two different destroyers so I am familiar with the term superstructure.) Pendright (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediately prior to the April 1941 German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia the two boats conducted patrols in the Adriatic alongside the Osvetnik-class boats.
  • Add a comma after Yugoslavia, the two boats...
  • Adriatic [Sea]
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrabri was captured by the Italians at time of the Yugoslav surrender in mid-April, and after inspection they decided not to commission her and she was subsequently scrapped.
  • at [the] time of the Yugoslav surrender in
  • after [an] inspection
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was overhauled and initially served with British submarine forces in the Mediterranean as an anti-submarine warfare training boat.
Mediterranean [Sea]
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of 1941 she was prohibited from diving and was employed as a battery charging station for other submarines.
  • Add a comma after 1941
Not sure why this is necessary, I wouldn't pause there when reading it and there aren't clauses that need separating. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>At the end of 1941 is a introductry phrase and is followed by a comma. It's no differemt from similar intriductiry phrases punctuated in such sections as the Interwar and WWII? It's your call.Pendright (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • she was prohibited -> by whom?
By the Royal Navy. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1942 her crew were removed and placed in a British military camp in the aftermath of a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt.
  • Add a comma after 1942
Not sure why this is necessary, I wouldn't pause there when reading it and there aren't clauses that need separating. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Introcuctory phrase - same as above Pendright (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "in" is used four times in this sentence?
Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another extensive overhaul was conducted, after which Nebojša was briefly utilised for training in Beirut until she was formally handed back to the KM-in-exile in mid-1943, after which she underwent a further extensive refit.

  • Suggest reworking this sentence:
  • Another extensive overhaul was conduclted -> on or for whom?
  • extensive is used twice?
  • after which is used twice?
  • handed back - returned?
I think I've improved this now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • The naval policy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929) lacked direction until the mid-1920s,[1] although it was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing with the limited resources made available to it.[2]
generally accepted -> by whom?
the armed forces, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same year, a modest ten-year construction program was [finally] initiated to build up [the] a force of submarines, coastal torpedo boats, torpedo bombers and conventional bomber aircraft for coastal defence.
See above suggestions
Adopted the first, but for the second, I don't think the definite article is what is needed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their design was based on that of the L class, and they were built using parts originally assembled for the Group III boats HMS L-67 and HMS L-68, which were not completed due to the end of World War I.[5]
Add a comma after boats
Why? "Group III boats" is a descriptor of the two named subs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>It's called an appositive (an American version): A noun or phrase that renames or describes the noun that it is next to is set off by commas.
<>Use the appositive (an Australian version), which is a grammatical construction in which two elements, normally noun phrases, are placed side by side, with one element serving to define or modify the other. If this is not the case, then the suggestion is scratched. Pendright (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British Royal Navy cancelled the order for the two submarines in March 1919, and [but[ the hulls [erected] were launched on 16 June and 2 July[,] respectively[,[ to free up the slipways on which they were being built.
See above suggestions
Why "but"? They had been cancelled. Have slightly adjusted this sentence though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<> To show contrast - Pendright (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November the hulls were sold by the Royal Navy to the shipyard, and once the contract with the Yugoslavs was signed they were brought back onto the slipways and completed to a modified design.
completed [in]to a modified design.
No, I don't think that is best. "to a modified design" is completely fine and a commonly-used phrase. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Okay - Pendright (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were an improved version of the British E class, and achieved a better relationship between displacement, propulsion, speed and armament than their predecessors, including a powerful armament of both torpedoes and guns.
Drop the comma after E Class or add a subject to the 2nd clause
Modified the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The class was designed for operations in the North Sea in World War I, but due to their considerable range they were deployed around the world during the interwar period by the Royal Navy, including in the Mediterranean,[5] and three were still in service at the outbreak of World War II.[3]
Drop the comma after Mediterranean
I was taught that you should use a comma before "including" if the sentence would be complete without the part that follows". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>You were taught well - Pendright (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Pause at the end of Background - Pendright (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<>Continue: Pendright (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC) General:[reply]

  • The keel was straight until it inclined upwards as part of the pointed stern, and detachable ballast keel was also fitted.
  • Drop the comma after stern
  • Add "a" betwen and & detachabe
they are two separate independent clauses, one about the keel and the other about the detachable ballast keel, so I think the comma is justified. The "a" has been added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were two shafts each driving a three-bladed propeller, and the boat direction was controlled using a semi-balanced rudder.
How about -> They had two...
Went with "submarines". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final difference was that one [of] the three periscopes was modified to enable observation of the skies to warn of impending air attack[s].[8]
See above suggestions
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Many sentences in this section begin with "the" - might consider subhstituting some of them.
Tweaked one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion:

  • The screws were subject to great stress during navigation in rough weather, and [they] often cracked.
See the above suggestion
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source indicates that on one 15-day Mediterranean cruise, Nebojša needed 420 kg (930 lb) of replacement screws.
One source -> why not name the source?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was also a small 20 bhp (15 kW) electric motor for silent underwater running.
They also had a...
went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The battery storage consisted of three hundred and thirty-six 3820 LS Exide cells, [and it had] with a combined weight of 138 t (136 long tons; 152 short tons).[12]
See the above suggest
went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Service history:

  • Nebojša was also named after the eponymous medieval tower[,] near the Yugoslav capital [of] Belgrade[,] which had played a prominent part in battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence and again during the Austro-Hungarian Empire campaigns against the Kingdom of Serbia in World War I.[3]
See above suggestions
this sentence is further up now. Addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interwar period:

  • The two boats left the Tyne on 11 March 1928 in company with Hvar.[18]
in "the" company "of" Hvar (with means acompanied by)
"in company with" is perfectly fine grammatically (from an Australian perspective at least). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Torpedo exercises [for the boats] followed, [and] then a cruise along the Adriatic coast.
See the above suggestions
went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no injuries [to its crew].[21]
See above suggestions
clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World War II:

  • A few days before the invasion commenced, Nebojša and Osvetnik had conducted night patrols, mainly on the surface, on rotation with Hrabri and Smeli.
"in" rotation?
AFAIK, "on rotation" is fine grammatically. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nebojša was forced to conduct an emergency dive to avoid being hit, and [she] almost rammed the bottom.
See above suggestion
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commanding officer of Sitnica was willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece, but the crew were opposed to this action, and Hrabri was captured at the Bay of Kotor by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender came into effect on 18 April.
  • Why the opposition by the crew?
Probably reluctance to leave their homeland and continue fighting for a country that they had mixed feelings about. There were many non-Serbs in the navy who felt like second-class citizens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 April 194?
1941, per the year of the invasion given in the first sentence of the section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 9 April Nebojša and Smeli were sent to the southern Adriatic to attack Italian maritime traffic between Bari in Italy and the Italian protectorate of Albania.
Add a comma after April
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She returned to the Bay of Kotor on 10 or 11 April, where the fleet had begun to break up , with [and] the crew[s] of some ships deserting.
See the above suggestions
Went with something similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 14 April the pending Yugoslav unconditional surrender was announced[,] and two days later the crew were advised by their commanding officer that they would be surrendering the following day.
See above suggestion
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While he was absent ashore at a conference, his second-in-command, Đorđe Đorđević, contacted a submarine officer he knew who was attached to the defence headquarters of the Bay of Kotor, Đorđe Mitrović, and offered him the command of the submarine if he would lead the crew that wished to escape to Greece.
  • Is the word "absent" nnecessary?
Probably not, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One or two days later she resumed her voyage to Egypt accompanied by the British steamship Destro[,[ and the Greek submarine Papanikolis and escorted by the Orjen-class torpedo boats Durmitor and Kajmakčalan.
See above suggestion
went with a different split to separate the accompanying ships from the escorts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had several breakdowns since [arrivinbg] her arrival in Egypt and due to her age, in November Nebojša was prohibited from diving [in November].
See above suggestions
re-worded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her diesel engines were overhauled and after [having] she had undergone further repairs[,] she was employed as a charging station for other submarines.
  • See above suggestion
went with a different positioning of the comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On her first sea trial after her transfer both her air compressors failed and the port electric motor burned out.
The word "her" is used three times in this short sentence?
Tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Peacemaker67:

Thanks so much for your review, Pendright. I think I got them all, let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good - supporting! Regards- Pendright (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Pass. No concerns. I think the newspaper sources would be unreliable for some material, but for what they're used for here they're fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Pass Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "captured by the Italians at time of the Yugoslav surrender". "captured by the Italians at the time of the Yugoslav surrender"?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "KM-in-exile". This term needs explaining/linking in the lead and body.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "battles between Serb and Ottoman Empire forces during the wars of Serbian independence". Maybe give dates and link wars of Serbian independence.
Done, and linked overarching article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final difference was that one the three periscopes". "The final difference was that one of the three periscopes". I see that another editor suggested this.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The commanding officer of Sitnica was willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece, but the crew were opposed to this action". What happened to the captain of the Hrabri? Why did the crew oppose the action? Did they want to surrender?
No mention of the captain in the source, but essentially there was a fair amount of defeatism across Yugoslavia, some of the crew were no doubt Croats (and a longed-for Croat state had been announced with German support) or Slovenes (as they were the other main maritime nation within Yugoslavia), and many would not have wanted to leave their home and families. I don't have a specific source for all of that with respect to Hrabri's crew, but it certainly was true of the rest of the armed forces. Do you think I need to make a more general comment? I just don't want to slip into OR with respect of this sub's crew by moving from the general to the specific. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Dudley. I have added a couple of sentences to the last para of the Interwar period section. Let me know if that does the job? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PM, are you able to get on to these (and Ed's below)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, will finish off tomorrow. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of your points, Dudley Miles. Just one I have a query about. Thanks for your review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The ed17

edit

Mostly minor comments and questions for ya, Peacemaker67.

  • This isn't a dealbreaker, but: the lead isn't the easiest thing to read, in part because it's rather stuffed with information. I've made a couple edits to simplify things, and you might consider going through it with a fine-tooth comb to remove information that isn't critical to a reader's overall understanding of the submarines.
It's a long story, but I trimmed it a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were manufactured in six parts of two cylinders each which were screwed together." – what does this mean? The cylinders had six parts each, linked into a single cylinder by those screws?
No, the engines were made up of six parts, each of which held two cylinders. The parts were held together by screws. Should I re-word it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1933 and 1934 ..." – was this a refit? Modernization? I think you need some context/an adjective around how significant this work was (or wasn't!).
It was a significant rebuild of the superstructure. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with tactical numbers 1 and 2" – were these tactical numbers ever used in service or elsewhere? If not, I'd consider dropping them as pretty trivial information
"Yes, they were painted on the hulls, and help to tell which one is in a given photo. Sadly, all the photos I know of that show them are not free. Have added where they were located. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any dates available for the sea trials mishaps? What happened to Nebojša that it began sinking bow-first?
"No dates, just autumn 1927 for Nebojša' sinking incident, so I added the month range of mid-Sep to mid-Dec. No info about why. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When trial diving on another occasion, Hrabri listed sharply to starboard and the bulwark around the bridge was damaged by waves." – was this also during the sea trials? The wording here suggests that it was not.
Yes, during trials, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few days before the invasion commenced, Nebojša and Osvetnik had conducted night patrols, mainly on the surface, on rotation with Hrabri and Smeli." – read literally in my mind, this wording would suggest there were patrols on one night a few days before the invasion. But I think this is meant to mean that they were going on patrols on multiple alternating nights? Perhaps the sentence should read something like this: "Starting X days before the invasion, the Yugoslav Navy deployed two submarines each night to patrol the coastline, primarily on the surface. They deployed Nebojša and Osvetnik together, and rotated them on each succeeding night with Hrabri and Smeli."
Great idea, adopted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transfer of the former German Type VII U-boat U-570 – HMS Graph – was considered, ..." – who considered this? The Royal Navy, government, otherwise?
Added detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She remained unable to dive and was used as a moored classroom or hulk." – emphasis mine. Did the "extensive overhaul and repairs" in Port Said still not allow the submarine to dive in the last couple years of the war? It seems unlikely that it would have been sent to Malta without that capability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the Yugoslavs were keen to have any vessel, even one that couldn't perform a critical function. The source is very clear that she was not able to dive even after the work at Port Said. I mean, she was towed to Malta... Thanks for your review, Ed, see what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That last point is fascinating, considering that the core function of a submarine is to dive beneath the water! Fair enough. On the engines, I'd like to see that reworded as it's still not clear to me. Did each part have two cylinders?
That's a minor quibble, though, and so I'm happy to now support this article's promotion to FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2022 [11].

Bad Romance

edit
Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to ask me to define "Lady Gaga", this song would be my answer. It has everything that made Gaga famous—catchy chorus, elaborate music video, outlandish costumes and nonsensical chanting. I have been working on this article intermittently for quite some years now. A few months ago, I digged deep for academic sources and found to my delight many of them. A song called the catchiest in the world by a prominent organization of psychology should have the highest-quality article on Wikipedia. Kinda reviewers, help me make that happen. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • For the RedOne and Francis Lawrence images, I would include the year that the photos were taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers.
  • I do not think File:Lady Gaga BR GMA.jpg is necessary. A performance image does not fit in the "Critical reception" section and the article already has two performance images.
  • Apologies for adding yet another thing to my review, but I just noticed that this part was not really addressed, and I would appreciate your feedback about it. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think the citation in the infobox is needed as this information should be present and cited in the article. I do not think it is controversial enough that a person is credited under their legal name for songwriting credit to require this citation.
  • I would spell out extended play on its first use in the lead to help readers who are not 100% familiar with the concept. I'd look at '"All About That Bass" as an example of what I mean. The body of the article should mention that The Fame Monster is an EP and a reissue, which it currently does not.
  • I am uncertain about the "full-throated" quote. In the article, it is not given clear attribution in the prose, and I am not sure if a quote like that works in the lead.
  • I think this part, attraction to individuals with whom romance never works, her preference for lonely relationships, reads a little awkwardly and would benefit from revision. This information could be conveyed more concisely and the phrase "lonely relationships" seems off in particular to me.
You are quite right; "lonely relationships" sound almost oxymoronic to me. I have tweaked it.
  • I do not think the French bridge is notable enough to include in the lead. I also could not find this information in the article.
  • This part, The recipient of a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, it was, is not grammatically correct. if read literally, it says that the song won the award, when the award was given to Gaga.
  • For the Saturday Night Live bit, I'd clarify that Gaga performed the song to avoid any potential misinterpretation.
  • The "released" is used twice in close succession in the first paragraph of the "Background and release" section.
  • I do not think the caption for the audio sample is particularly strong to justify its inclusion. The current caption is more focused on the lyrics, which could be illustrated through the prose alone, and I would instead do something about the song's genre or sound.
I played around with it quite a bit and in every scenario, it fails WP:NFC. I have removed it.
  • Is there a reason for using a university's sheet music over musicnotes.com?
Musicnotes is generally badly received at FAC, and it is usually not known if the sheet posted there is in fact the original or just another version posted by the label/singer. I believe a university source than one which does not even have its own article on Wikipedia should be the better choice, no?
  • I have seen the issues raised with MusicNotes. From my understanding, these issues are not specific to that site, but they are more about sheet music in general. I could be wrong and it would likely be better to have a more experienced editor comment on this, but the university could have the same issue as the website. The university could have a specific arrangement made for a band that is separate from the version Gaga recorded in the studio. It could be the same arrangement, but there is not a clear guarantee that this is the case. Again, I'd go with a more experienced editor's opinion, but I think the issue is really with sheet music in general. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to get super nitpick-y, but I'd revise this part, The song then plays keyboard sounds, as I do not think a song can play anything.
  • For this part, a postdoctoral fellow in American studies at University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, I would remove the university as it is not necessary and it would make this more concise.
  • I believe the "falling in love with one's heterosexual best friend" analysis would benefit from revision. I would lead with how it connects to Gaga's LGBT audience since I was a little confused by this sentence until I got to the second half of it.
  • The final two paragraphs of the "Music and lyrics" section has a lot of great content, but could you tell me how you organized it? I think it would benefit from a clearer structure.
I have done quite some rearranging, with the third one being about unhealthy relationships and the title's meaning (which is the same thing: "bad romance"). The last one is entirely about Horn's analysis. Hopefully, the structure is more comprehensable.

I hope this review is helpful. These are my comments up until the "Critical reception" section. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is not a clear citation supporting this part, with praise for its chorus, beat and hook.
The citations are the follow-up reviews in that para.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes like "relentlessly" as they are not particularly informative and they take away from the other quotes.
  • This Rolling Stone citation has an author, but they are not included in the citation or the prose.
  • I have noticed some other issues with how critics are attributed in the prose. Pitchfork has an author for the "Bad Romance" entry, but they are not attributed in the prose. While the article often includes critics' names, there are instances like "a critic from Rolling Stone" and "The Billboard review" where the name is not used so it is rather confusing.
  • While the Boston Public Health Commission stuff is interesting, it is placed in a weird spot in this section. It is in a paragraph that is praising the song, and this does not fit that. It is also not really a review of the song. It is more of a study or analysis.
  • I'd be careful with the following wording, "They felt it was not on par with them", as it makes it sound like the "not on par" and lacking the "instant catch" is a critique from both reviewers instead of the individuals.

Apologies for jumping in with some additional comments already. I just noticed some issues I wanted to raise first. While I can tell a lot of great work has been put into the article, I am not sure if it is fully prepared for a FAC (but I will leave that up to other reviewers). Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies needed. This was nominated just now after a PR so resolving the issues shouldn’t be a major problem. I’ll see if this can be done within the FAC scope. If not, well I’m sure we can figure something out. Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aoba47, for your comments. I have done quite some rearranging in "music and lyrics" and "critical reception" sections. See if you wish to continue your review or stand by your current viewpoint, either of which is perfectly fine. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am guessing the music video synopsis is sourced with the video as the primary source; would that be correct? The synopsis seems a little on the long side, and I am wondering it could be made a little more concise.
That is correct, as per WP:FILMPLOT. I have trimmed the subsection a little. Hopefully, it is more concise now.
  • This part, for its fashion, choreography, futuristic set-piece and costumes, does not have a citation. I am guessing that this part is supported by the citations later on in the paragraph, but it does look odd to have a sentence with a citation in the middle and none at the end.
  • For the "Reception and thematic analysis" subsection, would it be worthwhile to separate the reviews and the analysis? This subsection looks quite long and I think that further structure may make it looks less intimidating to readers.
  • I am not convinced that File:Praying mantis india.jpg is necessary, especially since the "insect" dress is not being shown so there really is not much of a comparison being made.
  • The university in this part, sociologist Mathieu Deflem of University of South Carolina, is not necessary so I would remove it.
  • I am uncertain about the sentence starting with this part, Calling it a "culture-breaking moment". This sentence is pushing together two different Billboard articles by two different writers and it gives off the impression that they were either written by the same person or downplays the individual reviewers.
  • This is more of a note than anything. I'd be cautious about the size of the "Live performances" section in the future. It is pretty much guaranteed that Gaga will continually perform this song throughout her career due to its popularity so I'd be wary of this section becoming too big or overly detailed.
You are absolutely right. I did some trimming and removed some superfluous information and rearranged the structure a bit. It's much more condensed now.
  • The information from the "Personnel" section (i.e. the production and recording processes) should also be written out in the prose of the article, likely in the "Background and release" section.
  • I am not sure what "actor" means in the "Personnel" section?
Neither do I. It must have been vandalized at some point and nobody noticed.
  • Both MTV or if MTV News are used in the citations for the same website. Citations 2, 109, 112, 135, and 138 use MTV while Citations 63, 64, 73, 107, 114 use MTV News. I would be consistent with one way or the other. I'd go with MTV News as it is more specific.
  • Citation 140 is missing the author.
  • Citation 229 should have its title translated to English. This is true of any citations with titles in a non-English language.
Done wherever possible. In some places, the ref. is automatically generated as part of {{single chart}}, which cannot be modified.
  • Simon Price should be linked in the article and in the citation.

This should be all of my comments for my first read-through of the article. I hope that this review was helpful and not too nit-picky. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again, Aoba. It was not nit-picky at all and was very helpful. The article has improved in leaps and bounds now. Hopefully, this is now enough to convince you of the article's quality at the FA level. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the sheet music citation up to other reviewers. I am not fully convinced, but I will focus my review and support on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

edit

This article has been at GA level for some time now and has been written at a high level of narrative quality and thoroughness. One comment I would add here is that I think this was used in the context of the very last show which Alexander McQueen did before the end of his life and that there are reliable sources for this. Since Lady Gaga was a follower of his designs, mentioning this as his very last full fashion show with reliable sources might be a good addition to the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added, as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a fine Covers section in this article along with the well done Video section which accompanies the song article; I'm sufficiently familiar with this article since the GAN was done by another editor that I'm supporting the FAC nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit

I had a look at this article while it was at PR and it seemed to be in solid shape. I will give it the customary reread and then add some comments here. Btw, I would greatly appreciate if you could review my current FAC, although it is totally fine if you do not have the time or interest.--NØ 03:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the abbreviation "EP" is not used again, it does not need to be mentioned.
In the lead, the infobox uses the abbr, and in the body, it is used in "Track listings" section.
  • The oxford commas should be consistently used (or not); Not used: "chorus, beat and hook", Used: "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show"
I generally try to do without it as I find it unnecessary but in places like "award ceremonies, her concert tours and residency shows, and the Super Bowl LI halftime show", I have intentionally used it to not confuse with the and's (and residency shows is used to not repeat while the second and is preceded by a comma to clarify that it's part of the main listing of places Gaga has performed the song at.
  • "Gaga explained that she generally felt lonely in her relationships and was attracted to unhealthy relationships" - Perhaps there would be a way to avoid the repetition?
  • Thanks for replacing Musicnotes. I'll leave it to the source reviewer to determine if the university source is okay
  • Does its inclusion in the list of "Top 10 List of Songs with Unhealthy Relationship Ingredients" fit the "Music and lyrics" section? I found this placement kind of random
I think so. It's more of a themes analysis (which is what the music and lyrics section is about) than an "award", but unfortunately I couldn't find the main source, which I am sure has a thing or two about why it's in the list.
  • "and Rolling Stone critic Jon Dolanfelt that song made her name a "Teutonic chant" - Space before "felt" and the word "the" should be there after "that"
  • Do you think it would be beneficial to include the release years for "Tik Tok" and "Empire State of Mind"?
  • Seems to be missing alt texts in the music video section. Not sure if intentional
  • Do we need a wikilink for rubles? Seems like a well-known term to me
  • While I do think Elle is generally reliable, is its opinion reputed and important enough to be highlighted in a quote box?
I think Elle definitely counts among reputed sources; it has been referenced in CBS News, NY Daily News and Time. The author herself has written for Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, Vogue, Esquire etc. As for the quote itself, I think it truly captures all the successful aspects of the song (genre combination, lyrics, music video and Gaga's voice), which no other source does.
Love the inclusion of various research studies which truly gives the article a comprehensive feel. After these are addressed, I will go through the article once more to see if I got everything. Regards.--NØ 04:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Marano. I think I have addressed everything. Let me know if you are not satisfied with something. FrB.TG (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with the way this has been handled and it totally looks like an FA to me. Great work!--NØ 03:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

edit

The article appears to be well-written and has an in-depth coverage, especially on its analysis of the themes from scholarly sources. As the article's prose has already been PR'd and reviewed by experienced editors on this topic of interest, I have very little to add. Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

  • "Bad Romance" was acclaimed by music critics -- suggest linking music critics to music journalism
  • and was included in yearly "best-of" -- I think annual instead of yearly is what’s commonly used.
  • making Gaga the first woman to have three number-one singles in one year -- perhaps it could be specified as first female act or artist, as woman is a bit vague.
  • The song was certified quadruple platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association for shipment of 280,000 copies of the single. -- I think we can omit “single” at the end as it is understood that the song shipped X copies.
  • and 12 million in total, becoming one of the best-selling singles of all time -- I assume this figure is to date? If so, it would be worth clarifying.
  • with more elaborate sets, including sets outdoors. -- perhaps a little tweaking, to remove mention of “sets” twice’'
  • Glee cast performed -- Although it’s linked to the article, I think it's worth mentioning Glee as a musical tv series.
  • That's all I have. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Pseud 14. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie - image review

edit

Please note this is my first FAC review of any variety. I will be claiming this for WikiCup. Please tell me if I make any comments that are off track.

This article has seven total images. One is in the infobox and is the album cover. It has an appropriate fair use rationale and alt text.

There is also one other fair use image, which is a still from the music video showing the choreography of the song. I agree with its fair use as irreplaceable content discussed in a critical manner in the article.

Of the other five images:

  • One has a VRT ticket confirming approval for use under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
  • The remainder were ported from Flickr, where they were posted under various CC licenses (confirmed by Flickreview).

Two images need alt text: File:The Monster Ball - Bad Romance revamped3.jpg and File:Glee-Born This Way.jpg. The latter should also be displayed on the right size as it currently bumps a section header. Its caption is a complete sentence and must end with a period.

Moved one paragraph upwards.

All of the images have good captions other than the missing period.

I intend to pass the image review when the missing alt text is supplied and the one image is shifted from left-side to right-side display. Pinging the nominator, FrB.TG. Other reviewers are encouraged to leave me feedback on this review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the detailed image review, Sammi Brie. All done as suggested. Let me know if I missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I identified have been fixed, and the image review passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ippantekina

edit

I have very fond memories of this song.

  • "with a full-throated chorus" "full-throated" is somehow POV in my opinion; can we reword it?
I think if it sounds POV-y this way, it will sound POV-y any other way. I have simply removed it from the lead.
  • "Lyrically, it explores ... the paranoia she experienced while on tour" I think the lyrics per-se don't explore this, but rather were inspired by this?
  • "A 2017 journal, published by the American Psychological Association, called the song the catchiest in the world." interesting, but I'd also want to know on what metrics (is it song structure or melody or something else?) were used
  • Background and release—Do we have the date the song was leaked?
  • I am doubtful about the reliability of the sheet music provided; it is the sheet music to the drum arrangement of the song, and the personnel listed are not credited as producers/engineers of the song.
Since two reviewers have objected to this source, I have restored the one from Musicnotes.com.
  • Critical reception—"by Pitchfork—which called it "epic in construction"—MTV News" perhaps a comma after the quote "epic in construction"?
I think the em-dash functions as a comma; the reason I used it instead of a comma was to clarify it is not one of the publications calling the song one of 2009's best.
  • "Kaufman lauded the drastic transition into a bombastic "Erasure-esque throb" during the chorus, called catchy by Rolling Stone's Jody Rosen, one of Gaga's best by MusicOMH's Michael Hubbard" am I missing something or is the grammar a bit off here?
It was supposed to be about the chorus being called xy: "..during the chorus, (which was) called catchy". I guess the transition from the active to passive voice is a little awkward here.
  • Serial quotations, especially short ones, make it hard to read; I'd paraphrase some
  • Commercial performance—"second artist to have three singles [...] each sell five million digital copies" also who is the first?
  • Pipe Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs)
  • Personally I don't think we need to mention which week the song reached number one in Sweden and Ireland. We can simply group them into the countries where the song reached number one (Austria, Denmark et al)
  • Music video—"hoping to work with her again" unless they did collaborate on some later projects, I'd leave this out because it comes off as trivia
  • "Gaga created a pair of razor-blade sunglasses" did she really create them? Just to make sure...

More to come... Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ippantekina. Unless I have explicitly stated otherwise, I have implemented your suggestions. I look forward to the next batch of your reveiw. FrB.TG (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love the depth of research in the Thematic analysis section, but am a bit lost on the organization because it reads a little staccato... like a simple display of disparate opinions without flow. Maybe a brief introduction sentence at the beginning of each paragraph, or grouping some similar opinions (for example, I see some opinions having the same concern regarding sexuality) would help?
  • "winning for Video of the Year,"?
  • I am unsure if the Elle commentary is significant enough to be singled out in a quotebox
I don't know, I like it a lot. This touches on all the aspects of the song that made it so impactful. Do you think it should be removed altogether or just not highlighted like that in a quotebox?
I think it's fair to keep it in the prose, just not the quotebox. If a quotebox should be useful, I'd go for an opinion from a reputed critic or academic, and the Elle journalist, while reliable, is just not the best option imo.
  • "Gaga sang "Bad Romance" during her residency show, Lady Gaga Enigma + Jazz & Piano (2018–2022); on her Enigma show, she performed it in a champagne-hued gold outfit,[142] and on Jazz & Piano, she did a stripped-down version" so Enigma and Jazz & Piano are two shows or one.. I am confused
  • I think the Glee version entered some charts; should we mention them?
  • For the track listing section, I doubt if it is necessary. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Single track listings they say that it is not standard practice to include such a section unless the track listings received extensive commentary. Given that none of the remixes listed here are discussed in prose, I'd remove the section altogether.
I don't know it's unusual for a song to have this many versions with different durations. It can be part of prose if necessary (in Background and release section for example).
I personally don't find the track listings helpful, but I'd leave it to other editors.
  • I think it's better to include table captions for separate years; i.e. one for 2009 year-end charts and one for 2010 year-end charts...
I'm not sure that is necessary since it was released pretty late in 2009, and the song's peak was somewhere between 2009 and 2010. For 2017, for example, it makes sense since it and 2009 are several years apart.
I do think it is helpful to include table captions for separate years. While it may be clunky, it helps with accessibility.

This concludes my prose review. Apart from my comments I made some minor edits that are hopefully beneficial. A great read overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ippantekina. I think I have addressed the rest of your comments. Let me know if you disagree with something. FrB.TG (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I have a few remaining concerns, but they are minuscule to the quality. Great work! Ippantekina (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • All sources are reliable and properly formatted
  • Spot checks performed: ref 5 just gives me a load of "plug in not supported" messages, am I doing something wrong? 17 doesn't mention Boney M. 30 OK. 42 OK. 43 OK. 56 shows the song at number 20 in Ireland, so doesn't support the claim that it topped the chart there. 64 OK. 73 OK. 83 doesn't seem to say anything about "robotic, zombie-like arm movements and morbid theme". 99 OK. 109 OK. 118 OK. 127 OK. 138 OK. 155 OK. 265 OK.
Ref 5: it returns the same error for me; replaced with another source.
Ref 17: the comparison to Boney M. was supposed to be from source 17. Corrected attribution; thanks for catching it.
Ref 56: the source next to it (now no. 56) is supposed to support the claim that it topped the Irish chart. Not sure why this one was even placed there. Removed.
Ref 83: the claim comes from the NYDN review, which is cited earlier in the sentence but not in the end. Corrected.
  • Is the publisher of ref 191 really "Top Digital Download"? I can't see those words in the source
It seems to be the chart for the singles and is automatically generated by the use of {{single chart}}.
Many thanks, ChrisTheDude, for the source review, and sorry for the mix-up of the sources. I rearranged a lot of things a few months ago but messed up some parts. Thanks for catching these. FrB.TG (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Okay for me to start another nomination? FrB.TG (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [12].

Eadwig

edit
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my articles about Anglo-Saxon kings. It has been improved by helpful comments at peer review by Mike Christie. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Support. This is up to Dudley's usual standard; I commented at the peer review and have nothing to add here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Pass. I made one formatting tweak. Sources are all reliable and consistently formatted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Not yet - the typo wasn't the issue here. Both images have a tag representing the copyright status of the photograph. However, they also need a tag representing the copyright status of the coin itself (which will almost certainly be a copyright-expired tag of some flavour). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • "The following year, Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, separated Eadwig from his wife Ælfgifu on the ground" - I would say that that last word ought to be grounds (plural)
  • "while others see his character and the events of this reign" - his reign?
  • "By 878, it had overrun" - for total clarity, I would say "the army had overrun"
  • "he does not name the daughter in his account. [17]" - random gap before the ref
  • "Ælfsige, who he appointed" => "Ælfsige, whom he appointed"
  • "allowing landholders to convert folkland" - wikilink folkland?
  • I wondered about this, but the wikilink goes to bookland, so it would read "allowing landholders to convert [[Bookland (law)|folkland]], which they already owned as hereditary family estates which owed food rent and services to the crown, into [[Bookland (law)|bookland]]". What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the kingdom was divided even though had been appointed by Eadwig" - think there's a word missing in there

Comments from Z1720

edit

I write historical biographies, but not in this time frame, so my expertise is limited. I started the comments a couple hours ago, and did not realise that another editor would also comment, so I'm sorry if these comments overlap and will not be offended if you resolve Chris's comments first.

  • "In the ninth century Anglo-Saxon England" suggest putting a comma after century
  • "By 878, it had overrun", " By 883 Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians," The use of commas after years should be consistent. I recommend using the comma, but that's personal taste.
  • "He almost immediately lost control", "He almost immediately invaded" The duplicate sentence starters is jarring. I also don't understand how someone "almost immediately invaded". Did he invade the kingdom or not? Or is this referring to how it was invaded very quickly after this time?
  • "According to Dunstan's earliest hagiographer," Suggest wikilinking to hagiography, as this is a specialised word.
  • "Rory Naismith sees the story of Dunstan's intervention" Who is Rory Naismith and why should the reader care about their opinion? Since they do not have a wikilink, a job title might be appropriate to add here. Some editors would also suggest adding job titles or credentials for wikilinked experts, but I'm of the opinion that it isn't necessary.
  • "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it threatened to cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." Two threats in quick succession. Maybe, "and it may have been seen as a threat by the circle around Edgar as it could have cut him out from the prospect of inheriting the crown." or something similar
  • "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig and his women may" Should it be "Eadwid and this woman"? If not, I don't think its appropriate to have women be phrased as a possession of Eadwig. Perhaps, "but Keynes thinks that different stories about Eadwig's romantic relationships may" or something similar.
  • "and Eadwig was not even mentioned." I don't think even is necessary here and can be removed.
  • "was appointed an ealdorman in Mercia in 956." Suggest wikilinking ealdorman
  • "According to Dunstan's biographer B," B has already been extensively talked about previously, so I don't think this author needs to eb reintroduced here.
  • "and Frederick Biggs comments that if Edgar" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "amounting in the view of Shashi Jayakumar to" Who is this person and what are their credentials?
  • "was abandoned by the Mercians and the Northumbrians with contempt"," Is that comma supposed to be a period?
  • "William Hamilton (see right)," I don't think "(see right)" should be included here. Mobile versions won't put the image to the right (it is placed on top or below the text) so this will be confusing to many readers. I think the caption under the image is enough and "(see right)" it is unnecessary here.
  • This is not necessary for my support, but I suggest putting the "Sources" section into two columns to make the list shorter to scroll.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

edit

I turned up too late for the peer review, but it looks as though I wouldn't have had much to contribute in any case. I have only four minor quibbles on the present text:

  • Background
  • "…thus became the first king of all England. He died in October 939 and was succeeded by his half-brother and Eadwig's father Edmund, who was the first king to succeed to the throne of all England…" – aren't you telling us the same thing twice? If Edward was the first king of all England and Edmund succeeded him, the latter must ipso facto have been the first king to succeed to the throne of all England. (As Eadwig had only one father I'd put a comma before "Edmund" if I were writing the sentence, but we won't fall out over the point.)
  • Historians distinguish between the two cases. Æthelstan succeeded as king of the Anglo-Saxons and only became king of England when he conquered Northumbria. Edmund was the first to succeed as king of England. I am open to suggestions of how to express this more clearly. Added the comma before Edmund.
  • Reign
  • There are a lot of "Eadwig"s in the opening para of the section: perhaps a pronoun or two would make things smoother?
  • Early reign 955–957
  • His sixty odd gifts of land – you really need a hyphen here; otherwise, it's sixty strange gifts, rather than sixty-something unstrange ones.
  • around 5% – I believe the MoS favours "per cent" rather than % in the text (not in tables etc), and I'd also go for "five" rather than "5". (Not quite so sure about the percentages in the coinage section, though: I think they look all right as drawn, MoS notwithstanding.)

That's my lot. Nothing of enough importance to prevent my adding my support. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [13].

Title (album)

edit
Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 03:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut major-label studio album Title, her breakthrough into superstardom and commercial success (which unfortunately didn't last long). Defying expectations of one-hit wonderdom, the album achieved an impressive three top-10 hits on the US Billboard Hot 100 and capped 2015 as one of the best-selling albums of the year. Critics were however proven right in doubting Trainor's overall commercial sustainability. This article is the centrepiece to several other FAs I have written in this topic. It's pretty lengthy so thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 03:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I have moved the image up for the time being which fixes the sandwiching issue. I will remove it if multiple reviewers share this opinion, though.

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I do have one comment, but I will post a full review sometime tomorrow. I am looking forward to reading the article tomorrow. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead only mentions negative reviews for the album. Are there positive reviews/trends worth mentioning there as well?
  • Added.
  • Done.
  • For this part, shaming thin women, I think it may be beneficial to spell out body shaming in its entirety to make this completely clear for readers.
  • Spelled out.

Here are some further comments. I will do another read-through once the above comments have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to massively thank you for providing a review to all FACs in this topic! These are addressed, excited for further comments from you Aoba47.--NØ 05:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything! I will read through the article again later today if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A track-by-track commentary edition of the album was released (which can be found on Spotify). Do you think that should be briefly mentioned in the article?
  • I'm unsure how to work this into prose as it does not seem to have drawn commentary from any secondary sources; I don't recollect this having been released along with the album either so the given release date looks sketchy as well.
  • That is fair. I does look odd to me as well. I have seen this kind of thing for an album before, but this one in particular seems off. I only wanted to ask as I remember randomly finding on Spotify. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last comment. Thank you for your patience with my review and I am glad that I could help with all of the different FACs. You have. put a lot of work into these articles and you should proud of that, and I am looking forward to whatever you work on in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting through this pretty big article so quickly and the kind words! I hope you are having a great week so far and I look forward to your future works as well.--NØ 18:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

edit
  • They were tired of the electronic dance music that populated contemporary hit radio -- suggestion instead of "populated" - They were tired of the electronic dance music predominant in contemporary hit radio
  • Accepted.
  • While a teenager, Trainor's parents nudged -- As a teenager
  • Amended.
  • I would link eponymous to eponym
  • Done.
  • offered a full scholarship to the Berklee College of Music -- at the Berklee..
  • Done. Thanks for catching this!
  • Done.
  • She deleted her independent albums in the build-up to its release. -- did she delete/remove from her YouTube channels/social media accounts, etc? If so, perhaps you can specify where it was removed.
  • I've reverted to the source wording here which hopefully gives more clarity. Unfortunately secondary sources weren't very specific with this.
  • Revision looks good and clearly explained now.
  • comprising music videos and behind-the-scenes footage -- comprising of
  • Done.
  • She performed at award shows including -- comma before including
  • Added.
  • Trainor's appearances on popular television talk shows -- perhaps we can omit "popular" as this can be perceived as subjective.
  • Agreed, reworded.
  • In the critical reception section, I think you’ve used the word "opined" four times, perhaps tweak a few of it to avoid repetition. (e.g. wrote, commented, said, etc)
  • I cut this down to two usages.

That's all I got. Article is well-written, detailed and has all the elements. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and compliments, Pseud 14! Should be all addressed now. I hope you're having a great day!--NØ 16:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback as well on a music related FLC.

Comments by FrB.TG

edit
  • "The album was supported by four singles, "All About That Bass", which reached number one in 58 countries and became the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s, and the US Billboard Hot 100 top-15 singles "Lips Are Movin", "Dear Future Husband", and "Like I'm Gonna Lose You", the latter of which features John Legend and peaked at number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Poland." Too many and's and too long a sentence. I suggest splitting it.
  • Split.
  • "As a teenager, Trainor's parents.." This sounds like her parents were teenagers when this happened.
  • Clarified.
  • "Trainor was unsure about becoming a recording artist herself; her father recalled: "She thought she was one of the chubby girls who would never be an artist".[2]" The source needs a |url-access=subscription parameter. If the quote ends in full stop in the source then the full stop in the article needs to be placed inside the quotation mark ("...artist.") per MOS:LQ.
  • Good catch!
  • From sentence "Trainor wrote songs she wished existed when she attended high school" in the lead, I got the impression that Trainor wished these songs existed when she was a high-schooler (i.e. another artist had done it), but "she wished she had written some of its songs before she attended high school" suggests that she wished that she herself had written it earlier.
  • I have now made this consistent after consulting the source wording.
  • Do we really need the ellipsis at the end of the quote " "I want to help myself"?
  • Removed.
  • "The standard edition of Title includes 11 tracks; the deluxe edition includes" - suggest replacing one include with contain or comprise to avoid repetition.
  • Done.
  • "present a list of the things a man needs to do in order to be Trainor's life partner" - this can be simplified to "lists the things a man needs to do to be Trainor's life partner".
  • Simplified.
  • "It was the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s, selling 5.8 million digital downloads in the US" - repetition of "selling" within a close proximity.
  • Fixed.

Down to the end of Release and promotion. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added this.
  • The critical reception section somewhat suffers from the "A said B, C said D" where one opinion is listed after another, making it repetitive at places. For example, the second section begins with some reviewers deeming the album repetitive and ends with a certain critic criticizing this aspect. It could benefit from some rearranging so we don't have a "some reviewers criticized the repetitiveness ... critic A called it repetitive".
  • I intended "Title's repetitiveness drew criticism" as a summary statement for the second paragraph so the repetition here is intentional. It is written with WP:CRS in mind and each paragraph tries to drive home the point expressed in its first sentence. I understand your point about repeating the exact same wording, though, so I have rephrased this particular example.
I get that and that's what I am trying to emphasize. The second paragraph introduces the repetition criticism. As such, the reader knows that the section is going to be about this so a sentence fragment like "criticized the repetitiveness" is repetitive. I see that this part has already been removed, which is much better now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have four instances of "debuted at number one" in two paragraphs. Some variety would be good.
  • I brought some variation.
  • "Title received certifications, including 3× Platinum in the US,[128] Australia,[129] Canada,[130] 2× Platinum in Poland" - the way the certifications in Australia and Canada remain nameless and the Polish certification is mentioned, it sounds like the album was 3x Platinum certified in those two countries. FrB.TG (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be an and before Canada to clarify that 3x Pl. ends here. The same applies to places like "Platinum in Denmark,[133] New Zealand,[134] Sweden,[135] and the UK". I would suggest separating them with a semi-colon: "Title received certifications, including 3× Platinum in the US,[128] Australia,[129] and Canada;[130] 2× Platinum in Poland;[131] Platinum+Gold in Mexico;[132] Platinum in Denmark,[133] New Zealand,[134] Sweden,[135] and the UK;[136] and Gold in the Netherlands." FrB.TG (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done--NØ 19:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review (pass)

edit

That should complete my review of the article's relevant media usage. Only one qualm re updating caption which is reasonably fixable. But that won't hinder this from being passed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the media review! I have added years to the file captions.--NØ 13:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Recommend using {{Cite interview}} for ref 9, as the text being sourced is not all by Kawashima
  • Done.
  • Publisher for ref 20 should be Ryan Seacrest Productions
  • Amended.
  • The Sun should be included in ref 27
  • Added.
  • The interview template might be worth use for ref 51 as well (Scott Simon and Trainor)
  • Done.
  • missing retrieval dates in refs 135 and 136
  • Added.
  • there's only one ref which uses trans-title, though I would recommend they all do, it should be consistent either way
  • I just went ahead and added it to every ref using the "language" parameter.
  • Otherwise looks good
Reliability
  • Not sure how high-quality Nantucket Today (ref 5) and N Magazine (ref 7) are
  • I was able to eliminate Nantucket Today and replace N Magazine with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that looks reliable to me.
  • Was a little unsure about Boston Common (ref 25)
  • This is an interview so I guess WP:ABOUTSELF applies? The person credited as the author also seems to have contributed to reputed sources.
  • PR Newswire (ref 73) is a generally unreliable source (per consensus on the Reliabillity notice-board on WP) so I would strongly recommend switching it out with something else
  • Removed.
Verifiability
Looks great! Sorry for the delay. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

edit

Will review this soon. One preliminary comment I have is per MOS:IRELEV the use of a photo of Trainor singing at the Jingle Ball 2014 is unjustified. I'd consider removing it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I hope you can complete this asap so the article can be promoted before August slips away.--NØ 17:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were tired of" a little informal
  • I'm not sure I understand why this would be considered informal so I'll open up to suggestions on what wording you'd like to see.
  • I'd go for something like "They chose not to follow contemporary trends" or "They were dissatisfied with"; "tired of" seems more of spoken speech rather than written speech.
  • "the latter of which" "latter" is often used for two subjects; consider "the last of which"
  • Done.
  • "ninth best-selling" ninth-best-selling (the hyphen)
  • Done.
  • "'50s-sounding record" "'50s sounding record; mind the small space between " and ' per MOS:QWQ
  • Done.
  • "Kevin's my guy" this quote is a little lightweight and can be removed imo
  • I will remove this.
  • I don't know what "three-part harmonies" is
  • This refers to a harmony with three intervals, I guess. I've added a link to Harmony now.
  • "big choruses" a little POV
  • Attributed as a direct quote to Trainor now.
  • "to correct issues with contemporary dating and hookup culture" "correct issues" seems a little strong; what about "as a reaction to"?
  • "It was the best-selling song by a female artist in the 2010s, with 5.8 million digital downloads sold in the US" I have not checked the source but this claim seems dubious. I think the claim should go to Adele's "Rolling in the Deep" selling 8.4 million.
  • I'll add a note regarding this. The 2019 Nielsen Year-end report shows "All About That Bass", followed by "Shake It Off", "Dark Horse" and then "Hello".
  • Relating this back to the lead, if it was indeed the best-selling female digital song of the 2010s in the U.S., I'd mention that because the current wording makes it seem like it was the best-selling digital song of the 2010s worldwide
  • "signaled Trainor's commercial success is unsustainable" I'd change to "unsustainable commercial success"
  • "multiple weeks at the summit" I'd mention how many weeks
  • "pinnacle" sounds metaphor-ish; I'd keep it simple "atop" "number one" etc.
  • "The title track reached the ultimate position on the Billboard Hot 100" the "ultimate position" is No. 1 or No. 100?

That's all from me. Ippantekina (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, I believe the above should be addressed now. Many thanks for reviewing this!--NØ 12:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. The Digital Songs ranking is indeed weird, but the source cited does say this is the best-selling 2010s female single. Ippantekina (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: I would like a status update on this nomination if possible, since it is coming up on a month and everything seems to be in order. Hope you are having a great start to your week.--NØ 16:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [14].

Offham Hill

edit
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sixth article I've nominated about an archaeological site; like most of the previous ones, this is about a causewayed enclosure in Sussex. Sadly the site has been almost completely destroyed, first by quarrying and then by ploughing, so the single excavation, in 1976, represents all we are ever likely to know about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review-pass Buidhe public (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Thanks for the review; I think everything has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: nothing much to say. A very well put-together piece of work and comprehensive as far as I can tell as a non-expert; it certainly tells me everything I want to know about the subject. Just to be pedantic:

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
I think it could be nice for establishing context under "Site", but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Prose review. I write history articles but not archeological digs, and not of this time period, so consider my subject-matter expertise to be quite small.

Those are my thoughts. Ping me when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thanks for the review. Most addressed, with comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2022 [16].

1988–89 Gillingham F.C. season

edit
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 15th nomination of an article on a season in the history of English football club Gillingham F.C. This was a frankly awful and shambolic season as the club went on a two-month run of consecutive defeats, went through three managers (plus caretakers!), and ultimately slipped into the fourth tier of English football for the first time in 15 years. This is a vaguely topical nomination, as in a couple of weeks the club will be starting their first season in the fourth tier since 2013 after relegation at the end of last season (*sigh*). Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by FrB.TG

edit
  • The infobox lists Roy Wood as the chairman until February, but it's not very clear to me which year this was.
  • "..since the team gained promotion from the Fourth Division as runners-up in 1974" - should it be in past perfect tense, maybe?
  • "On 26 October, one day after Gillingham lost 5–0 away to Preston North End, the team's eighth consecutive league defeat,[15] Taylor was dismissed.." - not a fan of the parenthesis ("the team's eighth consecutive league defeat") within the parenthesis ("one day after Gillingham lost 5–0 away to Preston North End"). It takes a little long to actually get to the significance of the date.
  • "Youth team coach Richardson and Bill Collins, who had retired at the end of the previous season after many years with the club" - do we have a specific number of years he worked with the club? It's fine if we don't (just curious).
  • "Two days later, Keith Burkinshaw was appointed as the club's new manager; the appointment" - repetition of appoint
  • "It was Gillingham's second consecutive away victory" - maybe link away to Away match? I had to look it up to see what it means.
  • "Burkinshaw continued to sign new players in an attempt to improve the team's fortunes." Prose redundancy.
  • "Tim O'Shea, a defender signed from Leyton Orient, played for the first time against Brentford and another new signing from Tottenham, midfielder Billy Manuel, made his debut on 11 February against Bristol City as did Alan Reeves, a defender signed on loan from Norwich City." Sign and defender are repetitively used in this sentence.
  • "His assistant Keith Blunt was appointed as caretaker manager, but despite" - can you find a way to rephrase it so you don't have to use double contrastive conjunctions?
  • Any reason why the second row in the partial league table is missing !scope="row"? FrB.TG (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene

edit
  • "for a game against Fulham on 26 December 1988" ==> maybe you can indicate this was a league game
  • Gillingham appointed a new chairman halfway through the season. Maybe this is worth mentioning in the prose?
  • season[3][4][5] and ==> I'm not really a fan of having refs in the middle of the sentence without a preceding comma
  • Associate Members' Cup - the infobox shows "Torquay United (H)" but Gillingham had an away match
  • "with only two months of the season remaining." ==> I know this info can be found elsewhere in the article (and referenced), but I don't think it would do any harm to put a reference behind this sentence
  • That's all I have. Nice work again. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: thanks for your review - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review from Mike Christie

edit

Support. Not much to say; you've done this enough times to get it right by now.

For the source review:

  • You're missing the location on Bateson & Sewell (1989), and you list them as editors for 1992 but not for 1989.
  • The "Peacock sacked" clip doesn't get the whole article -- can you reclip? I wouldn't hold up the source review for this, since what you've clipped does verify the citation, but it bothers my OCD.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - both of the above resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: - fab, many thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinator query

edit

@FAC coordinators: - can I ask the usual question here? OK to start another one? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2022 [17].

Donkey Kong Country

edit
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 and ♦ jaguar 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Country is one of those rare (ba-dum-chiss) video games where it's impossible to overstate its influence. It transformed Donkey Kong from a dusty, archaic product of the olden days into a multimillion-dollar franchising juggernaut, turned the tide of the 16-bit console wars by giving players a taste of 3D graphics well before they could actually play next-generation hardware, and elevated Rare from a tiny, unknown studio into one of the video game industry's premier developers. Its reputation has floundered a bit over the years (thanks in part to a seemingly baseless claim that Donkey Kong's legendary creator, Shigeru Miyamoto, despised it) but it remains an important game that defined every subsequent Donkey Kong game and set a new standard for how video game graphics would be judged.

Jaguar and I initiated plans to revitalize and expand this article after it badly deteriorated in the years following its initial GA promotion, and lo and behold, here is the finished result (with some very helpful copyediting by Popcornfud). I believe it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the internet, documenting a copious number of interviews, sales reports, contemporary reviews, and whatnot. Now, let's get into some monkey business. JOEBRO64 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

edit

Apologies that I do not have a lot of time for comments, but I have left some notes below:

  • The lead reads excellently.
  • "Level tropes" - can "tropes" be described in more detail, like "location", "design theme"?
  • Can you clarify why "Contest game mode" and "Team game mode" have capital letters?
  • "Rare assembled a team of 12, and production started around August 1993. The first demo was playable by November 1993." - these feel like three short sentences when read together. Can any clauses be combined or elaborated?
    • I've combined them into "After Rare assembled a team of 12 (the largest in its history at that point), production started around August 1993, and the first demo was playable by November 1993." JOEBRO64 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "change his composition methods based on it, which played on a role on Donkey Kong Country" - I'm not sure if this sentence is maybe too long, but the final part has confused me. What exactly played a role?
  • "which lasted from 23 to 25 June 1994." - maybe "took place" or "occurred" instead of "lasted"?
  • In reception, [79][85][86][74], just reorder.
  • "as well as Game Boy Printer support.[104][103]" same here.
  • "with Entertainment Weekly writing" - I've been told not to include verbs with -ing like this, but not sure here.

Just a few notes, hopefully some help. SatDis (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - should get to them later today. I'll try to review Wizards of Waverly Place by tomorrow JOEBRO64 06:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: all done JOEBRO64 12:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @TheJoebro64: your responses to the comments above have been approached diligent. Some of those confusing sentences are now much clearer. I am now happy to support this article on its prose and formatting. Well done and thanks for the interesting read on Donkey Kong! SatDis (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS

edit

I might review other aspects later, but here's something to start with. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: thank you for the review! I've responded above JOEBRO64 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and to elaborate on the audio sample used, 30 seconds is the longest possibly allowed for tracks 5 minutes or longer. For any song shorter than that, you can only use a portion that's 10% or less of its total duration. This is why I didn't know for sure whether the half-minute piece here was within limits. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ah, I'll trim it if that's the case. I just need to check how long the actual track is JOEBRO64 12:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The track is officially 3:30, so I chopped off 9 seconds. Should be good now! JOEBRO64 12:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is satisfactory, and the media review passes as a result. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit
Yep! FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention that the player can swap between the two characters at will.
  • Perhaps not a big deal, but maybe link the different kinds of animals mentioned in the article?
  • Is there no Brute Force article to link?
  • Link Game Boy at first mention.
  • "are made Donkey Kong Country a side-scrolling platformer because the staff had grown up playing Nintendo's Super Mario games" Must have been extremely young staff if they "grew up" playing games released just a few years before?
    • Yeah, Gregg Mayles mentions several times in his interviews that the Rare staff was pretty young (including that he was only 22, so he would've been a teenager when Super Mario Bros. came out). The bit in particular comes his quote that "We wanted it to be a side-scroller because we'd all grown up playing Mario games and just wanted to make one of our own. So, kind of putting Donkey Kong in that style of game and trying to bring it up to date... we wanted it to be like a very modern feeling" around the 10:20 mark in the cited video. JOEBRO64 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mayles said "we thought a second character could perform this function, look visually impressive, and give the player a feeling that they were not alone"" It seems you don't explain explicitly anywhere that the two characters are visible on the screen at the same time.
  • "Rambi the Rhino" and "Squawks the Parrot", should the animal type really be capitalised?
  • "To develop Donkey Kong's movements, Rare staff spent hours at the nearby Twycross Zoo watching and videotaping gorillas,[28] but found their movements were unsuitable for a fast game, and instead based the animations loosely on a horse's gallop.[33]" This seems to be especially about his runcycle? Not much horse-like about his other movements...
  • Mark Betteridge just links to Rare. You could present his occupation too, as you do with other people mentioned.
  • "Rare avoided mentioning that Cranky was the original Donkey Kong in the game and marketing materials, fearing that Nintendo would disapprove of the idea." I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in the manual, though?
    • Yeah, though I can't find any sources that confirm that—Mayles doesn't mention it in the interview. The instruction manual is usually one of the last things made in the development process so I'd imagine this was after Nintendo found out and was cool with it. JOEBRO64 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would seem relevant to mention the connection as stated in the manual there then? It's under his entry here:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Done JOEBRO64 18:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning under legacy or something that DK's redesigned appearance was used in Donkey Kong (1994 video game) before the Rare game was released?
    • Donkey Kong '94 actually uses his original design, the only difference being that he sports the tie (which, of course, Donkey Kong Country would popularize), but from the sound of it, Miyamoto suggested the tie specifically for Donkey Kong Country. I can't think of a way to mention it without taking away focus from Donkey Kong Country and I feel like it's minor enough that it could be classified as mere trivia in regards to Country. JOEBRO64 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The artists began by rendering the characters in NURBS using PowerAnimator" Modelling might be a better term, since you later use rendering for another process.
  • Perhaps link spritesheet somewhere, maybe by " nimation for each sprite".
  • How many artists were there?
  • It depends how 'artists' is defined. The game's credits list six different staff members who worked on objects, background design, and graphics manipulation. This article's infobox, which I think is more accurate, lists a firm four. I can't find anything definite in the sources. I'm not sure I can confidently insert a figure into the article's prose (if that's what you were suggesting). Perhaps Joe knows for sure? ♦ jaguar 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the number can't be found, nothing to do. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used the machines using" Any way to vary instead of double "use"?
  • "Rare attempted to keep the look of the levels consistent so different landscapes would not be right next to each other." What is meant by this, so tha progress would make sense from level to level in the overworld, or within levels?
  • it appears you went with UK English, but there are inconsistencies, such as "favorite" instead of "favourite", and you mix "ise" and "ize" endings, this should be checked throughout.
  • You have a music section, but little to nothing about sound effects?
The most I remember finding about the sound effects was who provided the Kongs'/Kremings' voice clips, that Tim Stamper had Wise include environmental sounds in the music since they couldn't be played directly in the game, and that Rare wanted real animal noises but had to settle for Betteridge's monkey clips because Rare couldn't capture them with their microphone at the zoo, all of which is discussed in the article. Video game sound design in general isn't something that is really discussed that much, unfortunately - but I'll wait to see what Jag can pull up. JOEBRO64 17:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be found, that's of course just how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I hate to disappoint but I couldn't find anything worthwhile to compliment what already has been mentioned throughout the article. I've added a visit to Twycross Zoo right at the bottom of my bucket list, though. ♦ jaguar 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Game Boy port was planned but retooled into a separate game, Donkey Kong Land (1995), after the programmer Paul Machacek convinced Rare that it would be a better use of resources and expand the potential audience.[63]" Seems tacked on in the context section, doesn't it make more sense under aftermath or something like that?
  • The footnotes should have citations too.
  • It is generally advised that pictured individuals face towards the text, rather than away from it, as is the case with Shigeru Miyamoto here.
  • I've never heard of that? I tried moving it to the left but it squashed the next subsection, and some people frown on doing that. I've replaced it with another image of the handsome Japanese man. ♦ jaguar 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is here:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kotaku said Donkey Kong Country was an event could not be replicated in modern" Missing "that could"?
  • "convert 3D models into SNES sprites without losing detail" Seems a bit of a stretch, perhaps with little loss of detail or similar?
  • "Rare developed two sequels for the SNES, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (1995) and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! (1996). After a hiatus, during which Rare was acquired by Nintendo competitor Microsoft, Retro Studios revived the series with Donkey Kong Country Returns (2010) for the Wii and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze (2014) for the Wii U." I would expect to see the N64 game listed here, before the hiatus?

Thank you for the comments, FunkMonk. All have been addressed so far. ♦ jaguar 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
  • All GameBoy release dates (both Color and Advance) need to be cited somewhere, preferably within article body, but even within the infobox is better than not having any refs for them at all
  • "18 months" from "work on Donkey Kong Country over 18 months" doesn't sound like accurate math when work is said to have begun around August 1993 before a November 1994 release. Those timeframes are actually 15 months apart. Can you pinpoint a day or even month when production finished? That would help narrow down a more likely start time.
    • So this is a little confusing and I can see why it needs to be clarified: the 18 month figure is the total amount of time it took for the game to evolve from concepts into the final product, while the August 1993 date is when work on the game itself actually started. I've clarified this in prose. JOEBRO64 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "cited" from "frequently cited as one of the greatest video games" (both from lead and "Retrospective assessments") reads awkwardly. You'd be better off with something like "considered", "deemed", "perceived", or "ranked".
  • I'm a bit surprised the list of subsequent DK games in the lead doesn't include Donkey Kong 64 considering how that also became quite popular
  • Within the first paragraph of "Gameplay", it feels repetitive to start three consecutive sentences with "the"
  • Remove the colon from "Buddies include: Rambi"
  • You're using semi-colons excessively, and the second sentence from the last paragraph of "Gameplay" is quite a mouthful! You can split that apart by changing the semi-colons into periods.
  • Try to change things up for the second paragraph of "Design" per my above comments on "Gameplay"
  • "too great a departure"..... I assume you mean "too much" or "too big" here for Diddy Kong's design, and either of those would work better than "great"
  • "It cost an estimated US$1 million to produce and, at the time, had the most man hours ever invested in a video game, 22 years; in 2019, Gregg Mayles said this number would be impossible in the modern game industry." is another overly long sentence. See my above recommendation on how splitting can fix it.
  • "GamePro said it would be extraordinarily popular during the 1994 holiday shopping season." from "Reception" doesn't really tell us anything about whether the reviewer liked this game, and same goes for GameFan predicting influence
    • I've removed the GamePro one as I couldn't figure out a way to reword it, and reworded the GameFan one to be more about what it says the review thought of its quality JOEBRO64 20:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably guess what's wrong with "Consumers were unfamiliar with 3D graphics at the time; according to Official Nintendo Magazine, by bringing next-generation graphics to the SNES just 12 days before the PlayStation's Japanese launch, Donkey Kong Country persuaded consumers that an immediate upgrade was unnecessary." from "Legacy"
  • Unless Mekazoo, Kaze and the Wild Masks, and Kroko Bongo: Tap to the Beat! are likely to warrant articles in the near future, I'd unlink these
    • I've unlinked Kroko Bongo, but not the other two; from my searches, they appear to have gotten more than enough coverage to warrant standalone articles. JOEBRO64 20:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't italicize Digital Spy, "Square Enix Music Online", Fanbyte, Iwata Asks, AllGame, "All Things Andy Gavin", or "Original Sound Version"
  • In contrast, add italics for Game Informer and Advertising Age (which should read as Ad Age)
  • Citation#100 ("New screens honor the legacy of Donkey Kong Country - but WHY?") is missing a "+" for its GamesRadar+ bit
  • There's a HarvRef error for citation#119 ("Turner, Williams & Nutt 2003") when not connected to any used sources

Overall, this isn't too far off from being FA-level. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to all points above JOEBRO64 20:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and just to be clear: is it known when work finished for the game? When the 18 month bit appears to have started before the August 1993 full-scale production began, that suggests conceptual work started May 1993 or earlier. Giving a timeframe for this could help narrow it down. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS, it doesn't appear anywhere in reliable sources, unfortunately. From my research, total development lasting 18 months and actual production beginning in August '93 is the most we know. I did some additional looking today (including in old Nintendo Power issues and documents Mayles has posted on his Twitter) and came up dry. If it appears in a reliable source eventually, I'll 100% add it in ASAP. JOEBRO64 07:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I now support the nomination based on changes already made. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

edit

I gave this one a read. I could nitpick, but I think the prose is solid. Excellent job on the influence section, to show the impact of this game and why it is so celebrated. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CollectiveSolidarity

edit

I did a peer-review on this a few weeks ago, and I’m pleased that the prose has improved even more from when I last checked. This is a great nomination, and I am happy to support based upon the research and prose. Excellent work! CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retro

edit

I have something of a long-term fascination with the DK series, so I was excited to see this article nominated for FA-status.

I did notice one thing:

  • [it] had the most man hours [...] 22 years: just based on basic math, the 20-person team size mentioned a few sentences prior, and the linked definition of man-hour, I found this claim dubious, both in counting methodology and accurately comparing to other video games' development time. It's sourced by Rare's website. Probably mention the source in-text or remove it?
    • "Man hours", in this context, refers to the cumulative hours that everyone who worked on DKC added up. DKC had what was a large budget and development team for the time, so I don't think the claim is dubious, especially since the text clarifies that it was at the time. I can see where you're coming from that it's from Rare's site though, so I've added in-text attribution. JOEBRO64 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this article has seen remarkable improvements in depth and composition quality since I last worked on it in 2018. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Retro: thank you for the kind words! I've responded above JOEBRO64 19:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Support) Source review from David Fuchs

edit

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Working off of this revision:[reply]

  • Digital Spy is not italicized like other websites in the refs. Also issues with ref ordering.
  • What makes OriginalSoundVersion a reliable source? Square Enix Music Online? Fanbyte? Likewise, Nintendo World Report might be reliable, but I don't think it's necessarily the strongest possible source to be using.
    • Per WP:VG/S, all Square Enix Music Online articles by site staff is acceptable as a source. Fanbyte has an extensive set of editors, with the chief editor, Danielle Riendeau, being the managing editor of Vice Media's Waypoint (which is reliable). The author of the cited article, Jack Yarwood, has written for numerous reliable sources, including Polygon, PC Gamer, The Washington Post, and Eurogamer. OriginalSoundVersion is listed as reliable by WP:VG/S, with a lot of its staff working at other reliable sources such as RPGFan and Destructoid. NWR is used extensively in other FAs, including relatively recent promotions like Donkey Kong 64 and Super Mario Galaxy, and barring that precedent, it's not being used to back anything sensational or questionable. JOEBRO64 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really not sold on the self-published Twitter posts and unreliable Youtube documentaries here. If secondary sources aren't picking up on this stuff, that suggests it's not important for inclusion, and that goes with stuff that you'd have to argue SPS applies for. These aren't the best possible sources for an FA, and certainly not to cite so heavily versus a more vetted history.
    • I ensured every interview I cited was a proper interview and met the SPS guidelines. The GameXplain and Shesez interviews were both noted by RSs ([21] and [22]). They're both by verified YouTube accounts with the lead staff who worked on the game, and both accounts are frequently featured in RSs ([23][24][25][26]), and GameXplain staff (such as Michael Koczwara and Jon Cartwright, who actually conducted the cited interviews) have worked for other RSs. The mere two uses of Twitter align with WP:TWITTER (they're both from the verified accounts of developers who worked on Donkey Kong Country, including the lead designer, Gregg Mayles, and are used in about-self fashion and do not make exceptional claims). Both instances are minor, however—I can remove them if this explaination isn't enough. I've removed the Sound Test interview as that one seems the weakest. The other video interviews are published by Digital Foundry (a subsection of Eurogamer) and Game Informer. JOEBRO64 14:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My problem is that their usage goes way beyond what I would consider acceptable for WP:SELFPUB, even if they count as reliable (especially for Shesez, I simply don't see it. Getting press attention for game-breaking doesn't make you a journalistic outfit.) As the article itself demonstrates, people have different memories of events, especially 25 years later, and that compounds the issues with just taking their claims as gospel without the framework of any evidence of vetting. And, again, if the only sources we have for this stuff are collected testimonies from the devs via a YouTuber, that implies that the content isn't really worth covering in the detail given per WP:WEIGHT (the referenced sources above mentioning the interviews don't go into anywhere that level of detail.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked to refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 26, 28, 35, 37, 39, 43, 52, 55, 71, 81, 94, 103, 105, 114, 123, 131, 135, 144, 153, 164, and 166.
    • I don't particularly think [27] is particularly strong enough to call DKC a reboot.
      • How? The source says "[it] strays a little from the reboot formula but it did set up the move to a new land so we'll give it a pass," which is still defining it as a reboot. Nonetheless, I've added another source calling it a reboot. JOEBRO64 14:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, the claim that the game takes places after the arcade games seems pretty weak, if just cited to the Kotaku article, which is a) often referencing a wiki, and b) doesn't cite any definitive claims or evidence.
    • Ref 10-11 don't source the seven areas bit afaict.
    • The scare quotes in "Miyamoto was still involved with the project and provided "certain key pieces of input"." don't make it clear who or what's being quoted.
  • As a general comment, breaking up[a] text with multiple[b] references, instead of sticking them at the end of clauses and sentences,[c] makes it hard to actually read, and also doesn't make it much clearer what's getting cited to what.[d][e]
  • Noting a pretty systemic issue with MOS:QUOTEPOV/MOS:CONFORM throughout. Stuff shouldn't be getting as many scare quotes as they are, especially since it interferes with summarizing info rather than just relisting it.

I'm opposing at present, because I think the reliance on weak interviews is excessive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strike a pose. Popcornfud (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Thank you for the review, I've responded to all points above. Are my changes/explanations enough for you to strike the oppose? If not please let me know and I can do some more work. JOEBRO64 14:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: just a little nudge, hope you don't mind. JOEBRO64 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment from Popcornfud

edit

Would be good to standardize the capitalization styling of the citation titles — some use Title Case, some use sentence case. I realize this reflects the casing of the original sources but I believe we should be internally consistent. (I'd vote for going with sentence case, in keeping with Wikipedia's general MoS.) Popcornfud (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: think I got 'em all. ProveIt's a lifesaver. JOEBRO64 23:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind, it was better before.
Just kidding, looks nice and tidy now. Popcornfud (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: we good to go now? JOEBRO64 23:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 August 2022 [28].

BTS

edit
Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk), Wehwalt (talk), and Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about the contemporary music group BTS from South Korea. It is a co-nomination with Wehwalt and a renewed FAC with updated text and sources. The previous successful GAN nomination was done as a co-nomination with Btspurplegalaxy who is also on the top 10 editor list for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit

Similar reasons as last time, I don't feel my concerns were fully addressed. The sourcing can still be improved with the books that are now minimally cited; journal articles I brought up were not included at all. Some of the citations now lack page numbers, eg. " John Lie, "BTS, the Highest Stage of K-pop". In Youna Kim, Ed. The Soft Power of the Korean Wave. "Chapter 7". Routledge Press. 2022." I don't know exactly how many pages there are in a chapter, but this is not ideal for verifiability. Another book is listed in bibliography and cited using sfn referencing, so I would cite all book sources the same way for consistency. The nominator is the author of 4.7% of the article, so concern about how he can guarantee the accuracy of the remaining 95% remains. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there's not any question of our compliance with procedure per WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE, I'm noting that in the opinion of the nominators, all of Buidhe's concerns have been addressed, and a notice left on her talk page, the diff being this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to say it was "an improvement" on your talk page here: [29]. Also, all three of the editors listed as nominators are listed by Wikitools on the top 10 list of editors for "authorship" out of over 1500 editors for the article: Wehwalt is #7, Ernest is #6, and Btspurple is #4. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers in the Soft Power book have now been added, and I'll go through the refs and see what can be done. More learned sources have been added. Again, I'll do more on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources cited in the opposes in the two FACs are now included, as well as other scholarly sources. Much of the article is basically about facts, the group's activities in the years since its founding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe we have, I believe, addressed your concerns. A number of scholarly sources are now used, sfn has been adopted for the book and article sources where it was not present, and I'm assured by ErnestKrause that the sources (which were gone through when the article was pared down from the sprawling mess it was) do reflect the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've repeatedly been asked to change my oppose, but sourcing issues remain in the article such as citing self-published medium and forbes contributors. Some citations are broken with the message "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation". The question of how people who wrote a minority of the article have verified the sourcing and accuracy of the remaining 90 percent or so remains. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about authorship appears not to know about the long edit history of the BTS article. Previous editors from the last 10 years had bloated the article to over 400Kb in size. Those 'authors' of the article made a sprawling mess of the old version of the BTS article, and GAN was successfull only because the article went through an extensive bulking down process to get it through a successful GAN. You appear to keep wanting to give credit to the old previous editors who caused it to become bloated at over 400Kb in size last year which detracted from the article being able to get to GAN. The GAN succeeded due to bulking down the article and not super-adding text to a article that was already over 400Kb.
Your comment about Forbes must refer to the one citation to Forbes in the entire article to document the release of their song "Dynamite". That citation is written by a Forbes staff member which is acceptable to Wikipedia policy; only non-staff Forbes article are excluded by Wikipedia policy. If you see any SPS problems in the article, then state them by name since the article has had an extensive review of citations at its successfull GAN.
The Harv-cite error you mention appears only for the one book by Kim Young which was added by a previous editor, and which Wehwalt is in the process of converting to sfn; it is already in the sfn section of the Bibliography. The print-out of the article on my screen shows no other Harv-cite issues at this time. If you see any other Harv-cite issues, then you can them list them here, since none of them are coming up on my screen print-out at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were several sfn errors, but I've gone through everything now and they're fixed. As for the assurances of accuracy, there's ErnestKrause's assurances on this front and I think both ErnestKrause's comments just above and FrB.TG's just below respond to that. At this point, this seems to be an oppose where everything either has been addressed or (in the case of the concern about accuracy, there's nothing that can, or so far as I can tell, should, be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, any further thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We did of course ping her and leave a message on her talk page quite some time ago after her objection was addressed in full. That should speak for itself at this point in the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Are we able to move forward given Buidhe's lack of response? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit
Resolved comments from FrB.TG

The additions of academic sources have definitely improved the article. I partially disagree with the oppose above, i.e. with the part that the nominators not being major authors of the article could mean there are unsupported/misinterpreted claims there. Unless a spot-checker specifically identifies issues on this front, it's just an assumption that these exist. (Note I'm not saying that these don't exist, but only saying the possible issues would first need to be confirmed to warrant an oppose on that ground.) Some of my comments regarding sourcing can be found here on my talk page. My comments here will mostly focus on the prose and MoS issues.

  • "By 2017, BTS crossed into the global music market, leading the Korean Wave into the United States" - the Wikipedia article does not capitalize "wave" in Korean Wave.
Should be lower case and changed to lower case. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are the first Asian and non-English speaking act to be named the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's (IFPI) Global Recording Artist of the Year (2020–2021), to chart on Billboard's Top Touring Artists of the 2010s (placing at number 45), and to headline and sell out Wembley Stadium and the Rose Bowl (Love Yourself World Tour in 2019)." Too many and's here.
Rewrite long sentence as two sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at the Incheon Music Center in September 2013 02.jpg appears in between two sections; either place it at the beginning of Name or Career section.
Mirror flip image with quote box in Career section. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This extended their name to mean "growing youth BTS who is going beyond the realities they are facing, and going forward."[10]" Per MOS:LQ, the full stop should be placed outside the quotation mark.
Correct period location. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS was originally supposed to be a hip hop group similar to YG Entertainment's 1TYM,[13] but soon after the group was created, Bang Si-hyuk decided to create an idol group similar to Seo Taiji and Boys, a group which was popular in the 90's." Usage of group four times in one sentence and I would change '90's to 1990s.
Divide long sentence into two sentences, and rewrite. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here was a musical act that wasn’t pulling any punches." Avoid using curly apostrophes (’) and use a straight (') one instead (per MOS:'). There are other ones throughout the article and you would need to go through them.
I just strained my eyes and I hope got them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their subsequent single, "We Are Bulletproof Pt. 2", failed to chart at all." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The release topped the Gaon Album Chart,[37] and it also appeared on Billboard's World Albums Chart for the first time, peaking at number three." Prose redundancy.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Skool Luv Affair's release" - the possessive ('s) should not be in italics.
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 2014, BTS hosted a free concert in West Hollywood, their first show in the United States" - the article randomly switches between using United States and US. Stick to one.
Changed all to "US" for consistency throughout article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 01:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band released their first Japanese studio album, Wake Up (2014), that December; the release" - release used in twice in close proximity.
Copy edit wording. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS wanted to express the beauty and anxiousness of youth and settled on the title" - whose title are we talking about here? Addendum: it's only clarified in the next sentence.
Rewrite first two sentence of that paragraph. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album's second single, "Dope (Korean: 쩔어; RR: Jjeoreo)," peaked at number three" - place the quotation sign before the comma.
moved to the proper place Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bangtan Boys at KCON France 2016.jpg and File:BTS win first Daesang (Grand Prize) at Melon Music Awards, 19 November 2016.jpg are placed too closely to each other in opposite directions, creating a WP:SANDWICH issue.
Pull KCon image up one paragraph to avoid image sandwich. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Spring Day" later won Best Song of the Year at the 2017 Melon Music Awards." It's obvious that one wins awards for their work later on so it's uneeded.
Drop extra word. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercially, BTS continued to hit new career heights" - "hit new career heights" sounds too informal.
Expand their artistic successes, sounds more on point. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December, they also became the first K-pop group" - unnecessary use of "also".
Removed. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP needed in a lot of places e.g. "300 million" and "September 2017". Check thoroughly.

Down to the end of 2014–2017: Mainstream and international breakthrough. This should keep you busy for a while. I'll return with more comments later. FrB.TG (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another dozen to two dozen nbsp additions to improve readability on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple were missed, which I've added myself. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I've addressed a few of them and will return tomorrow to get more of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be up to date as to the above comments. Ready for next set of edit comments when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, do you have more? I'd like to be able to show some progress towards promotion to the coordinators.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I’ve been sick the last two days so I got little done around here. I’ll definitely follow up in the next few days. FrB.TG (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commercially, Love Yourself: Tear became one of BTS' best selling albums." The source does not say this. From its achievement of becoming the first K-pop album to top the US charts, it's somewhat implied, but we would need a source explicitly stating this.
Cut those words.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the highest-charting album by an Asian act" - not mentioned anywhere in the source.
I suppose it is by implication as you can't go higher than #1 but I've substituted that it was the first album predominately sung in another language besides English to reach #1 in 12 years.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 129 and 134 should be marked with a |url-access=subscription parameter.
I've added it to 134. 129 already has it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a landmark concert in the Seoul Olympic Stadium, the largest stadium in South Korea." - I believe "landmark" is unneeded. Mentioning the feat, which made it a "landmark", should suffice.
Sliced.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Lie, in his scholarly article on BTS, opined that the Nazi incident showed that they is not tightly controlled" - plural.
Tweaked--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They also made the Bloomberg 50" - it would help if the reader could understand why the Bloomberg 50 is significant. Perhaps something like "They were listed as one of the 50 most influential people by Bloomberg..." while linking the "one of the 50 most influential people" to the listing.
Done, phrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "getting four from each awards show and which was never previously done at the Mnet Asian Music Awards" - this could be better phrased. The switch from an -ing form to the use of a relative pronoun reads awkwardly.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 209 should be marked as being in Korean.
That's done--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" (2017)—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US." Can we rephrase this sentence a bit so we don't repeat "number one" thrice?
It is only stated twice in the sentence you reproduce. I've removed it from the following sentence, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The members' experiences with South Korean youth culture also inspired the songs "Dope" and "Silver Spoon" (Korean: 뱁새; RR: Baepsae) from their youth trilogy, which reference generational disparity and millennials having to give up romantic relationships, marriage, children, proper employment, homes, and social life in the face of economic difficulties and societal ills while facing condemnation from the media and older generations." This is a very long sentence. I suggest splitting it for readability.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On April 29, 2019, Time magazine named BTS one of the 100 most influential people of the year" - this is also mentioned in the career section.
Given the length of the article, it being related to what is being discussed in both sections, and the fact that our readers rarely read articles in full, it's worth stating in both places.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits here for MoS fixes, ref. formatting and minor copy-edits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, I've made those changes or otherwise replied and your changes look good. Thanks for the review and help with this article and I hope you're feeling better.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments were dealt with in a speedy manner by the three nominators. My review was mostly based on prose and MoS concerns, but I also had some involvement with the sourcing before the renomination. With K. Peake's thorough source review, I am confident that it meets the sourcing criteria as well. I understand Buidhe's concern for sources-to-text accuracy but very few spot-checks of my own didn't show anything to be worried about; please note this is not a pass on spot-checking and would have to be conducted more thoroughly (should it be requested). FrB.TG (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by K. Peake

edit
Resolved comments from K. Peake

Note: All "platinum", "gold, and "silver" adjectives in prose and narrative have been changed to lower case only throughtout the article now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think citations are needed for Columbia and Universal in the infobox when these labels are sourced in the body.
  • Same as above for Big Hit Entertainment in the lead, with this debut being directly mentioned in the body.
  • Where is the alternative universe storyline sourced in the body? Also, the "and" here should have a comma before it.
I called it an alternate reality to avoid double use of universe.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The body says they were the quickest act to achieve four number-ones since Justin Timberlake, not Michael Jackson.
Justin T. now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs are quite large, especially the last one; I would suggest converting the lead into four paras.
Four paragraph lead section now. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 32 millions figure is not directly mentioned in the body, even though it can be sourced.
Having sold million of albums...and growing sales. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not sourced the Top Touring Artists of the 2010s anywhere, also I don't think number 45 should be in brackets.
Trimming old accolades from 2010. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Next Generation Leaders" quote is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most influential people in the world ranking is not sourced.
Now sourced in Accolades and Awards section. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards.
Stylized. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UNICEF partnership is not sourced.
It is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "BTS was formed in 2010".
  • "unlike Seo Taiji's music," → use "the group" instead because this is not his solo work.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure you do not use "the group" or "they" on too many consecutive occasions in this article.
I only saw one place where consecutive sentences begin with either and I changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean starting a sentence, more so the mentions of the group directly after each other being monotonous. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done about a half dozen of these; are there more that need attention? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the top five in South Korea on the Gaon Music Chart." → "the top five on the Gaon Music Chart in South Korea."
I rejigged it as "the top five on South Korea's Gaon Music Chart".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This record was released" → "The album was released" and a full-stop is needed for the previous sentence.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nightclub is not mentioned anywhere as being where the group had their first performance.
Not mentioned in a paragraph but there is a picture of the club with the caption "Exterior of the nightclub Troubadour (photo taken 2006) where BTS held their first concert in the US for free" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last entry in their" → "The last entry in BTS'".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas before albums and tours in the body for instances like Dark & Wild and 2014 BTS Live Trilogy Episode II: The Red Bullet, as these are not needed.
Drop commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the release year of The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 1.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "beautiful moment in life."" any of these quotes when it is not a full sentence should have the punctuation outside of speech marks per MOS:QUOTE.
Should be outside now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This third EP explored the" → "The EP explored the".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid too many consecutive uses of "the album" or any similar terms.
Trimmed this phrase when used in consecutive sentences. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The img of them performing in France does not have any relevancy to the article.
They're performers and it's the only image we have of them performing on stage in that era.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is passable, then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eight of its tracks" → "and eight of the tracks".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma before "which combined the themes".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its lead single was" → "The lead single was".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aesthetics and lyricism and" → "aesthetics and lyricism, and".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as Billboard Music Awards on the img text too.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a remake of Seo Taiji's" → "a remake of his".
{Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it has been a couple sentences or so since a year was mentioned, add what one the month was in and same if a new para.
Add/delete date comments seem to pull in different directions. See your note directly below this. I've done both, but if you see more needed then let me know. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This para is one where it is really unclear, starting to talk about July then September with no mention of a year for BTS. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to July 2017 for clarity. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release years of Wings and You Never Walk Alone should not be mentioned, as you have already done this.
This one and the last one seem to pull in different direction about add/delete dates for readability. I've done both and if there are still problems with this just list them here, and I'll look at them. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US television debut is not mentioned anywhere, although their American Music Awards appearance is.
It is mentioned in a image caption "BTS at the 45th American Music Awards shortly before making their debut performance on US television on November 19, 2017." So let me know if you still want it to be mentioned in the paragraph. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To call something their debut, you need an actual source stating this, --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten caption to say it is in America. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psy is the first," → "Psy was the first," with the wikilink.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attained Gold certification" → "attained gold certifications".
On the certifications, there is a discussion on article talk that certifications should be capitalized.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're now all lower cased per comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "achieved Platinum status" → "achieved platinum status".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on December 6." → "on December 6, 2017."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done on RIAJ. For the caps, see previous comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released on April 4," → "released on April 4, 2018,".
Got it.
  • "It is the seventeenth" → "It is the 17th" per MOS:NUM.
Numbers expressible by one and two words can be expressed as words per MOS:NUMERAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Gold by the RIAA in November." → "certified gold by the RIAA in November 2018."
Done on the year, for the rest see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received Platinum certifications" → "received platinum certifications".
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though using a redirect is quite proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the UK and Australia[164][165] and the group's" → "the UK and Australia[164][165], and the group's".
Done with the comma before the cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debuted at number 8" → "debuted at number eight".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Rose Bowl performance is sourced.
BTS were also the first Asian act to sell out the Rose Bowl. Now sourced in Impact section. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified Double Platinum by Gaon," → "certified double platinum by Gaon," and specify what country.
All 'gold, platinum, silver' should now be done. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world million should not be capitalised
Since it's a certification, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "later attained Silver certification in the UK," → "was later certified silver by the BPI in the UK,".
Done with slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the US[199]" missing a full-stop.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking," → "on Billboard's Top Billboard 200 Artists–Duo/Group ranking,".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add (IFPI) in brackets.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be certified Quadruple Million." → "be certified quadruple million."
Done by Ernest Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US Billboard 200 making" → "US Billboard 200, making".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • top-ten → top-10
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of their debut The concert" → "of their debut. The concert".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chart becoming the fastest-selling single since Taylor Swift's" → "chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on US's overall radio chart." → "on the overall US radio chart."
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not use Kyung Hyun Kim's full name after the first mention of him.
I thought it safer since other Kims authored others of the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply write Kyung Hyun if so? --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not sourced that "Butter" was performed at the AMAs.
Cite added. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Instead of a source for the AMA performance Ernest, you added one for the 2022 Butter Grammy performance. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at number two and" → "at number two, and".
Added comma Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with "Dynamite" placing tenth." → "with "Dynamite" placing 10th."
See MOS:NUMBERAL, MOS:ORDINAL.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize as 2022 Billboard Music Awards.
Italicized Billboard Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage of "the band" is not appropriate, as they are never once called this in the lead.
They are called a boy band in the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of 1.7 Billion dollars" → "of 1.7 billion dollars".
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the date of the Freddie Mercury tribute performance.
This looks like the Live Aid concert which is sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add the date of it per the source(s), then. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add date. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linking now. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the years for their albums and songs that have previously been mentioned.
This has to do with the sentence about their use of music genres and I think it's useful to have the years in that sentence to allow the reader to trace this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but there should not be usage of brackets though. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no square brackets at this point; let me know if any are still there. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, add the release year to any of the works that are new to the article at this point.
  • The Crystal S. Anderson quote should be written with noted and a comma before the quote if it is a full sentence; elsewise, move punctuation outside of the quote.
It's a full sentence. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [311][312][313][314][315] is too many sentences grouped together; move around to appropriate areas for avoiding this problem.
  • "from the very start"." → "from the very start."" per this being a full sentence.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "No More Dream" and "N.O".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on "Dope".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after The Most Beautiful Moment in Life: Young Forever.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BTS' 2016 studio album Wings focused on" → "Wings focused on".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the release year of Be, also add a speech mark to end the quote.
I've closed the quote marks. But I think it's helpful to the reader to have years in the sections which are not chronological, not all readers will be expert on the timing of BTS's discography.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links on "Am I Wrong" and "Forever Rain".
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 15:32, 23 Juns 2022 (UTC)
  • "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praise" → "Journalist Jeff Benjamin praised".
Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove link on Time.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and 60s age demographic"." → "and 60s age demographic."" per this being a full sentence quoted.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as effectively as South Korean singer Psy did" → "as effectively as Psy did".
Done by Wehwalt Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas around the Bank of Korea.
Remove commas. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
Add comma. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Youna Kim, Villabert and" → "Kim, Villabert, and" unless Youna is the surname, then write that here per it being the second mention.
Let it remain as it is. As Wehwalt previously mentioned there are others who share the surname. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You still need to add the comma for the correct form of English. --K. Peake 09:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Villabert has been dropped as per your indication of being an unreliable source. Edit rewritten without her cite. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the introduction to Moon Jae-in since you did this previously; refer to him as simply Moon on all times after the introduction.
Completed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed wikilink Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and an expansion of" → "as well as an expansion of".
Done! Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove wikilink on COVID-19 pandemic.
Duplicate link removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2018[375][376] and promoting" → "in 2018,[375][376] and promoting".
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Fila to itself.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stylize asBillboard Music Awards.
{Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove capitalisation for million, platinum, gold, diamond and silver.
Ernest has done this. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{spaced ndash}} so there is the right space for members.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Wings be italicised in the tour title when it is not in the article?
Should be ready for source review when available. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, I think we've gotten just about everything. Do you have a position on whether to support the article for promotion? And are you good on the source review? Many thanks for most thorough and searching reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still take issue with overusage of the group or similar terms, which I elaborated on above from my initial comment. Also, the img calling the concert their first still needs a citation to actually verify this, writing Kyung Hyun after the first mention would be most appropriate per previous and are you sure repeated release years should be in brackets again? Source review responses below. --K. Peake 06:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the image, I just removed the first all together, as I couldn't find any source to back up the claim. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 09:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Source review
edit

Source review

  • Shouldn't Universal Music Japan be cited as publisher instead?
Changed Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Behance.
Done 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If possible, Naver should only be linked on the first instance.
Naver is virtually unmentioned in the article, though it appears in about 103 citaions. Each one of the cites links Naver following this Wikipedia convention for citations. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 is missing a publisher.
Publisher is listed in Korean on the last of the nine image pages on Amazon if someone can access the micro-font on the screen here [30]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure one is adding in some way or another then, as otherwise the citation is not filled in correctly. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaon Music Chart should be cited as publisher instead, also only wikilink it on the first instance.
Gaon is attributed to its webcite and as a 'work' in the citations throughout the article follwoing the Wikipedia convention for linking with each citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this stance on linking for citations, have you done this for all repeated works/publishers then? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the publishers and added links where necessary. The work field is no longer used in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Melon as publisher instead.
It is compiled from online data provided by web-based music providers such as Genie, Melon, FLO, Soribada, Naver VIBE, KakaoMusic and Bugs. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mwave to Mnet (TV channel) solely on the first instance instead, also this should be always cited as publisher.
Done but I've piped on every instance per the explanations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoneBtspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Billboard on the first ref.
The Billboard links are to indivual pages mostly for their individual lists such as: Billboard Global 200 and US Billboard Hot 100, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Oricon on the first ref.
There are over 40 link to Oricon which are virtually all done for the individual citations following the Wikipedia policy for linking each individual citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always cite Yonhap News Agency as publisher and only link the first time.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 15:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per other comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Fuse as publisher instead on both refs and pipe to Fuse (TV channel) on the first instance.
Done, though I have piped on both because of the convention for citations mentioned by Ernest.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but good thing you changed it to this rather than the incorrect magazine article. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there MOS:CAPS issues with ref 73, or is that just how Youth is stylized? Same with MAMA for ref 153 and Map of the Soul for refs 212 and 259?
Restylize fonts back to lower case. The 'Youth' upper case was actually stylized in the Korean title using only upper case English. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:QWQ issues with refs 75 and 204.
Both QWQ fixed. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite CNN as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Korea Herald should only be linked on the first occasion.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked them per the above,--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Billboard Japan.
They're linked per above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to doing this, also cite it as work/website instead? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that and listed (and linked) Billboard as the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Official Charts Company as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CAPS issues with refs 133, 250 and 261.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Huffington Post to HuffPost on the first ref only.
This should be cited as work/website, also pipe to the Wiki I said rather than the current redirect. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it, though cited as publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 135 is missing a publisher and via.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TeenVogue → Teen Vogue with the link, only citing once and fix MOS:QWQ issues.
Done, usual caveat re linking them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Variety to Variety (magazine) on the first instance only, always citing as work/website/magazine.
Done, see above.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite MSN as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only wikilink USA Today on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above for Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Naver not cited as via on ref 151?
Cited it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Grammy as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues with both refs.
The citation was correct, but what about the capitals issues? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proper publisher is The Recording Academy and I've changed it. I've title-cased the "GRAMMYS", which I guess is what you were talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 160 has MOS:QWQ issues and remove the link on Teen Vogue.
The link can be kept, but what about the quotation marks issue? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the interior quotes to italics since SNL should be italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC citations should be publishers instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite British Phonographic Industry as publisher instead and only wikilink the first time.
Done, similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Korean Culture and Information Service as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite IFPI as publisher instead and only wikilink on the first occasion.
  • myx.abs-cbn.com → ABS-CBN with the wikilink and citing as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Rolling Stone on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Metacritic as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only link Vox on the first instance.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change pitchfork.com to Pitchfork.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Korea Economic Daily instead as it has an article. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite ARIA Charts as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add via Naver to any sources that are citing the website without you having added the parameter.
Did you catch this one? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link NME on the first ref only.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Music Business Worldwide as publisher instead and fix MOS:CAPS issues.
The caps issues still prevail and you need to wikilink this. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard magazine → Billboard.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent → The Independent.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Independent should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Los Angeles Times.
Similar comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe Bloomberg to Bloomberg News on ref 290 and cite as publisher instead.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dazed should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this, also cite as work/website instead. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and cited as magazine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't ref 307 be cited to lead to the bibliographical citation? Either way, link Triumph Books.
Totally missed this too. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed that now. Sorry these fell through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entertainment Weekly should only be linked on the first instance.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why for this one only? --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added for other two instances.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for Time.
  • Cite Radio.com as publisher instead and pipe to Audacy.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove All Things Considered from ref 341 and cite NPR as publisher instead with the link; the other citation should cite it as publisher with no link however.
Done with similar comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 18:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite The Korea Society as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite UPI as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missed all of these. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Herald Corportation as publisher instead.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of ref 392 citations are not filled in properly.
Done Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite Recording Industry Association of Japan as publisher instead.
  • The Bibliography stuff is fine, but link any of the citations on first usage.
Part two
edit
  • What makes these high-quality sources:
  • Star News
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 6:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • My Daily
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BNTNews
They seem to be defunct now, but by the description here, they probably qualified.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 06:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OSEN
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KStyle
It is used as a reference in this high-quality reliable source and therefore I presume it is high-quality itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • isplus.live.joins.com (not sure about the formatting either)
It's reliable, and it's actually the website for Ilgan Sports which is mentioned below. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the formatting for this website, then. --K. Peake 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added publisher and website. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Report
A scholarly source here has found it worth citing, so I'd say it's OK]].--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:23, 25 June 2022
  • News1 (this ref also has MOS:CAPS issues)
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten Asia
Listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sports Today
  • An examination of their website shows that they have an individual, Kim Han-kyung, who is listed as editor/publisher, and who is not the person responsible for writing the content. Accordingly, there seems to be editorial oversight and the professional appearance of that website supports that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, could you set out your view of a high quality RS, since it is not defined at WP:WIAFA and some of the nominators are relatively new to the process?
    At a bare minimum to be RS you must be able to show that the source has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Just existing and calling oneself a news website is not enough to count as a RS; many such sources are rated non-reliable by the Wikipedia community. High quality means to me that the source has a strong reputation for fact checking and accuracy rather than a marginal reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which would be a marginally reliable source. An example of a high-quality RS would be a peer-reviewed article published by researchers in their area of expertise. (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd concur with much of that. But even if we grant that the burden of showing "high quality" is on the nominators, it's answered for the ones that the Korean wiki project has found to be reliable, since they're probably in a better position to assess than we are. I'd go so far as to say that where there is such an assessment, the burden would be to show unreliability or bias. As a practical matter, these are the sort of things that can't be definitively settled (since finding sources saying a site has a strong reputation vs a bare reputation would be challenging even for the most common English-language sources), so we do the best we can with what information we can garner.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt's comment appears to be related to the standard approach taken by Wikipedia for reliable sources which is either to green light them as reliable, or to red light them as unreliable; there is a middle area also used by Wikipedia policy to identify 'use only with caution', or to make partial exclusions for some sources. For example, some magazines allow use only if editors are the authors, and to exclude contributors who are not editors at the magazine in question. The regular reading of 'high quality' seems to mean a confirmation that they are not red-flagged as to being unreliable sources by Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to "Sports Today", it is cited in several high-quality reliable sources listed here and therefore it is presumably high quality itself (the search is for the website's URL).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV Daily (this needs to be stylized consistently for refs if kept and add the language parameter always too)
Also listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SEDaily
Cited in several high-quality references listed here and therefore presumably high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewsWorks
Up to date Korean website for current affairs and news events. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in this high-quality reliable source and I presume it the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arama! Japan
Website providing broad coverage of music and pop culture events in Japan. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why it's a high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, twice, in this high quality reliable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FirstPost
Breaking News from India. Firstpost is linked to its Wikipedia article which looks acceptable. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstpost is cited in a number of high-quality reliable sources as per this search here (disregard the first one) and therefore I presume that it is high quality reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elite Daily
Elite Daily is an American online news platform founded by David Arabov, Jonathon Francis, and Gerard Adams. The site describes its target audience as millennials. Seems fine according to the linked Wikipedia article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's cited in a number of high quality reliable sources per this search here and therefore I presume it is the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stereogum
This is an award-winning blog, about which we have an article, Stereogum. Scott Lapatine's would seem to qualify as that of an established subject-matter expert, given the blog is 20 years old.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the vast majority of instances blog isn't a "high-quality reliable source" even if you could argue SPS. Since the band is made up of a few living people BLPSPS likely applies. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut that source and also removed the one style of music that seems exclusively sourced to that reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZE (this ref also has MOS:QWQ issues)
Cannot locate this in current version of article. Where is this quote-within-quote? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hwang, Hyo-jin (April 1, 2019). "BTS pledges to "tell the story of our generation with our lyrics""
Ref. 317 Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed quote marks. IZE is a Korean pop culture magazine which follows K-Pop. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 일간스포츠
Read about it here, Ilgan Sports, so it checks out. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 14:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also listed at WP:KO/RS Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 머니투데이
MTN Korean news source. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is used as a citation in multiple Korean periodicals and books. For example here: [31]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acclaim Magazine
Australian produced magazine on style adn culture. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in a number of high-quality reliable sources, here and therefore presume it's the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muse
Industry high quality format fashion magazine in tabloid size format. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it's "high quality" (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears as an extension of a TV channel in existence for over 10 years, extending to entertainment and sports coverage. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Business of Fashion
Industry fashion magazine which is also sold on Amazon with their business description displayed there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would being sold on Amazon indicate it's a high-quality RS? (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited in high-quality reliable sources here, presume it is the same.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • JoyNews24
In Korean, used throughout Wikipedia, for example Lomon. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why it's a high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cited as a source of this, which is used as a source in this article with its quality unchallenged.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoyNew24 is unreliable, so I removed it and replaced it with the Yohnap News source instead. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refinery29; this is one that is required to be removed per WP:RSP on it
Switch cite to International Business Times. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IBT is not a RS (t · c) buidhe 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Switch IBT to The Korean Herald. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolutionaries; this is owned by Medium so needs to be removed per WP:RSP
Drop Villebert, go with Quessard as reliable source. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--K. Peake 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm fairly sure all 52 via Naver edits are now in place. Wehwalt also says all the rest seems ready as well. Should be ready for your next set of edit comments when you have a chance to add them. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ErnestKrause and Wehwalt I still do take issue with Kyung Hyun Kim's full name being used every instance when I pointed out how you could fix this especially since it is monotonous, brackets () are still used for albums after the first mentions despite it being stated otherwise, refs 134 and 342 are formatted incorrectly and finally, why is HuffPost cited as publisher? --K. Peake 16:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake, given that Kim is the surname, wouldn't it be improper to refer to them by their other names? I've removed the brackets outside the lead, fixed the references and cited HuffPost as websites.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When he is the most recent Kim mentioned, use the surname only; elsewise, use the full one again. K. Peake 17:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all of these sorted now, I proudly support this article's candidacy! --K. Peake 20:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for all the work you put in.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - at about three weeks in with no strong movement towards a consensus to promote, this nomination is liable to be archived within three or so days unless substantial progress is made. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope you'd hold off long enough to see if the two substantial reviews we've had result in two supports and also there's a good chance at having the source review passed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly disagree, as there have been heavy efforts to improve this article. --K. Peake 20:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd ask coordinators to notice FrB.TG's comment above that they've been ill and are just getting back to finish their review. Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I added the archive link Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 2:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added personality rights templates to all images so requiring.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding alt text to all the images for accessibility per MOS:ACCIM. See MOS:ALT for examples. -- EN-Jungwon 14:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Hawkeye7

edit

I don't know a thing about K-Pop and don't even know the difference between a vocalist and a rapper. But while I'm here:

  • References required for the Concert toours section

Otherwise looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the reviews and support. I'll fine-tune anything necessary on the images tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

edit

I have not thoroughly examine the article. Here are some comments from my first impression:

  • Kudos to the scholarly sources!
  • Remove Metro per WP:RSP.
Removed and placed with Billboard source. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 4:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is necessary: In the United Kingdom, BTS is the first Korean group to receive BPI certification, and holds seven silver singles,[398] one gold single,[399] one platinum single,[400] seven silver album certifications,[401] and three gold album certifications.[402]" the claim "the first Korean group to receive BPI certification is unsourced, and the listing of all certifications appears as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The same goes to the specific listing of RIAA certs; I suggest adding only the overalls (i.e. xx million digital singles certified)
I've cut this. Having a running total is probably not going to be worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{lang}} to correctly render foreign-language names
  • Use |script-title=ko: (or |script-title=ja:) in {{cite web}} to correctly render foreign-language website titles
I've added them all. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must say the prose needs thorough fine-tuning
I've gone through it. Can you take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language is not up to standards at some places, i.e. how do you define "Moderate success" or "Worldwide recognition"? with UNICEF celebrating its success how successful was the campaign? Was it measurable/quantifiable? and attracted many new fans WP:PEACOCK. This demonstrated the growing power of the band's fanbase POV; the number speaks for itself. "a dual exploration of the group's electro-pop and hip-hop leanings" this can be safely paraphrased without quotation marks. Such language may be appropriate for a GA, but not for an FA.
I've gone through it and taken out anything that might be construed as peacocky, in particular changing the mentions you've pointed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subsections for a two-to-three-year chunk are a lot! I know they have been a smash and broken numerous records, but still, remove whatever can be removed and use summary style.
I've cut out what I thought was relatively trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a little sprawling and some bits of information can be safely excluded—i.e. In April, BTS became the first South Korean artist to sell more than 20 million albums cumulatively ... making them the best-selling artist in South Korean history. (the 32.7 million figure in the Awards section is enough) or "Dynamite" remained at number two, making BTS the fourth group (after the Beatles, Bee Gees, and OutKast) to simultaneously occupy the top two spots on the Hot 100 (if they are the fourth group to achieve this feat it can be left in the song article). Information on the evolution of themes/styles can be grouped altogether in the "Artistry" section.
I've deleted a fair amount along these lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ippantekina (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment by CactiStaccingCrane

edit
  • Oppose Comment: Sorry for being harsh, but I have some big concerns about BTS#Fandom's dueness and without it being addressed, I don't feel comfortable this article getting a FA status. To be very blunt, I feel that the section is too promotional, with phrases such as the fandom regularly embraces activism on charitable causes and socio-political issues, charitable contributions, non-hierarchical collective intelligence that transcend cultural and national borders or extending the band's message of positivity into the world. I do think that this section should be kept, but completely rewritten in order to comply with neutrality and somewhat shorten to comply our due proportions policy. Otherwise, great work on BTS, and I'm happy to struck my oppose once my concern is addressed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve cut some. But the fandom is not puffing, this part of the article is very heavily supported by scholarly sources. I've been involved in music fandom in my time, and the fans' aspirations were heavily focused on the music and on the band members. This is different. To cite from the scholarly sources, Chang and Park, p. 268, "On the whole, we find that the fandoms, constituted through the digital intimacies of cyberspace, gradually proceed from the realm of personal relations and individual experience to an expanding sympathy with social, and even political, issues that organically connect to the experiences of BTS and ARMY members. A moving target, as this living phenomenon has extended in real time to the global stage, it has started to reveal its cultural and social complexity and potential to both reflect and drive social change." Or Lee and Kao, p. 81: " BTS ARMY is extremely well-organized and was able to help motivate BTS to issue a statement and donate funds. In fact, the effectiveness of the fandom has been repeatedly demonstrated in their ardent support of BTS, but in this situation, they prompted BTS to act on a political issue. Most recently, the rise of anti-Asian hate crimes and negative bias incidents due to COVID-19 in the U.S. and elsewhere has led to the hashtag #stopasianhate and #stopAAPIhate. In March 2021, BTS released a statement utilizing the above hashtags to condemn racism against Asian Americans,and stated that they had also experienced racism as Asians when traveling outside of Korea. Their statements resonated with fans across the world and with Asian Americans, as well as Asians in other Western countries.The political power of the BTS ARMY is important for K-pop itself because it showsthe possible trajectory of K-pop as a global cultural phenomenon." It isn't puffing, it's a thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Lil-Unique1

edit
Resolved comments from Lil-unqiue1
  • The overall article size per WP:SIZE is on the upper limits of what we'd expect for a single article. At 233b its approaching the territory where we might we want to split the article
  • The diplomacy section is WP:OR - although I don't disagree that that was BTS have done is a form of soft power, it is original research to say this and synthesis unless specific sources have called it out themselves.
So what you want is sources saying BTS has exercised soft power.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the Music Style section is completely synthesised and overly detailed. I'd remove this.
  • In the influences section, picking out specific songs is overly detailed for an overview.
  • Some of the references are missing the "language" field and contain capitals which is a violation of MOS:CAPS
  • Recently this was checked for Korean and Japanese; if any are still there possibly you can list them here. Regarding CAPS, I seem to recall that some of the Korean titles were actually stylized to include the English language album titles in full caps and this stylizing was preserved. Remove it might overstep being able to attribute it to the source in its current format. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the following that might be worth changing:
Typo resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 220, BLACKPINK is all in caps - not required per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Ref 81 BTS ARMY - change army to sentence case
  • Ref 372 has caps in the title
I'd want these addressing ideally >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the initial comments from me. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright tool in this case seems to be keying on keywords which the two articles have in common, though I could find no copyvio issues other than false positives which seem to be related to a large number of common words and terms; for example your article uses "BTS' RM and Suga talk mental health, depression, and connecting with fans" are all common words and phrases related to talk about 'mental health', and 'depression', etc. Still, if you believe that you have an instance of comparing one full sentence in your articles to one full sentence in the Wikipedia article, then you can list the A-to-B comparison here. I've not been able to see anything other than the high number of common words and phrases used in describing mental health issues etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It needs paraphrasing. Its not just certain words randomly its an entire phrase/sentence(s)/clauses. Paraphrase or reword in your own words. Other than that I can't find much else to fault here tbh. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Time magazine one is due entirely to quotes, all I think said by RM, that are common to both articles, and we've put them in quotation marks and attributed them properly. For the EW, again, a lot of it is quotes both articles use and what words ARMY stands for, but I've paraphrased the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor

edit

I have given this a readthrough and I am satisfied that the prose meets the standards becoming of a featured article. Well done, ErnestKrause, Wehwalt, and Btspurplegalaxy! --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox

edit
  • In August 2014, BTS released their first Korean studio album Dark & Wild" — nothing in the ref supports the release date or that it was their first Korean studio album.
  • "t was supported by two singles: "Danger" — not supported by ref
  • "to a crowd of 6,500 fans" — not supported by ref

Three unsourced facts in one paragraph is concerning. Heartfox (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in extra citations for each of the items you have listed above. The section you've been reading was recently trimmed for size at the request of other editors and I have restored those citations and done some rewrites. The tour you ask about was a large success for BTS in 2014-2015. Ready for next set of edit requests when you have time to add them here. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AJona1992

edit
Resolved comments from AJona1992
  • Overuse of "debuting" in the lead as a means of BTS coming into fruition in the music market. As well as the usage of "numerous" seems WP:PEACOCKish. Other examples include "youth" (mainstream section), and lead single throughout the article
I've changed "numerous" and some of the uses of "debut" but really that's the proper term. Regarding youth, I've changed a couple of examples, but that is the accepted term for their trilogy. I don't understand the issue with lead single, it's an accepted term.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a word is a proper term doesn't excuse it from being overly used. I have no issue with "lead single", the issue is reading it in every sentence. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What other terminology could be used? I cannot possibly think of a better word to use than that one. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any, all I was saying is that using "lead single" in every sentence is redundant after a few usages. You don't need to say that a particular song was released first in every mention of an album; the leadoff single, it, etc., or quite frankly just mentioning the song following the mention of an album establishes the song was released first, why would you start off with a song release that wasn't its lead in the first place? – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it back to four uses, the first of them being linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the first instance of US not the United States?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the certification from the RIAA?
  • The article states it as: "They became the first Korean ensemble to receive a certification from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for their single "Mic Drop", as well as the first act from South Korea to top the Billboard 200 with their studio album Love Yourself: Tear (2018). BTS became one of the few groups since the Beatles with four US number-one albums in less than two years, and Love Yourself: Answer (2018) was the first Korean album certified platinum by the RIAA." ErnestKrause (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what is that certification? The issue still stands. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Platinum certification. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Gold in caps but platinum isn't? Also, why link RIAA certification for platinum which is two sentences after the mention of a gold certification? – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've standardized those I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the Beatles and Justin Timberlake accomplish said feats?
That information is included in the body of the article. The lead is intended as a summary, and not everything can appear in a summary.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lead should be a good summarization of the article, for sure. These happen to be feats previously accomplished by other artists, you've only provided who last did it and not when they did it. If it is that important to discuss that in the lead, then it is important for those unfamiliar with the subject to understand when it last was accomplished, not just who. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead section, I have added the years when the feats were accomplished. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 23:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for their contributions to spreading Korean culture" shouldn't it be "for their contributions in spreading"?
Agreed, and that is how the source puts it. Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The change in plan was because album sales were suffering across the music industry," → "Following dwindling album sales in the music market in the country,"
I've redrafted something along those lines.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few instance in my initial read of the article where I've found awakward wording: "as well for as for placing" (2010-2014), "was restarted on June 6, 2015 in Malaysia and toured Australia," (2014-2017),
I think I fixed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "industry insiders" the same thing as music executives?
Their debut appearance? Sprinkel says 200 industry and media members.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "held their first fan meeting in Seoul" what is the importance of this sentence?
Given the importance that BTS fandom would take on, including the interaction with the band, it's not out of line, I hope, to trace the roots of that relationship a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see the importance of their first fan meeting, nothing happened during that event and it's not like other artists have never done such meetings before. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They did play a set there and we do mention many of their concerts, so I've added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World Digital Songs Chart" → "World Digital Song Sales chart"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instance of overlinking: Red Bullet Tour, Oricon Albums Chart,
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the World Albums chart linked in its second appearance in the article body and not the first?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eight of the tracks reached" would prefer to use impacted since you didn't mention their peaks
  • What was the peak of their first appearance on the Billboard 200?
  • The citations states: "Pt. 2 also hit new peaks by hitting No. 1 on both Heatseekers Albums (where the band had previously topped out at No. 6 with The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Pt. 1) and World Albums (where Pt. 1 peaked at No. 2)." If that's useful then it may be added if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their first appearance on the Billboard 200 is definitely important. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't done. – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the commercial and critical reception of Youth? You've only mentioned it as a release prior to Wings.
  • "Pre-orders of it broke the record for most albums sold in a month" in which market?
"in South Korea" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 19:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard is a US music chart, why constantly add US in every mention of their charts?
  • The Bubbling Under Hot 100 is a 25-song extension of the Hot 100 and readers unfamiliar with music charts published by Billboard will not understand that. For instance, if the song peaked at number two, without explaining the rules of the Bubbling Under Hot 100, will read as the song peaked at number two and not number 102. Also, what was the peak? I keep reading chart entry for both albums and songs and not their peak performance. Unless their chart entry was notable and Billboard provided an analyst on that, then peak positions should take precedence over just saying "X and Y entered the chart".
  • Saying "high demand" is unnecessary as "demand" suffices.
Done in one case, in the other the whole phrase deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "achieving the highest monthly sales in the Gaon Album Chart's history" source doesn't say that.
  • "making them the first K-pop boy band to have one" one what?
Have an entry on the Billboard Hot 100. Would you phrase it differently?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I would explain what that "one" is. – jona ✉ 19:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained now.
I think the article's been put through the wringer, and has come a long way since the start of this FAC. I'd suggest we're approaching consensus to promote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their first number one hit" remove "hit" per WP:PEACOCK, saying it reached atop the chart illustrates its success.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a remake of Seo Taiji 1995 "Come Back Home"" → "a remake of Seo Taiji's "Come Back Home" (1995)"
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making them the first K-pop boy band to have one → "making them the first K-pop boy band to do so"
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "well-being among children and young people" aren't they the same thing? just ax children
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an italicization issue in the second para of the 2018-2020 section.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "started at number one its first week" change to debuted
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again remove "hit" the two times it is mentioned in the same para
I've removed both from that paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "breaking the chart's all-time monthly record again" → needs polishing, there are better ways to rephrase that sentence.
I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their highest US sales week in the country to that point." which was?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later became the first" → remove "later", you already mentioned the date when it was certified. Also, remove all "later" as each instance of it is unnecessary; including mentions in Map of the Soul: Persona (also replace "ever" with "all-time"), the soundtrack, "Map of the Soul: Persona, stadium world tour and BTS World" section,
"Later" removed everywhere when in that context.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "certified units." → remove certified don't need to keep saying it, especially in the same sentence, and while you're at it, please remove the extra period.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first act from South Korea to appear." → this sentence is not finished
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first soundtrack album" → It is my understanding that a soundtrack is an album, so why is "album" mentioned? Also in the same sentence "since Gaon implemented it in 2018", implemented what? The soundtrack or was it a rule change?
Deleted "album" and also deleted the "first" there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crossed 1,000,000 copies," → change to one million, and the second time it is mentioned
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marking the first time a Korean artist achieved a million shipments for a single in Japan, and setting a record" → it is implied that it is a record if you say "marking the first time"
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and rose up 80 places in the following week to number one" → I can tell you guys love to overexplain things. Just say it peaked at number one the following week, rising from number 80 to number one isn't college-level calculus.
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 8, 2019, "Lights" received Million certification from the RIAJ" → missing a word here
I think that's fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the final stop of their record-breaking" → what record did it break? attendance, number of shows, etc.
That's unclear. The source, Billboard, says it was "record-breaking" and says there were more than 2,000,000 attendees for the tour but I'm not sure that is the record spoken of.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became the first artists in history" → another example of overexplaining, remove "in history"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also known as the Pop Songs chart," → redundant
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove the overlinking of "On (song)"
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the genre-specific chart" → redundant
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 30, "Life Goes On" debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 char" → why are we learning about its chart performance two sentences after you talked about it being released?
Rearranged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in just three months" → bias, remove
Just cut there and in one other spot ("just nine days")
  • "since the Beatles in 1964 to do so." → awkward English

removed the "to do so" Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove "hits"
Substituted "entries".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard Singles Chart" → there are over 100 Billboard singles charts, specify.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "coming at number one," → needs to be fixed
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "YouTube channel on April 17, this time" → remove "this time"
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "hits"
  • "released the collaboration single" → yet another example of overexplaining, remove.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking of 64th annual Grammy Awards
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the author mean by "black music"? Influences of music performed by black musicians or genres predominately performed by black artists?
That would be correct. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pipe issue with ballades
Got that I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in youth, anxieties of school-age youth, and mental health in youth culture." → fix repetition
One "youth" cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early songs," → is a term used by fans, it needs to be encyclopedic. Remove since you wrote that those songs were from their trilogy.
I don't understand this issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "Early songs". – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the youngest ever recipients" → remove "ever"
Done Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire second para of "Endorsements and awards" is just a list of contributions that were already stated elsewhere in the article body and should be removed.
Not every award has been stated, and it's useful for the reader to have the statistics in one place.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why List of awards and nominations received by BTS exists. Remove the awards already stated elsewhere in the article and keep the ones not mentioned. – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filmography section is supposed to be what? a definition of what a filmography is?
Listed some of their content Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quickly fixing those issues. I have left some replies for others. – jona ✉ 17:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AJona1992, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides an ambiguous quote of what "record-breaking" that Billboard reported, I am leaning towards support, though weak support. The prose could be tighter in some places, but I believe the contributors are on the right track. Best – jona ✉ 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'll have to skip anything in Korean. I've asked for supporting text from the offline sources in a couple of cases.

  • [15] OK.
  • [35] and [36] are the citations for "The EP was supported by two singles: "Boy in Luv" (Korean: 상남자; RR: Sang-namja) and "Just One Day" (Korean: 하루만; RR: Haruman)." The citations show those singles exist, and one of them mentions Skool Luv Affair, but what does it mean to say these singles "supported" the EP? A single from an album supports that album; were these singles also tracks on the EP? If so this is OK.
Yes, the sources are okay, as the singles mentioned are featured on the album. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 02:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [51] covers "BTS experimented with other styles of music besides hip hop in The Most Beautiful Moment in Life, Part 1, released in 2015."; can you quote the passage in Kim that supports this?
  • [78] covers "moving over 1.5 million copies in South Korea that year and becoming the best-selling album in Gaon Album Chart history"; I see support for the second half of this but not for 1.5 million copies that year.
  • [98] OK.
  • [103] OK.
  • [130] and [131] OK.
  • [176] covers "All three albums of the Love Yourself series have sold more than 2 million copies each in South Korea. Love Yourself: Tear later gained silver certification by the BPI for sales in the UK, becoming their third album to do so following Love Yourself: Answer and Map of the Soul: Persona." It supports the second sentence but does not appear to support the first sentence.
Added source to support first sentence. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 22:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [206] OK.
  • [218] covers '"Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" in 2017—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US' The cited page says the single "blasted into" the number one spot, but doesn't actually say it was its first week; I think that's OK though. However, I don't see support for the comparison to Swift or for the "first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall)" comment. I'm looking at the text in the archive copy, since I don't have a subscription; perhaps the live page has text that did not archive?
replaced source and added an additional one supporting "first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall)" Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 05:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [254] covers "At the end of that month, BTS held their first live performances before an in-person audience since before the pandemic. The band played four sold-out shows at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles as a continuation of their Permission to Dance on Stage concert series." The review cited is, annoyingly, undated as far as I can see; not that there's any doubt about the dating, but if you could cite something that gives the date (to support "at the end of that month") it would be good. And I don't think this supports the second sentence.
  • [272] OK.
  • [296] is the citation for "BTS' lyrics have also addressed topics outside youth culture specifically. The song "Am I Wrong" from Wings questioned societal apathy towards the state of current events; the lyric "We're all dogs and pigs / we become dogs because we're angry" referenced South Korean Ministry of Education official Na Hyang-wook, who was a proponent of the caste system and described the average person as "dogs and pigs". BTS performed the song on television during the 2016 South Korean political scandal that led to the impeachment of former president Park Geun-hye." Two issues here: first, I don't think we can say "referenced", since the cited text specifically says it's only inferable and not made explicit by the band or the song. Second, I don't see any mention of a TV performance.
  • [332] covers "In 2020, BTS were given the James A. Van Fleet Award in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the promotion of US-Korea relations; to date, they are the youngest honorees and only musicians to receive the award". I don't see support for the second half of this.
Added a source that supports them being the youngest honorees. I've also doubled check the recipients, and BTS are not the first musicians, so I removed that part entirely. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [338] covers "The fan community...pushes to feature BTS' music on radio stations and television"; can you quote here the text from Ju that supports this?
    "To achieve this, ARMY organised “BTSx50states,”44 a digital promotional fanbase for pushing BTS’s tracks to local radio stations ARMY even distributed online tactical manuals outlining maneuvers for cases where a station either accepted or refused their selection of music. However, ARMY did not stop here; they started campaigning online for BTS to appear and perform on American television.".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is 17 citations, covering 15 chunks of text in the article; of the 13 I was able to check, at least 6 seem to fail. That's an alarming rate. Can you check those citations and see if I've misread those sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we're going to do is go through every citation and check them, then ask for a re-check. Can we have a week?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, we've been working hard on this. Go ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great; will take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

  • [7] & [8], supporting "BTS was formed in 2010, after Big Hit Entertainment CEO Bang Si-hyuk wanted to form a hip hop group around RM (Kim Namjoon), an underground rapper who was well known on the music scene in Seoul. BTS was originally supposed to be a hip hop group, but, seeing falling album sales, he changed his plans, thinking a different path would be more marketable. He chose to vary from the usual, highly-regimented idol groups and create one where the members would be individuals rather than an ensemble, and free to express themselves." I have access to [7]; can you quote the text in Sprinkel that also supports this? As far as I can see, we need [8] to cover RM/Kim Namjoon being well-known in Seoul, and the change in plans from hip hop. [7] covers the rest.
    "““he had a particular vision for a hip-hop group. He wanted to build it around Kim Namjoon, an underground rapper who was well established on the Seoul scene before signing on with Bang in 2010. ... “Meanwhile album sales were suffering industry-wide, and thinking it more viable, Bang pivoted to a more performance-based model that brought in aspects from typical idol group"--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [63]: OK.
  • [84]: OK.
  • [144] & [145] supports "In February 2019, BTS attended the 61st Grammy Awards for the first time as award presenters." I think this is OK but is perhaps imprecisely phrased in the text -- one could read that as meaning they had never attended the Grammys before. How about "In February 2019, BTS attended the 61st Grammy Awards as the first K-Pop award presenters"? And I didn't need to use [145] for that, so perhaps it can be cut?
    It's not wrong as that was the first time they had ever attended the Grammys. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but as far as I can see that's not what the source is saying. The source says this is the first time they've presented at the Grammys, and they're the first K-Pop presenters. I don't think it says they had never attended the Grammys, e.g. as nominees. The text in the article now could be read either way, but since the source can't be read both ways, I would change the text to unambiguously say what the source supports. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [173]: OK.
  • [203]: OK.
  • [213] & [214], supporting '"Dynamite" debuted at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, becoming the fastest-selling single since Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" in 2017—earning BTS their first chart topper and making them the first all-South Korean act (second Asian act overall) to earn a number one single in the US.' I don't see the reference to Swift's single in either source.
  • [224], supporting "The single also topped the Billboard Global 200, becoming their second number one entry and making BTS the first artist to have multiple songs top Billboard's recently created global singles chart.": This is paywalled; can you quote the text that supports this?
    "BTS becomes the first act to have tallied multiple No. 1s on the Global 200, as "Savage Love" follows the septet's "Dynamite," which has spent a week at the summit and this week slips from No. 2 to No. 3." Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 17:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [251], supporting "Between November 27 and December 2, BTS held their first live performances before an in-person audience since before the pandemic. The band played four sold-out shows at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles as a continuation of their Permission to Dance on Stage concert series." I don't see the reference to Permission to Dance or to the shows being sold out. Both are implied or perhaps deducible so I am not too concerned but it would be better to source them fully.
  • [266]: OK.
  • [273], supporting "The Love Yourself series was primarily influenced by Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving". I don't see this in the source.
Added it back as it's reliable per KO/RS. Added Yohnap News Agency source supporting Erich Fromm's work influencing LY series. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [332] OK.
  • [339] OK.
  • [365]: OK.

This is definitely better, but I have questions about three of the citations above, and requests for the supporting text in a couple of other cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll fix these and I'll go through the refs I haven't already gone through systematically, and I'll ask you for a recheck, if the coords will allow me a few more days.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that if the coords are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It won't take me long. I'm working as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Mike Christie, if you could take another look? Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Convenience break
edit

Another pass. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • [6] OK.
  • [11] is the citation for "The band members lived together, practicing up to 15 hours a day, and first performed before a small crowd of industry insiders in 2013." Can you quote the text in Sprinkel (pp. 46-7) that supports this?
    "With the lineup finally set, the recruits embarked on a grueling training process during which all seven members were constantly together. They lived together, practiced together, and learned together. It was physically and emotionally demanding. Leading up to their debut, they were practicing 12 to 15 hours each day. They were BTS—Bangtan Sonyeondan, the Bulletproof Boy Scouts—and they made their official debut to a room of 200 industry and media members in 2013."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [24] OK.
  • [54] is the cite for The Most Beautiful... reaching 171 on the Billboard chart. I'm not seeing it in the linked page, but I'm not sure I'm seeing the page I would see if I had a subscription -- can you check?
    You have to click on the drop down menu and it's under "Billboard 200".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [96] OK.
  • [104] OK, but this is one of those "scheduled to" cites -- it would be better to find a cite that they did perform. I don't consider this a problem for this spot check.
I've added a subsequent source.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [111] OK.
  • [156] OK.
  • [183] OK.
  • [198] OK as far as I can see, but the paywall is stopping me from seeing the bit about the Beatles -- can you quote that?
It's in the archived version. "The last group to generate four No. 1s faster than BTS was The Beatles, who took just one year and five months between Yesterday and Today (July 30, 1966) and Magical Mystery Tour (Jan. 6, 1968)."--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [202] OK.
  • [203] OK.
  • [250] OK.
  • [267] OK.
  • [270] OK.
  • [274] OK.
  • [281] cites "Bang Si-hyuk previously acknowledged that K-pop as a whole draws from black music"; can you quote the text from p. 26 of Anderson that supports this?
The quote is "Lee Soo-man, founder of SM Entertainment, one of the “Big Three” Korean entertainment agencies, has said: “We made K-pop based on black music” (quoted in Lie 2012, 357) Bang Shi-hyuk, Korean music producer and CEO of BigHit Entertainment, home of BTS, explains that “Black music is the base. Even when doing many genres like house, urban, and PBR&B, there’s no change to the fact that it is Black music”".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [289] OK.
  • [290] OK.
  • [292] OK.
  • [293] OK.
  • [296] OK.
  • [305] OK.
  • [306] cites 'On April 29, 2019, Time magazine named BTS one of the 100 most influential people of the year, labeling them the "Princes of Pop"'; can you quote the supporting text?
    The digital article is here [33] where TIME invited Halsey to write a short tribute to BTS. The caption "Princes of pop" was added by TIME editors to the print edition which is not maintained in their digital archive, though here is an image of the original print version here [34]. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [316] cites "Writers identified BTS as leaders even among other highly influential K-pop groups such as Girls' Generation, Super Junior, Exo, Twice, and Blackpink"; can you quote the text from p. 13 of Youna Kim that supports this?
    "While K-pop construction has traditionally been dominated by “Big 3” entertainment companies (SM, YG and JYP) since the mid-1990s, BTS of Big Hit Entertainment since their debut in 2013 has created a global phenomenon that is more widely recognized and influential. The success of K-pop bands, such as Girls’ Generation, Super Junior, Big Bang, EXO, TWICE, BTS and Blackpink, is a direct outcome of the star system’s intense training to deliver a very polished and easily identifiable show. "--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [326] OK.
  • [345] cites "Feedback from ARMY to BTS affects the group's actions and lyrics; BTS has eliminated certain Korean words that sound like American racial slurs from their songs and ended collaboration with a Japanese producer when Korean ARMY members deemed his views extreme": can you quote the text from pp. 25-27 of Ju that supports this?
    See Wehwalt on #347 below. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That supports the first part; I still need the text from Ju that supports the second part. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "

Anti-racism within the ARMY fandom also premediates BTS’s live performances. In 2018, black ARMY members reported being harassed and attacked online with racial slurs.42 After that, black ARMY members established an anti-racial community within the fandom, which created the hashtag #BlackARMYsequality.43 In line with the anti-racial movement within ARMY, in 2018 BTS eliminated some words from their new album Fake Love, such as 니가 and 내가, which are pronounced niga and naega. Although these words mean “you” and “I” in Korean, respectively, they sound racist in English pronunciation as they are similar to words used to discriminate against African-Americans. ... For example, the collaboration between BTS and a Japanese producer in 2018 was aborted due to the opposition of the Korean ARMY.48 The Korean ARMY opposed such cooperation because the referred producer is a right-wing extremist who supports the Japanese occupation of Korea’s Joseon Dynasty in the first half of the 20th century.49 Still, foreign ARMY members criticised Korean ARMY for not taking a reasonable stance on the issue.50"--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [347] cites "The band members themselves agree and have long acknowledged their fans' role in their success"; can you quote the text on p. 144 of Sprinkel that supports this?
    "The lovefest between BTS and their fans is quite a phenomenon to behold, and it’s a practice the members of BTS remain committed to promoting. And at the end of the day, those seven members acknowledge that none of it would have happened without their supporters. “ARMY is everything. ARMY is water. ARMY is air,” Jin told JoJo Wright in 2020. “ARMY is the reason we’re here,” echoed RM.”--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [355] OK.
  • [375] OK, but as with [104] it would be better to have a citation that post-dates the tour. I think a simple reference that the tour happened would be enough, combined with this one to provide the show dates.

Just one possible problem, and a handful of cases where I've requested a quote of the text I can't access. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll get to these tomorrow. Thanks for your patience and understanding.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checked off a few above. The only ones left are [198], [281], and [345]. ErnestKrause, I saw your note about [281] above, but the goal of a spotcheck is to check that the sources already in the article support the text, so the Guardian articles, while they might be useful to fix a citation issue, aren't what I'm looking for here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I got up at midnight to complete the three above. That should be everything, possibly excepting the bit about the tours, which I'll look at in the morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I took a look at the last three points above and all are fine; this third pass through came up 100% clean, which is a relief -- it would have been hard not to fail the spotcheck if there had been even a couple of errors out of the thirty I checked. The two points about the tours aren't issues for the spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bearing with us on this. Buidhe, you stated you would not strike your oppose until a spot check was passed, here. You were quite right that it needed one. Will you strike your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No response. I would suggest that we've done everything requested, and that there is consensus for promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE I have left a note on Buidhe's talk page informing her that the nominators are of the opinion that her oppose has been addressed in full. The diff is here. I've also, as prescribed in WP:FACSUPPORTOPPOSE, left notice on this page directly after her signature that her concerns have been resolved. That diff is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure?

edit

It's been some time since the last comment. Are the coordinators waiting for something from the nominators? Or from anyone else?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just @FAC coordinators: pinging the coordinators to my question just above. I used the wrong template at first.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On my short list, Wehwalt, I expect to look it over tonight or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2022 [35].

Branford Steam Railroad

edit
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • What does "exchanges freight" mean?
    Ah, that's one of the sentences I didn't rewrite when I redid the article last year. This is referring to Interchange (freight rail), where rail cars are transferred from one railroad company to another for continued transport. BSRR rail cars are transferred to the Providence and Worcester Railroad which runs dedicated trains to Fresh Pond Junction near New York City. At the docks, the BSRR transfers much of the trap rock from the quarry to barges. I have revised the article to state this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a little strange that the lead states neither the length nor the gauge of the railway. It may also be helpful to overtly state that it is still running.
    I can specify standard gauge, but as 99% of U.S. railroads are standard gauge, it's usually assumed. I note that AirTrain JFK, a FA, does not mention the gauge in the lead, likely for this reason. The gauge is listed in the infobox. I have added the length to the lead section. That the line is still running is established by the use of "is" rather than "was" and the lead being in present tense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox should only contain information already in the main article. It states that the track is standard gauge and gives the measurements for this, but I can't see this in the article. Have I read past it?
To me, this is akin to saying in every article on a U.S. highway "traffic drives on the right". I feel it is wholly unnecessary, per WP:BLUESKY. And most every FA on a railroad or rail line I can find does things the same way I have here. Consider the featured articles City and South London Railway, Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, South Lake Union Streetcar, MAX Orange Line, MAX Yellow Line, MAX Red Line, Brill Tramway, Hastings line, Line 1 (Sound Transit), Manila Light Rail Transit System, Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, and Great North of Scotland Railway, all of which follow the same practice as I have here. To explicitly state the gauge in the article's prose would be going against best practice for articles on railroads, and indeed you often won't really find sources explicitly stating the line is standard gauge because all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You give the precise dimensions of the track in the infobox. This is not something you can expect a normal reader to know, it is not BLUESKY. It needs to be in the article.
So you think all of those FAs are wrong then? It's standard gauge. Every single common carrier railroad in the U.S. is standard gauge. Again, I unfortunately cannot give you a source that says "the Branford Steam Railroad is standard gauge" because it's assumed in all sources that, just like every other railroad in the U.S., the tracks are standard gauge. I've checked through all the sources on the company's founding and construction and opening, and none of them mention the gauge. If I put the gauge in the body, then I'd, technically speaking, be violating the FA criteria for it not having a citation. I don't know what you want me to do here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing technical about it. Leaving aside the fact that there should be nothing in the infobox that isn't in the article, you are telling me that "4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge" is in the article because you assume that this is the case. It's a nice article and I really don't want to oppose so please find a way round this OR. If "all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge" then source that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in a bit - I have this on my watchlist intending to review but have just been lazy about it. This source covers the standardization across North America, which happened during the 1800s and has remained consistent ever since. Per Track gauge in the United States, all commercial railroads in the US converted to standard gauge following the Pacific Railroad Acts of the 1860s, and per Track gauge in Canada and the report "The Rise and Fall of the Provincial Gauge" (not linked because the URL is like forty miles long, but first result on Google), basically every Canadian railway had converted by 1881. Given the level of standardization, I have to agree with TAOT here that detailing the dimensions of the gauge is unnecessary and I think calling it original research is unfair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As PMC has said here, calling listing the gauge of the railroad "original research" is inappropriate and wrong. If you seriously think this is worth opposing over, that's certainly your prerogative, but I'd be seriously disappointed in you. I'm not going to remove the gauge information, that only makes the article worse for the reader. Hell, I'll say I'm invoking WP:IAR here - it's blatantly obvious what the gauge of the line is, and opposing over me not having a source that explicitly states the gauge, even when it's extremely obvious, seems spurious to me. In my view, there's a clear WP:EDITCONSENSUS that gauge information doesn't need to be cited when the railroad in question is in a country that has one gauge near universally, based on what I've listed previously. But again, you're well within your rights to oppose if that's how you feel about the situation. I believe I have done my best to respond to and address your concerns, even when I've personally disagreed with them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the stick, AGF and work with me here. The information in question is not the slightest bit obvious to me, nor I am sure to the vast majority of readers. You can't have information stated as fact in an FA which is not cited. PMC seems to have supplied sources which will address my concern - note my comment in my last post "If "all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge" then source that and I'm happy." And, frankly, I refuse to believe that there is no HQ RS in existence which gives the dimensions of US standard gauge - are you telling me that that is the case? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence. The source I provided gives the dimensions for standard gauge on its first page in both metric and imperial. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I don't have access to it, so didn't know. Assuming that it also clearly states that all US commercial tracks are of this gauge then there is no sourcing problem. A sentence or two in the main article, citing this, will resolve the issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR should let you see the first page of most things even if you're not logged in, if you're concerned about checking the source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I happy to AGF, but if there is not some movement soon towards settling this I may have to conclude that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" is not being met. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My grandmother died, excuse me for not editing for a few days. I will look into the rest of this throughout the remainder of this week and this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Against my better judgement, I have added a sentence about track gauge with citations. I actually did this on August 4th but forgot to mention it here. As if this week weren't bad enough I also caught Covid... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aw heck Trainsandotherthings, you are having a rough time lately. Happy to support, a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus". "BSRR" - see MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
    Abbreviation now introduced at the first mention of Branford Steam Railroad in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events outside of the area set in motion the line's conversion to an industrial railroad hauling rock." I don't see that this adds anything, and suggest deletion.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fisk initially responded to this demand by opening a quarry at Pine Orchard in January 1902." How is this connected to the BSRR?
    That really belongs in an article about Fisk (which I plan to write one day), not this article. I've removed it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another railroad, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension". You have the railroad doing the building. Suggest rephrasing.
    I don't see an issue with this sentence. The railroad did indeed build the extension. It seems pointless in my opinion to instead say "the workers of the Damascus Railroad built an extension". This type of wording, saying X was built by a railroad company, is pretty standard for rail articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As you say "X was built by a railroad company". If by Damascus Railroad you mean a company called this, say so. Perhaps 'another company, known as the Damascus Railroad'?
Wording is now "On July 18, 1905, Fisk received a charter for another railroad company, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
  • "a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford". "expand" seems an odd thing for a railroad to do. Perhaps 'extend'?
    No objection to changing to extend. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he planned to open a quarry." Suggest "a" → 'the'.
    Good catch, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and advocated for support from the town's residents for the railroad extension, finding most residents supportive. Despite local support". "... support ... supportive ... support". Perhaps a bit of variation?
    Wording changed. In order, I have now used "support", "in favor", and "local enthusiasm". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to exercise eminent domain". Could we have an in line explanation per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so" in MOS:LINKSTYLE.
    I thought the concept of eminent domain was a fairly well known thing, but I've added an inline description regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the US I imagine it is reasonably broadly understood. Outside perhaps mostly by lawyers.
  • "pronounced the bill as legal". This may be a USEng thing, but in BritEng this would read better without the "as".
    I think your suggested wording is better, actually. Changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing the modified charter to take effect." What modification?
    This is discussed in the previous paragraph. "In March 1907, Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford, where he planned to open a quarry." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the Damascus Railroad allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Don't you mean "Damascus Railroad" → 'new charter'?
    Changed to "While the modified Damascus Railroad charter allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter"; "the Branford Steam Railroad would apply for an amendment to its charter". Exactly which body was chartered?
    Both were chartered. In the earlier days of railroads in the U.S., railroad companies were required to obtain a charter from the legislature(s) of the state(s) they served before they could start construction or operation. The BSRR was chartered first, on March 19, 1903. The Damascus Railroad, a separate company, was chartered on July 18, 1905. Fisk was heavily involved with both companies, and in 1909 the Damascus Railroad came under the control of the Branford Steam Railroad. While nominally independent, the Damascus Railroad was always directly dependent on the Branford Steam Railroad, its only connection to the national rail network. The charters laid out what each company could and could not do (the Branford Steam Railroad's charter authorized it to haul both passengers and freight, while the Damascus Railroad's charter specifically only authorized the transport of freight). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with improved interchange facilities with the New Haven Railroad." This is the first mention of the New Haven Railroad and of interchange facilities. Perhaps they could be explained earlier? Ie, prior to improvement.
    The New Haven Railroad is the same as the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad; the name "The New Haven" is commonly used to refer to it. I have mentioned this at the first mention of the company's full name in the body.
  • "allow the Branford Steam Railroad to assume control of the Damascus Railroad by purchasing its stock." Could you clarify throughout the article when you are using a term to describe a physical structure, eg a railroad, and when an incorporated body, eg a company.
    I'm not really seeing any issue here. In the sentence you've quoted here, it's pretty clear at least to me that the Branford Steam Railroad (the company) would be taking control of the Damascus Railroad (the company). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found myself repeatedly having to reread sentences or paragraphs to work out what was being referred to. Using the same term to describe different things and expecting a reader to work it out from context is confusing.
I have modified a few sentences to attempt to address your concern. Please let me know your thoughts and if there's still issues, identify the sentences in question directly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By April 29, 1909, the General Assembly approved". "By" - is the precise date not known?
    I checked the 1909 edition of Special Acts and Resolutions Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, which confirms the precise date is April 29, 1909. Not sure why I said "by" but I have modified the text accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the General Assembly approved", 1. The general assembly of what? 2. What is a General Assembly? 3. Why the upper case initial letters?
    The Connecticut General Assembly is Connecticut's state legislature. The upper case letters are necessary as it is a proper noun. I've linked it, and specifically said "but in December 1902, Fisk petitioned the Connecticut General Assembly, the state's legislative branch, for permission to convert the railroad to steam power." now so it's clear what is being referred to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by crossing most streets at grade". Possibly this is clear to US readers. It isn't elsewhere. What does "at grade" mean?
    This wording is used extensively in the sources I am using. In the U.S., we use the term grade crossing, which in British English is known as a level crossing. The phrase "at grade" is apparently specific to North America, and is defined as "on the same level". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This needs explaining in the article.
I don't really think it's necessary, but I've added it since you insist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intersect with a diamond crossing". Is it possible t explain what a diamond crossing is in line?
    Realizing now that link is a redirect to double junction and doesn't do a good job explaining what a diamond crossing is. Definition added, though it's a commonly understood term as far as railroads go. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "something the Branford Steam Railroad was strongly opposed to." Why?
    The source says it "would involve serious complications unnecessary inconvenience and expense." That was the ruling of the Connecticut Railroad Commission. I know the BSRR was also opposed to this happening, for similar reasons (pretty obvious considering Fisk repeatedly fought the Shore Line Railroad). There was also a law on the books in Connecticut (for all I know, it might still be in effect) prohibiting any crossings between steam railroads and electric railroads, for safety reasons. I've changed the wording a bit here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "injunction".
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and again obtained an injunction forcing the Shore Line to cease construction". Is it known when?
    The article in The Day says that the injunction was prepared on a hurry call from Fisk and was served around 4 AM on February 5. I've added detail on this to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "construction, which had begun in earnest on the night of February 5." This may fit more naturally into the previous sentence.
    Agreed, done as part of my remedy to your previous comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered". I am not sure what "As such" adds - or even means.
    The Superior Court was enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Open to a different way to word this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the wording here now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optional: it would be helpful to be told what "trap rock" was and how it was used.
    Now defined at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the construction of the nearby Lake Gaillard." Just checking that the spur was constructed so that a lake could be built?
    Yes. Lake Gaillard is an artificial lake, which was built to serve as a large water reservoir (and continues to serve this purpose today). It's over a mile wide and a mile and a half long. It took 7 years of construction to be completed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of locomotives were used within the 300-acre (120 ha) quarry complex." What/which quarry complex?
    The Totoket Mountain quarry, which the Damascus Railroad had its charter modified to connect to. I say in the body, "The quarry quickly grew, soon becoming the primary customer of the Branford Steam Railroad." Indeed, it is now the one and only customer of the railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think it was the plural in "committed $750,000 to develop quarries" which threw me.
  • "with fronting 1.25 miles (2.01 km) in length." What is fronting?
    I haven't been able to find a good definition of this. I was using the term used in the source here. I've removed it as I can't clearly explain what the source is claiming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'with the quarry rockface being worked extending 1.25 miles'?
I'm a little skeptical of the source, so I've decided it's best not to include the information at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ownership of the company changed several times". Which company? (Quarry or railroad?)
    Both. They have been owned by the same companies ever since the New Haven Trap Rock Company came about. Today, the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry are both wholly owned by Tilcon Connecticut. Wording revised to "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times..." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be an excessive number of very short paragraphs.
    I've combined as many as I could. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have come back on some of your responses above. If I haven't commented, I am happy with your response or change. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by David Fuchs

edit

Review in progress, will be posting in the next 72 hours or so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Sorry for the delays, ended up starting the review on another machine. Some initial thoughts:[reply]

  • Prose/General:
    • I went through and performed some line edits, mostly focusing on reducing some redundancies and improving flow.
    • One part I found myself wondering that isn't addressed by the article—why was there a change in the Branford railroad's use, and why did he create two separate railroads and then sell one to the other?
      It's a matter of charters. The Branford Steam Railroad was chartered to be built on a certain route and carry certain traffic. Strictly speaking, Fisk could have sought to modify the BSRR's charter to get authorization to extend the line instead of chartering a new company; as far as I can tell the reason he chose the latter is lost to history. The change in use is because of the increased demand for Connecticut traprock, and the railroad was perfectly positioned to transport this rock from quarries to connections with the rest of the region. The passenger service was a short-lived thing, it ended within a decade after the BSRR's founding. I'm hoping to write a biography of Fisk at some point which might fill in some of these gaps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with the above that stuff not in the article body definitely needs to be referenced in the infobox; railroad gauges are not always the same and are otherwise not general knowledge, and thus I don't think BLUESKY applies. Also unreferenced in the length.
      I don't have a source specifically stating "the Branford Steam Railroad is standard gauge" for reasons I've gone into previously. The length however I will find a citation for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Length is now cited (and it turns out I had the number off by a mile, at least according to the CT State Rail Plan). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media:
    • Images would be more helpful to vision-impaired readers with alt text (MOS:ACCIM)
    • Images appropriately licensed and verified, no fair-use or non-free imagery.
    • As a matter of aesthetic taste, and not policy, is there a better image of the railroad than File:Branford Steam over CT 80 085.JPG? It's oddly framed so that the edge of a parking lot is super-prominent, and you barely see the tracks themselves.
      What I have to work with is here: [36]. There aren't really any great photos of the railroad that are freely licensed, but if something in the Commons cat strikes you as a better choice I'm all ears. If we wanted a photo of a BSRR train, I'd have to go take a photo of the railroad myself, which isn't easy as I now live in Rhode Island, not Connecticut. Most railfans hate releasing images with compatible licensing. Believe me, I checked high and wide to try and find better photos. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprised there's not a map of the route. Unless you're a New Englander you probably don't know where Branford actually is.
      I could do a pushpin map like the one on Cedar Hill Yard, though this is a six mile long rail line, not a fixed point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • Checklinks shows two reference links that should get updated if possible.[37]
    • References need checking for consistency in formatting and fields (for example some places the dates are written out, elsewhere they're YYYY-MM-DD.)
      I added the "use dmy dates" template which should fix this, but I'll take a closer look as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will be doing a source check.
      • Overall, I think the sourcing is fine; a lot of material is to smaller newspapers of the day but I don't see evidence there's better sourcing available in my own search. One source I do have more qualms with is Ref 24[38]— it's basically an editorial in a local newsletter, and doesn't feel like it's strong enough to be used. Otherwise spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 28, 31.
        • 28 is used to source "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times, without much effect on operations. In 1984, it was acquired by Tilcon Inc., which renamed itself Tilcon Connecticut in 1990.", but the source given says the company that became Tilcon acquired the Trap Rock company in the 1970s (1984's entry is just "Sold to British Tire and Rubber Co.".)
        • Otherwise did not spot issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the source review. As you said above, there's not really much sourcing beyond to local newspapers. I'm not really concerned with their reliability for the most part. Perhaps because it's rather obscure, there isn't much coverage of the railroad in books. My copy of The Rail Lines of Southern New England, basically my bible for most train articles in the region, sources its coverage on the BSRR partially to this very Wikipedia article, unlike most of the book which cites reliable sources. I have removed 28, which unfortunately means I had to remove everything it supported as well. I was a little leery of the source's reliability myself but couldn't find anything better.
          • Regarding ownership, what I've pieced together is that Ashland purchased NHTRC in 1968, purchased Angelo Tomasso Inc in 1972, and then formed "NHTR Tomasso" as a combination of the two companies. Thomas Tilling Ltd. purchased Ashland's operations in the Northeastern United States in 1979, and British Tire and Rubber Co. bought NHTR Tomasso in 1984. CHR bought Tilcon (renamed from Angelo Tomasso in 1990) in 1996, and is the current owner of Tilcon and by extension the BSRR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I believe I've responded to all your initial comments, let me know your thoughts when you have a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @David Fuchs:, how does the source review stand, and do you have any comments you feel are not resolved? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that addresses my issues. Supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

edit

Putting my name here to make an actual commitment to commenting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Founding
Damascus Railroad & Expansion
  • Why is Damascus Railroad bolded here?
    In my head the reason I bolded it was because, technically, this article is about both the Branford Steam Railroad and the Damascus Railroad. The latter is a subtopic of the former. I don't feel strongly about this and can remove it if you'd believe it would be better that way. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just odd to have it bolded in the body and not in the lead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is now bold in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a hill I'll die on, but not sure the subsection header is needed here since the overall section isn't that long.
    I'm not sure how I feel. I added it to show that the subsection is distinct from what's discussed previously. But I know editors have different practices as to how much they utilize subheaders, I find I often lean towards using them more often than some do. Don't feel super strongly about it but I'd say I lean towards keeping it as it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That whole second to last paragraph under Expansion cracks me up, it's so 1900s. A mustache-twirling captain of industry marshalling a small army of dudes to fuck over another captain of industry, suits flying back and forth, an entire police force getting involved... it's fun.
    Yeah, it was quite something to read about when I was doing research. Though it's worth noting Branford's police force was 3 people at the time, it's still quite silly. And while the Shore Line Electric Railway has been gone for a very long time, the Branford Steam Railroad persists doing the exact same thing today as it did 100 years ago. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Haven
  • By 1917, Fisk had divested his share of the quarry...: was NHTRC operating the BSRR at that time? Did he also divest his interest in the railroad? (This may be answered later, idk)
    This is an area that's somewhat unclear, when exactly the transition in ownership happened. I have not located an exact source documenting Fisk leaving the company, and the Steamtown ref says as much, that this is only inferred by him eventually no longer being listed as involved with the company. I did find that his name came up under a new electric railroad at roughly the same time his name disappeared from the BSRR, so added that to the article at the urging of the reviewer back when this article was at GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, okay. We can only know so much, I guess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the updates to the article today! Nice find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that although the lead mentions it, the article doesn't never explicitly says the NHTRC started operating the railroad - I could be crazy.
    It's unclear when exactly the transition happened. The Branford Steam Railroad was and is its own company, but today it's a subsidiary of Tilcon, and it was at some point a NHTRC subsidiary. Some of these details we may never get concrete answers for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead explicitly says "New Haven Trap Rock Company, which became operator of both the quarry and the Branford Steam Railroad". Even if we can't be specific with dates etc in the body due to source limitations, we should still echo the lead in saying that the Trap Rock company started operating the railroad at some point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, this has been resolved by way of those changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After some digging, it turns out Fisk actually sold the railroad and quarry in 1914, and the New Haven Trap Rock Company became the owner. This is now specified in both the body and lead. Haven't been able to figure out why he abruptly sold off his interests in both, but that's what the sources say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to this, if the NHTRC is operating the BSRR, is the BSRR properly a customer, or is it more like a subsidiary?
    I guess it's kind of semantics here. I use the term customer to refer to essentially anything served by the railroad. The railroad's sole 'customer' in this sense is of course the quarry. But yes, at this point the BSRR was indeed a subsidiary of the NHTRC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure if it was a railroad-specific jargony usage of customer. I see what you mean though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was instead the president" sounds odd. "Had become president of," maybe, or "had assumed the presidency of"? Even "was now the president of"?
    Changed to "and had become president of". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dieselization & rest of article

As always, I'm generally willing to negotiate if you explain why you disagree with changes. The header-breaking pic is a hill I will die on though, that stays on the right side >:c ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • Trotting Park. Is this term UsEng? Can it be explained or linked?
    It essentially means a horse racing track. I used the term "trotting park" simply because that's what the sources use. I've linked the first mention in both the lead and the body to Horse racing for lack of an article on horse racing tracks specifically. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Presumably this is the location of the quarries, but you should say so.
    I do say so, in the same paragraph: "Instead, the railroad served Branford quarries for trap rock—igneous rock used as track ballast, fill material for roadways, construction aggregate, and riprap." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the railroad served Braford quarries". Braford is a typo?
    Indeed it is. David Fuchs did some copyedits on July 27, and introduced a typo. I have corrected it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initially passed the state house and senate". You say above that the state's legislative branch was called the Connecticut General Assembly, one body not the bicameral house and senate.
    I don't follow. "The Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) is the state legislature of the U.S. state of Connecticut. It is a bicameral body composed of the 151-member House of Representatives and the 36-member Senate." I don't see how calling it the legislative branch is in conflict with it being a bicameral body. We often refer to bills "passing Congress" or "being stalled in Congress", because that's the name of the legislative branch of the United States Government. Same deal for Connecticut's legislative branch. The entire branch is called the Connecticut General Assembly, and it includes the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obviously my ignorance. I assumed that "Assembly" singular implies a single body. Maybe "bicameral Connecticut General Assembly" for clarity for foreigners?
  • I suppose I could say so, but I already think there's too much detail being given to the specifics of the legislature. I have already added "the state's legislative branch" in response to previous comments and I think even more detail on the composition of the legislature is bordering on undue weight for this article. If you hover over the link, it comes right up that the legislature is bicameral. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Litigation over the issue continued for two years, until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Fisk's favor and ordered the Shore Line to allow the Branford Steam Railroad to build its proposed railroad line on February 6, 1914." The ruling not the building was on that date. Maybe "Litigation over the issue continued for two years, until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Fisk's favor on February 6, 1914 and ordered the Shore Line to allow the Branford Steam Railroad to build its proposed railroad line."
    Changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "switching duties". Can this term be explained or linked?
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times, without much effect on operations." I think that for compehensiveness you should give details and dates of the changes in ownership.
    I believe I have this all in order now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 2020s, the Branford Steam Railroad continues to serve the Tilcon Connecticut quarry in North Branford". This should be "As of date". You cannot predict the rest of the 2020s. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to as of, though from what I've gathered the BSRR is expected to continue operating for at least the next 100 years based on how much rock is left in the quarry. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: is this article ready for promotion? We have 4 supports and the source review has been passed. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through this evening if none of the other coords beat me to it. Hog Farm Talk 15:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: and @Trainsandotherthings: - I somehow cracked the touchscreen on my laptop and has rendered it unusable because the screen keeps selecting random things. I can't efficiently do most of the FAC tasks on my phone, so someone else will have to look at this. Hog Farm Talk 02:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a prob, HF, I'll take care of it -- sorry to hear about the laptop, did the same to my phone not long ago, very frustrating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2022 [39].

2016 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won the event defeating Ding Junhui in the final. Let me know your thoughts.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review. I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if you object to anything.

"The event was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015–2016 season." → 'The event was the tenth and last event of the 2015–2016 season that carried snooker world ranking points' doesn't seem difficult to me.
Apologies GTM, I've been a bit busy with something else. Sure, I've made this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the rather smart graphics. You write about qualifying in some detail in "Tournament summary#Seeding and qualifying rounds" and then repeat some of it and add information in "Qualifying". This level of detail would be better consolidated in one place, and just a brief summary left to introduce "Qualifying", as you do with "Main draw".
I get your concern. However, I do feel like it would bloat up the format section to include the names of invited players, for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I might be inclined to argue further over this, but checking other, similar, promoted articles this approach has clearly been acceptable to other reviewers. Which I find a little odd, but so be it. Otherwise well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit
I was probably being a little nit-picky but that's all. Great work here as usual.--NØ 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

Overview

Tournament

Main draw

  • I don't like versions of the final table that duplicate the scores under each player. I think the version at 1985 World Snooker Championship looks better, and, with the annotations, is more accessible. This probably can't be a fatal objection though.

Qualifying

  • The EBSA Order of Merit - spell out what the EBSA is at first mention. The links are probably adequate for WLBSA/IBSF and EBSA in the list of qualifying players.
  • Players invited by the Order of Merit were limited to one player per country" - how about "Order of Merit invitations were limited to one player per country."?

Hi Lee Vilenski. Comments above. I might have some more later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot the ping I have made the above two changes too BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite two minor concerns. I still think "The match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win" could do with something added to show it's relevance here, and the final table should be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Why is BBC Sport italicized and Yahoo! Sports not?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • What makes SnookerHQ a high-quality reliable source? Chris Turner? Bleacher Report? Snooker.org?
Personally, I've always found SnookerHQ to be a very well written item that should be considered reliable, but there was just one entry, so I've removed it..
Chris Turner was the statistician and historian who worked for Eurosport and the BBC. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report has been removed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snooker.org is an award winning statistics site. Only uses direct information from match scores and dates in the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What award(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the about us page, they were on Snooker Scene (and won website of the year in 2011), BilliardsDigest (under a different name), (and a citation in the Independent). It also suggests they won a Britannia Internet Use Guide, and were linked by the BBC Education Web Guide... But I know nothing about these sites. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 12 and 13 are to the same source but are formatted differently - check throughout

Some cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, not ignoring these - just running a bit low on time the last couple days. Get to them soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the source changes. There's a couple comments on the sources brought up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry NikkiMaria - I had made these changes a while ago, but never pinged through.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Nikkimaria as the attempt above looks to have failed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, and Nikkimaria: - What exactly is the status on this source review? I'm having trouble telling. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing issues with missing data - eg FN45 has an agency at the source but not in the citation. I'm also a bit confused by the formatting logic still - why for example does FN9 have both work and publisher when similar sources have one (but not always the same one)? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologiesfor the late reply here - my time is limited at the moment. I'm happy to work through the formatting issues. I'll have another look through when I have a little more time. Thanks for bearing with me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have made the above changes :). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, has this resolved the issues? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, are you able to articulate in what circumstances you use work vs publisher vs both for web sources? I'm still not sure of the logic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I've removed publisher parameters and replaced with work/website parameters where appropriate. Publishers would be for something that was originally published and then stored online, such as a newspaper or book. Hopefully this resolves your issue. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Prose review. I've read many snooker articles at FAC, and watched a match or two.

  • "Bingham lost 9–10 against Ali Carter in the first round falling to the Crucible curse and becoming the 17th first-time champion unable to defend his title at the venue." Suggest a comma after "round"
  • "to become the first Asian player ever to reach a World Championship final." Delete ever as redundant.
  • "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the world snooker rankings, and pre-tournament qualification rounds." Suggest removing the comma after and; since this is a list of two items, a serial comma is usually not used.
  • "Professional payers below 17th place in rankings," Is this supposed to be players?
  • "The afternoon session of the final was watched by audiences of 45 million in China, the country's largest audience for a sporting event that year." I'm not thrilled with "audiences" used twice in this sentence. Maybe, "The afternoon session of the final was watched 45 million people in China, the country's largest audience for a sporting event that year."
  • "including 210 million on CCTV-5." Wikilink to CCTV-5?

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all of the above changes Z1720, thanks for your comments. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit
Sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [40].

Apollo 10

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... The dress rehearsal for the lunar landing, which falls rather in the shadow of its famous successor, but was still important as blazing a path almost to the Moon. If this passes, all Apollo flights (not including Apollo 1) will be FAWehwalt (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nomination with Tyrol5--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Hawkeye7

edit

Wow. What an effort getting all the Apollo missions to featured. Some comments to prove I read it:

  • Sometimes metric is first, and sometimes imperial. Recommend standardising on metric.
    Done. I believe I got them all. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA had planned for what steps needed to be taken" This seems a little convoluted for the purpose. Suggest something like "NASA had planned the steps that needed to be taken"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the crewed-flight test of the CM, was the "C" mission. The first crewed orbital test of the LM" Define and link command modukle and lunar module. I know you already did it in the lead, but the two are supposed to stand separately.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its success gave NASA the confidence to skip the "E" mission" You haven't said what that was.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spacecrafts' trajectory " I think this should be "the spacecraft's trajectory".
    I think it should be "spacecrafts' trajectory", referring to the CSM and LM. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General Sam Phillips" -> "Lieutenant General Sam Phillips"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 13, 1968, NASA announced who the crew of Apollo 10 would be" Well, yes, but they had been training together for longer than that. They had been announced as the backup crew for the second Apollo mission on 22 December 1966, then became the backup for the first mission on 9 May 1967. 1966 press releases1967 press releases1968 press releases (or Brooks, Gromwood and Swenson, p. 374)
I've written out the various permutations.--Wehwalt (talk)
Rank added.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images in the gallery are very small. can we bump them up to 220px?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem more like cite web. Could you take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since The New York Times is linked, should the Orlando Sentinel be also? And Forbes?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare formatting of NASM with fn 48 and 61
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move fn 91 into the bibliography.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swanson and Duke is not used in the article.
Zapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review, Hawkeye. I've handled some of these and will come back for the remainder later (unless Wehwalt beats me to it). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 23:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've covered everything. Thanks also from here and for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kusma

edit

Great work on all these Apollo articles. A few comments:

  • "An 'F' mission" wasn't it supposed to be the only F mission? As the original mission type plans weren't followed anyway, I am not fully convinced the alphabetical designations need to be discussed in so much detail (Apollo 11 manages to tell the story without telling us these internal codes).
I felt it was necessary to give some sort of "how we got here" to set the stage. They did do every mission from A to G except the E mission. The letter codes are mentioned in every Apollo infobox and in the text for most of them. I don't think the Apollo articles need be formulaic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you talking about Apollo 9 before Apollo 8?
That allowed the mentioning of the skipping of the planned "E" mission in a logical order..--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the story about Apollo 2 versus the second Apollo mission a bit confusing. Our crew first were backup crew for Apollo 2, then for the second (crewed?) Apollo mission, then for Apollo 7, which was the first crewed Apollo mission?
Pretty much. The mission that was set to be flown by the Schirra crew was a longer flight of the command module without a lunar module, whereas the planned McDivitt flight was what became Apollo 9, that is, with a command module and a lunar module in Earth orbit. The story is told in more detail in the Apollo 7 article. Do you have thoughts on how better to convey this?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps say that the mission was called Apollo 2 at the time? (Apollo 2 is a redirect to a section in Apollo 1 that says the names Apollo 2 and 3 were not used after the AS-204 fire). The "Apollo 2 was cancelled" story sounds very different here and at Apollo 7: there, it seems like this was a mission to be flown in case Deke Slayton would gain medical clearance and then cancelled because he didn't, while here, it sounds like it was cancelled because Schirra was annoying people at NASA. I would suggest to mention the dates when Apollo 2 was cancelled and when the Apollo 1 fire happened to make it clearer. You could also say a word about what was supposed to happen during the missions (under whatever name). —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we said on Apollo 7 was that it was "dubbed" Apollo 2. The reason it sounds different is that we used Cunningham's account as a source, and he talks about the Schirra/Slayton matter. Apollo 2 is a bit more peripheral here and we don't have any reason to go into what Cunningham thought about it, we're just trying to explain how Stafford, Young and Cernan came to be on Apollo 10. I've adopted your. suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With five prior flights among them, the Apollo 10 crew constituted the most experienced American crew to reach space prior to the Space Shuttle era. Apollo 10 was the first American space mission to have a crew consisting entirely of spaceflight veterans." doesn't this belong more into the previous paragraph describing the crew instead of the one describing their hypothetical assignments?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "normal rotation of crews during Apollo" was this a formal thing or just Deke Slayton's MO?
It was how he did things, with certain exceptions. It was not formal, but he was consistent enough to satisfy the flight crews.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 10 would be the heaviest spacecraft to reach orbit". Here "Apollo 10" means "the Apollo spacecraft for the Apollo 10 mission" that has just been described, yes? What was the total mass? List of heaviest spacecraft might be a good link to help with comparisons (I am not sure the comparison with the ten Geminis, which is a bit closely paraphrased from the source, is all that relevant). Including File:Apollo Spacecraft diagram.jpg could make it clearer what "the spacecraft" is.
I've added the mass and cut the material about Gemini. There's a limit to how far you can paraphrase sometimes without changing the meaning. Since we're on initial orbit, the "spacecraft" would have included the CSM, LM, and SLA, and I wonder if that's just too much detail for the information we're conveying.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Issues that arose during the countdown were dealt with during the built-in holds" what is the meaning of "built-in hold" in this sentence? I assume this is about the plan allowing extra time for things to go slightly wrong?
Yes, the countdown was held at predetermined times, which allowed catch-up time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later! —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that this was still within safe limits" so was there a misalignment, but it was within safe limits, or did they measure that any potential misalignment was within the safety limits?
Mission Control determined up to six degrees would be safe. The misalignment was about 3.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LM crew go into the LM twice. The first time, they "check out its systems", the second time they "inspect" the systems. Did they check out and inspect the same things twice?
Yes, they went in soon after the LOI-2 burn, came out, rested, went back in, and this was the time they separated. I've added language to that effect.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "standing by to mount a rescue of the LM crew should it become necessary" do we know anything about how this was supposed to work? (No idea how much fuel they had to spare for crazy things like chasing another spacecraft).
That was part of the CMP's job, to go rescue the LM if it made any. sort of orbit. Mike Collins had a list of, I recall, 19 different scenarios.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to stage the LM" the OED says this use of "stage" is OK, but perhaps "separate" is easier on the non-specialists
I've rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Orbital operations ... paved the way for the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing" I would have expected this paragraph in "Aftermath", a section that is currently a bit thin.
Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mysterious or alien signals: this doesn't really belong into the Snoopy section. If this is about the 2016 TV program, it should be in some "popular culture"/"documentaries"/"media" section; if it is about the astronauts hearing strange sounds, it should not just have a UFO speculation source.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fastest human spaceflight: is that relative to Earth?
    It is per the source, yes. Clarified. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section: some of the things learned from the mission could be collected here; in what way were plans for Apollo 11 changed by Apollo 10?
    In my perception, the most significant outcome of Apollo 10, as posited by the secondary sources, is already covered within that portion of the article (after having taken account for your astute comment above about moving this information), namely that the flight of Apollo 10 demonstrated the technical feasibility of the various systems and processes which would be implemented on Apollo 11. I've not seen evidence beyond technical minutae in primary sources that changes deserving of mention here are lacking in coverage, given the primary mission objectives were accomplished without significant hindrance. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amateur astronomy blog begun in early 2020 explored the possibility that the descent stage may still be in lunar orbit" primary source for this is the blog itself, looks like undue weight to mention in article body? Could be a fine external link.
I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: "earthrise" is one word? Do we need all these craters?
Earthrise is one word.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some of them but added a photo of the Apollo 11 landing site taken by 10.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will check back soon, perhaps with more. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm running out of things to complain about (but a few above are still unanswered; please be explicit if you think they do not need to be actioned, which is quite possible for some). —Kusma (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. Support. —Kusma (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from HAL

edit
  • short of the actual descent and landing Is the "the" needed?
    Cut by Wehwalt. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • enabled the first landing on Apollo 11 two months later. Maybe change to "first crewed landing with"?
    Tweaked. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With five prior flights among them, Apollo 10 had the most experienced American crew to reach space prior to the Space Shuttle era Was there a Soviet crew more experienced than them?
I don't think so in the same time frame but the source doesn't say and I'm not sure we need to say. The Soviets had had a crew consisting entirely of a veteran of spaceflight, Soyuz 1, though that ended badly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's real minor. No biggy. ~ HAL333 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • uncertain it was a good idea, since Charlie Brown was always a failure lol
  • There is a duplicate link of "Command and Service Module"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apollo Landing Site 2 (ALS-2) in the Sea of Tranquillity, the contemplated landing site for Apollo 11 Were there other potential landing sites? If so, would "a contemplated..." be more apt?
By Apollo 10, ALS-2 was the prime landing site. The Apollo 11 crew (and the Apollo 12 crew for that matter) were already training with that in mind. NASA just wanted more photography. ALS-1 and ALS-3 (to some extent) were still in the picture, the western sites were more backups in case of delays.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Apollo/Skylab ASTP and Shuttle Orbiter Major End Items" document, is there an author you could add? Is BW3/MC3 some kind of unit within NASA that developed the report?
It seems to be their internal code. I find in a 1978 telephone directory that "MC3/BW3" was Space Shuttle Orbiter Project Office, Orbiter Project Control Office, Logistics, and the name listed is Aubrey L. Brady, with a secretary, Claranita C. Haefner, and an address at JSC of Building 1, Room 374A. The directory is found here. I'm not sure if we can draw conclusions about who prepared it or if such a compiled (but very interesting) list can be said to have an author or editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would just leave it blank. ~ HAL333 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. More comments soon. ~ HAL333 21:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are up to date. Thanks for the compliment and comments. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Drew ex Machina a high quality source? Could you source the dependent material with something else?
It is. This was discussed in the FAC for Apollo 5, as part of the source review, here. My response was "
According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials." It's also been used in the FAs Apollo 15, Apollo 17 and Alfred Worden.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence One issue that was encountered was bad-tasting food, as Stafford apparently used a double dose of chlorine in their drinking water, which was placed in their dehydrated food is somewhat confusing. Did Stafford accidentally do this? For concision you could also just use "reconstituted". Also passive voice.
Yes, the source says he did it "inadvertently". I've rewritten.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you place the craters Papaleksi, Coriolis, and King in alphabetical order?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were subsequently flown Subsequently is redundant imo.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all folks. Great work. ~ HAL333 19:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Wasted Time R

edit
  • I am concerned about the paragraph regarding the ascent staging issue, which includes this language: Cernan later estimated that they had tumbled about eight times.[74] ... Had they fired Snoopy in the wrong direction, they might have missed the rendezvous with Charlie Brown or crashed into the Moon at high speed.[75] Experts later estimated that a crash would have been imminent if the tumbling had continued for another two seconds.[74] There are comments on the Talk page from 2015 and 2019 saying that this overstates the danger they were in, but the comments were never responded to by any editors of the article. I don't know what the truth of the matter is – I've read the crew debriefing, where they seem to give a cool accounting of it, but the voice recording clearly shows they were alarmed by it when it happened. However the video recording doesn't seem to support the idea that it spun eight times – it looks like it swings wildly one way, then back the other way, then is stable again. And who are these 'experts' who said they were two seconds away from a crash? The source is Cernan's book from 1999, which is written three decades later and has no footnotes or endnotes.
You see where I'm getting. If they really were two seconds away from the LM going into an unrecoverable and fatal plunge into the moon's surface, a catastrophic outcome that would have pushed the Apollo program and the first moon landing back another 1½–2 years in all likelihood, that needs sourcing directly to the experts, and more attention in the article body, and inclusion in the lede beyond the passing mention it gets now. But if it really wasn't that dire a situation, then the article needs modification to say so. And if there is disagreement about how dire it was, then that should be indicated, with Cernan's retrospective account attributed as such in-text. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant text from Cernan's book, for anyone who does not have it, is "Then, as swiftly as it had started, the horrifying little episode ended, a fifteen-second lifetime during which we made about eight cartwheels above the Moon, and Tom jerked Snoopy back onto a tight leash. Ole Mumbles do know how to fly. After analyzing the data, experts later surmised that had we continued spinning for only two more seconds, Tom and I would have crashed."--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I watched the video. They don't spin around eight times. We'll find a less dramatic source.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Cernan info. The rest can pretty much stand on its own, with minor emendation that I've made.==Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the text as it stands now doesn't really address whether or not they were close to disaster. There are some popular history treatments such as this from History.com and this from The Register and this from some blog for instance. Maybe a Note could be added to get into this?
These seem to be a bit alarmist and based on Cernan's dramatic renderings. I don't claim to either be an astronaut or to have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, but orbit is a safe place to be. The danger would come when they burned to change that orbit. Secondarily, there was risk in varying from the flight plan and missing the time for the burn to return to Charlie Brown since then new burns would have to be calculated. Adept piloting saved them from those risks. I don't think there's more to be added on that score.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has always been interest in the question of whether the Apollo 10 LM could have landed on the moon, even before For All Mankind highlighted an alternative history view of the question. But the article discussion of this matter is buried as a paragraph within the "Training and preparation" subsection of the "Framework" section. Maybe it could get its own subsection, so that it shows up in the table of contents?
    I have rearranged a bit to render this so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's good. I would suggest adding a paragraph break before "Craig Nelson wrote ..." to split the capabilities description from the retrospective views.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of For All Mankind, many of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo articles have sections that describe dramatizations/popular culture depictions of the flight. So this could be included in such a section, as well as any others that feature it (does the From Earth to the Moon?).
We'd like to keep this to a minimum and limit it to the above. It's difficult to keep up sourcing standards on popular culture materials. Also, it gets rather trivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re At the time, the Princeton was only eight months from decommissioning.[6], why is this important to include in this article? It is already mentioned in the article on the ship, where it makes sense.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Stafford becoming Chief Astronaut, and then Deputy Director of Flight Crew Operations, this means that unlike the other two, he never got a chance to walk on the moon. Was this something he was agreeable to, or did he get pushed upstairs?
He wrote he wanted it. I've cited to his memoirs.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the descent stage, the article says Further, it is unclear whether the descent stage impacted the lunar surface, or if it remains in lunar orbit. But that is immediately followed up by three sets of people saying that it crashed. Who is making the case that it is still in orbit? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a sentence about, and a cite to, an amateur astronomy blog that had posited in some depth that the descent stage might still be in orbit. This sentence and reference was removed per another reviewer's comments due to concerns of undue weight. As such, I've reworked the sentence a bit to acknowledge the possibility that the descent stage has crashed (though this has not been proven to be the case, since no crash site has been documented, as suggested by the other sources). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the footnotes, are you linking publishers every time (tends to overkill, especially with something heavily used like NASA, which you are doing sometimes but sometimes not) or just first time (hard to maintain, but what you seem to be doing with National Air and Space Museum), or not at all (what you are doing for Space.com)? Fwiw I've gravitated towards 'not at all' in articles I write; it reduces the visual noise and if a source is especially important, I usually mention and link it in the text itself.
We're linking publishers every time. I've adjusted the other cases you cite. The rationale seems to be that the reader probably only examines one ref at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fn 5 and fn 95, the publisher should be in mixed case, like the WP article titles for them, not upper case.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fn 82, you identify the source as a blog. Aren't some of the other sources blogs or personal websites too, like fn 6 or fn 9 or fn 35?
    FN 6, yes. Though founded and edited by notable space historian Robert Pearlman, I don't consider CollectSPACE (FN 35) a blog or personal website. Need to think about FN 9; I'm not as familiar with that source. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hamish Lindsay was closely involved in the communications and tracking efforts for Apollo at Australia's Honeysuckle Creek. He's written and spoken extensively on Apollo. I think he qualifies under WP:SPS.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher for fn 93?
    Included. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the footnotes, newspapers and magazines such as Orlando Sentinel and Forbes and Universe Magazine should be italicized. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe I've fixed all. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 11:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Apollo 10 set the record for the fastest human spaceflight, what made their flight faster than any of the other Apollo lunar missions? Was it some characteristic of their flight profile? Or are all the speeds similar and this one just happened to be larger than the others? What percentage faster was it than the next fastest flight? A lot of text is spent explaining the distance-from-homes record, but the speed record goes unelaborated.
Yes. It was the flight profile. It was designed to get them home in the shortest amount of time feasible. Added. I think the next fastest was Apollo 13 but I'll double-check.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was Apollo 13. Here is a chart showing the velocities. Note that all of the lunar missions had velocities that were quite similar, with Apollo 10 a fraction of a percent ahead.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a good addition, but it might be worth adding that the difference was only a fraction of a percent, like you say.
The record is something of an aside from the story of the mission. I don't want us to get too bogged down in this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bibliography, the original edition of The Last Man on the Moon is 1999 by St Matin's Press, see the copyright page at OpenLibrary. And the co-author's name is given as just Don Davis.
I've adjusted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Bibliography entry for Deke!, why is "(1st ed.)" shown? I'm not sure there was a revised edition and we don't normally state 1st edition anyway.
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", why is Apollo 10 Flight Journal listed, since it is mentioned three times as a footnote.
Individual pages of the journal are cited, it seemed worth citing as a whole--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", same question re the entry for Apollo 10 Press Kit; but the better information about it should be merged into the entry in the Bibliography.
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "External links", "Multimedia", the second third and fifth entries don't fully identify the sites being pointed to. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Identified. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The service module (SM) link and definition doesn't come until the "Hardware disposition" section, but there are at least a couple of earlier uses of SM, so the link/definition needs to get moved up.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the crew of Apollo 10 was awarded an Emmy for the color broadcasts of various mission events that they had provided., this could use a little more detail and a more specific link. It was a special award given out at the 21st Primetime Emmy Awards, held June 8, 1969, and the three were there. I'm not clear on whether it was just for Apollo 10 or for all the Apollo missions up to that point, especially Apollo 8. Unfortunately my WP:LIBRARY Newspapers.com is awaiting renewal so I can see that there are stories the next day about it but I can't read them.
I have access to The New York Times archives and it confirms that it was for all the Apollo missions to that point, though the Apollo 10 astronauts accepted it. I've cut that bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend that it should be removed, as it is still an instance of the Apollo 10 astronauts being celebrated. I think the article can say what the award was for, that they collected it, and give a link to the specific Emmy Awards article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit, earlier in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added one.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're up to date again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about further elaborating on the fastest human speed ever mark, since you only give 61 words to that while you follow it with 135 words on the less-significant farthest distance from home base mark. But overall my comments have been addressed and I'm now in Support. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [43].

Anna Wilson (basketball)

edit
Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anna Wilson, the sister of NFL quarterback Russell Wilson and the woman who holds the Stanford Cardinal record for most career games played, with 160. She won the 2021 NCAA tournament with the Cardinal, and was in the final four in 2022 until losing to Uconn. I believe this is ready for FA status. I don't believe she is pursuing WNBA but she is keeping her options open. If anything changes I'll be sure to update the article. Now that her college career is over, I think the article is stable enough to be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Please bear in mind I know almost nothing about basketball, although I did attend a game once while on holiday in New York........

That's what I got. A good read although I got lost trying to figure out some terminology which would probably be really clear to someone from the United States but isn't to someone from the other side of the pond....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Sportzeditz

edit
@Sportzeditz: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

edit

I don't know much about college basketball, so just some prose comments:

That's all from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: comments responded to, thanks for the review! Therapyisgood (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all fine, except for the lead now has an unexplained acronym: "(fourth in NCAA history)". This should be spelled out and linked. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: done. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • It looks like you are generally using the work parameter instead of the publisher parameter in your citations. That's an acceptable way to do it, but if so you are missing the work parameter in [6], and you have publisher instead of work in [11], [21] and [22].

More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

edit

I'll review the article. I was the one who reviewed it for GA status last year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it tomorrow. Apologies for the delay. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "over a career, with 160 (fourth in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) history)" <<<=== The comma and parentheses are both out of place here. How about "over a career with 160, the fourth-most in the history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)"?
  • career assists with 246 and had the fifth-most points in team history, with 735 <<<=== you don't need that comma (it's not consistent with the first part of the sentence)
  • Playing as a senior for the Bellevue High School Wolverines, <<<=== suggest changing the phrasing to clarify she moved to this school
  • high school basketball graduates <<<=== it's not graduates, it's graduating seniors.
  • The second paragraph of the lead seems unbalanced in general. Some specifics below...
  • You need to clarify somewhere that she played six seasons. That is quite unusual.
  • Split her 2021 accomplishments into a separate sentence.
  • And/or maybe group the defensive accomplishments in one sentence. It's weird that "selected to the Pac-12 All-Defensive Team in her final two years with the team" refers to 2021 and 2022 when everything else in that sentence is only 2022.
  • The "WNBA Draft" is a term in itself. It isn't proper to write it out "Women's National Basketball Association draft" or even "Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) draft". The easiest fix is I don't think you to spell out what WNBA stands for. (In this case in particular, it's not important because she isn't a WNBA player.)
  • 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game <<<=== This isn't really the common name. Suggest abbreviating as "NCAA Division I national championship" or something like that
  • Suggest identifying Russell Wilson as a Super Bowl winning quarterback with the Seahawks instead of his current role, which is less well-known.

Early life

College

  • if you refer to her fifth year as "fifth-year senior", then her sixth year should be "sixth-year senior"
  • "2019 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament" <<<=== this shouldn't be capitalized (i.e. it should be 2019 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament)
    • I think either is OK, our article is capitalized.
  • After the first mention, they should be abbreviated to the common name: "the NCAA tournament", "Pac-12 conference tournament"
  • Same for "Pac-12 Conference Women's Basketball Tournament" to "Pac-12 Conference women's basketball tournament" to "Pac-12 conference tournament"
  • You don't need to spell out what NCAA stands for again in the body. NCAA is the common name, and you already did it in the lead.
  • "Wilson was granted another season of eligibility at Stanford under the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA's) hardship-waiver rule, which states an athlete may gain another year of eligibility if he or she sustained an injury or illness in the first half of the team's season, and the player only played in up to thirty percent of the team's games, after an appeal of an initial denial" <<<=== overly technical, just "Because of the health issues her freshman year, Wilson was granted another season of eligibility at Stanford under the NCAA's hardship wavier rule[footnote] after she appealed an initial denial." and footnote the specifics
  • She finished with career highs in minutes per game, at 23.6, field goal percentage, at .509, and rebounds per game, with 3.7,[3] as the Cardinal defeated the Arizona Wildcats 54–53 to win the 2021 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game <<<=== split into two sentences, separating the season averages with the championship
  • "eligible to return for a sixth season" ===>>> "eligible to play a sixth season"
  • "had a steal and scored the go-ahead layup" <<<=== scored the go-ahead layup after stealing an inbound pass (it wasn't clear these are connected)
  • final four <<<=== should be capitalized "Final Four" and linked to NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament#Final Four
  • PAC-12 <<<== capitalized by mistake
  • Women's National Basketball Association draft <<<==== same issue as lead
  • a process by which professional teams select players to play for their teams <<<=== suggest writing out what WNBA stands for here, "in which teams in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) select players to sign for their rosters"

A bunch of really small things, nothing major. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I'll address these in the coming days. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2022 [44].

Speak Now

edit
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Hello, thank you for the source review. The Barnes & Noble sources do say that the deluxe edition was released on January 17, 2012, so please verify again (there's an archive-url). For the Musicradar and Songwriteruniverse sources, I believe they are eligible to be used as WP:ABOUTSELF because they essentially are interviews. The indies.ca website is the official site of the Canadian Independent Music Awards. Ippantekina (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. I will leave the two interviews for other reviewers to judge. My objections are withdrawn -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MusicforthePeople

edit

A decent if a bit long album for my liking. Some thoughts I have:

  • The genres are listed in a different order in the lead (country pop/power pop/pop rock) versus the infobox (country pop/pop rock/power pop). This suggestion might be more on the trivial side, but uniformity never hurts.
  • "Six singles supported the album" - I would have said "Six singles were used to promote the album".
  • Any reason why "Mean" is introduced in the 3rd lead paragraph, instead of the 2nd with the rest of the singles?
  • In addition to the above, no mention of "The Story of Us"?
  • In the Background section, link Nashville
  • Delink Kanye West in the Writing and lyrics section as he's already mentioned in the previous section. Just the prose mention, keep the picture caption link.
  • "In 'Innocent', Swift sings about ..." change this to "In the song" or "In the track" since its named in the previous line.
  • "Pain in the Art Studio, Nashville" change this to "Pain in the Art Studio in Nashville".
  • Unlink Nashville in Production section since its introduced in Background (and should be linked there per my earlier suggestion).
  • "Blackbird Studios, Nashville" change this to "Blackbird Studios in Nashville".
  • Like above for 1960s to 1960s
  • I'd summarise the support acts for the world tour, something like "Various acts opened the Asian and European legs, while Needtobreathe opened the North American shows and Hot Chelle Rae did the same for the Oceanic shows".
  • Delink Billboard 200 in the Commercial performance section as its already linked in the Background section.
  • The four full mentions of United States in the Commercial performance section should be shortened to US like the previous sections.

That's all I have; feel free to ignore any you think is unnecessary. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

edit

My concerns from last time have been resolved. I have the following suggestions this time.

  • The second para in the lead uses number one quite often; can we rephrase one ("peaked atop"/"topped the [chart]"...)?
  • "some media criticized Swift's weak live vocals" - it sounds as though Swift's "weak" live vocals were a fact. It should be instead "some media criticized Swift's live vocals as weak" or "some media felt Swift's live vocals were weak".
  • ""Haunted" is about romantic obsession and "Last Kiss" is about" - is about.. is about.
  • "Swift recorded much of Speak Now with producer Nathan Chapman" - don't think we need to repeat Champan's role ("producer") here since it was just mentioned in the previous para.

I have read till the end of Music section. FrB.TG (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I have made changes here to eliminate prose redundancy, make small copy-edits and fix MoS/punctuation issues. Please check these carefully and let me know if I messed something up. Other than these and the comment below, the article is pretty much good to go in my opinion, but this should not affect my support.
Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. The NYC source simply says "gave a private performance for contest winners that was broadcast online" so I guess it was some sort of fan-contest? (I can remove it if it is too vague) I clarified that she performed for JetBlue at Kennedy Airport. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)

edit
  • The citations are well-constructed for the most part (though I have some comments about this below), but I would highly encourage you to archive web citations (like Citation 88) to avoid any potential headaches in the future when it comes to link rot and death. This is not a requirement for a FAC/FA, but more of a suggestion.
  • For the Billboard articles accessed through Google Books, I would make that clear in the citation by using the "via=" parameter. I think it would be helpful to visually distinguish these from the Billboard site. I would also include the ISSN for the Billboard magazines accessed through Google Books just so the citations are complete.
  • One problem with ISSN for Billboard sources is that they are not unique so I don't think it is constructive to add the same ISSN for all of them.
  • I'd link Tanner Stransky in his citation. That target article is not in the best shape, but since it exists right now, it should be linked.
  • Citation 165 should have a title translation since it is a foreign language. If there are other instances of this in the citations, I'd make sure to address those as well.
  • Citation 75 is missing the author (in this case Randy Lewis). I would recommend doing a run-through of the citations without authors to make sure others are not missed as well.
  • The citations are all reliable and high-quality, particularly for a music article.
  • Are there any academic studies or analyses of this album or this point in Swift's career? Apologies if this is already present in the article and I somehow missed it. Here are two potential academic sources (Taylor Made: Swift Branding and Taylor Swift and the Work of Songwriting), but I would do a look through Google Scholar.
  • I unfortunately don't have access to the said articles... but I added one to which I have access (via Wikipedia Library Platform)
  • There are other ways to get access to scholarly articles. I have found the Resource Exchange to be very helpful. But in order for this article to be comprehensive, you should look through scholarly articles to make sure that this article is not missing anything. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my observation it could take a while to proceed source requests. I'll try to look into ways to retrieve this paper, but would like to bypass the other because it appears irrelevant judging from the headline and the abstract.. I also added what I could find through Google Scholar. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it is entirely necessary to include the access dates for the archived citations as the access dates are useful for identifying the last time a site was active and that information is not particularly beneficial anymore since an archive is present. Plus, having three dates (publication, access, and archives dates) does create unnecessary bulk in the citations.
  • I'm dubious about this; should I remove all access-dates?
  • I would, but that is just my opinion. As I already said above, these access-dates no longer serve a purpose since the links are already archived and they do just add clutter to the citations, but I will leave that up to your preference. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a spot-check, and everything looks supported by the citations (at least from what I have checked).

Once everything has been addressed, I will do another read-through the citations and at that point, this will very likely pass my source review. I hope this was helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies if I had overstepped my bounds by posting another source review. I was unaware that one was already conducted and I was merely judging this based on the request here and I should have checked through all the reviews here first. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two reviews are almost always better than one—it's always possible for a reviewer to overlook something! (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message to coordinators

edit

@FAC coordinators: Do we need one more support to meet the threshold of minimum three supports? If so, may I ask is it possible if one coordinator recuse to review? Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, consensus to promote isn't just a matter of minimum three supports. I can't speak for the other coords but I have little time for reviewing these days. Off the top of my head, perhaps FunkMonk or Zmbro could stop by?

Comments by Pseud 14

edit

The article is well-written, well-researched in its coverage and analysis of the album, and seems to present all viewpoints fairly. Great work here! Here are a few suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

  • which visited Asia, Europe, North America, and Australasia – I think if we are referring to continents, Oceania would be used.
  • some media commented Swift performed with weak vocals. – perhaps critics instead of media
  • which received media gossip during the album's promotional rollout. – “gossip” seems to be somewhat informal, perhaps “media attention”
  • Enchanted unfit for the album's grown-up perspective. – perhaps “mature perspective“
  • That will be all from me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • The lead says negative reviews criticized the lyrics as immature and unrefined while the article says the mixed reviews were about the heartbreak and vengeance themes. The information in the lede does not appear to be supported in the article.
  • Shouldn't the lede mention something about the album's retrospective reviews or impact since it has a separate section?
  • "Continuing her songwriting tradition of earlier albums" is overly wordy. How about "Like with her past albums" or something similar?
  • I am curious on the structure of the article. 1989 goes from the recording/production process to the album's music and lyrics while this article intermingles these two. Is there a reason for this structure?
  • Because Swift wrote the album by herself before going into the studio with the producer, the article first discusses the writing process and lyrics, and then the music and styles. I hope it makes sense.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. It is important to have a structure that best fits the subject matter so I am not opposed to having something different than what is viewed as the "standard" for these album articles. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance if I am wrong about this. I thought Swift purposefully wrote the entire album by herself to make a point that she is a legitimate songwriter. It reminds me of how Damon Albarn claimed she did not write her own music. Is there anything to this, specifically did Swift talk about this? Again, I could be misremembering this point.
  • Although around that time she said it happened naturally, she did reflect in a 2019 interview that she did so to prove her critics wrong. I added this bit to the "Impact" section.
  • "Before its release, Big Machine" is not grammatically correct as it reads like it is Big Machine's release instead of the album's release.
  • For the Guinness World Records sentence, I would include the year that this occurred to give the information more context. Also, this information may change so it is best to pin this down to a specific year.
  • I believe the "Commercial performance" section should be after the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" sections.
  • To me the "Commercial performance" following the "Release and promotion" section is more logical because of the direct link between PR and sales.
  • Understandable. It does not really bother me, and since none of the above reviewers have pointed this out as an issue (at least from my understanding as I could have likely overlooked it by accident), then I think this current structure works because of the reason you have provided above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of the last paragraph of the "Critical reception" section. It jumps around from positive to mixed to negative reviews and back so the structure seems unclear to me. Wouldn't it be clearer to go from positive to mixed to negative?
  • I wrote the first two paragraphs focusing on the lyrics, and the last on the production.
  • I am uncertain about the opening sentence for the "Impact" section. I would attribute who made this claim. Was it critics, academic, etc.? It appears there is a contrast made between Swift's country music identity and the personas adopted by female pop artist, but I am curious if there were any discussions about Swift and her contemporary female country singers? Were these discussions limited to pop music?
  • Could you expand on this sentence: "Billboard commented that it set the standard for other pop singer-songwriters in the early 2010s".
  • It simply said "a standard-setter for all pop singer-songwriters at the beginning of the 2010s"; do you think it's wise to remove this claim?
  • It looks like you have already removed this claim from the article. I agree with this change because if that was the full extent of the information provided in the source, it does not provide enough context or real information to be included in this article as it is not really saying anything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the Pitchfork source be a better fit in the first paragraph? The first paragraph seems to be more of a discussion on Swift's identity, and that way, you can focus the second paragraph on discussions surrounding the songwriting and its influence.
  • I am surprised the "Impact" section does not have more on retrospective reviews. I would look at 1989 as a clear example of how to do this. This article already uses retrospective reviews as citations (such as this one), but they are not used in the prose.
  • Could you specify how Vulture connected this album with Reputation?
  • I rewrote the "Impact" section to make it clearer on how Speak Now relates to Swift's career.

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. I have also done some minor copy-edits to the article (here) and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for reviewing the article. I have responded to your concerns above, and for those where I did not reply, I have addressed them within the article. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to everything. I have left my responses to your responses above. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC which is also about a music topic. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2022 [45].

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House

edit
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. I nominated this article for FA status back in May, but that nomination was archived due to a lack of feedback. I hope this is more successful the second time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
  • "Gilbert was selected as an architect following a competition." Since no one else is credited, I would strike "an". Which leads to the question, should French be credited as an architect in the infobox?
  • Can anything more in the "site" section be said about the history of the location? I see some scattered info later in the article.
  • "Unlike most custom houses, which face the waterfront, the Alexander Hamilton Custom House faces inland toward Bowling Green.[11][16]" I wonder if it could be stated more clearly that it faces the one direction (north) where there is no nearby water.
  • "Near the building's south end is space formerly used by the United States Postal Service, " if I recall correctly, this was for the Bowling Green Station of the New York post office, which might be worth mentioning.
  • "The new New York Custom House was only the fourth building to be built under the Tarsney Act.[82]" Didn't the competition take place, not under the Tarsney Act, but under Section 3 of the 1899 act? Admittedly, they seem to be more or less the same.
    • Technically yes, you are correct. Would it be better if I said that the Custom House was "only the fourth building to be built following the passage of the Tarsney Act"? Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it, from what I saw of the Congressional Record, they were passing several new building bills at a time. Maybe "only the fourth building to be built following competitions such as that authorized by the Tarsney Act"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'd capitalize Platt's and Quigg's titles.
  • " The next February, during the 55th Congress, Platt and Quigg proposed bills to acquire the Bowling Green site, providing $5 million (about $136 million in 2020[a]) for land acquisition and construction." According to Congressional ProQuest, H.R. 9077, which became the authorizing act, was introduced by Rep. Philip Low (R-NY) on 2/14/1898. It came out of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on 2/6/1899, entirely rewritten, along with a report by a Congressman Mercer of that committee.
  • The bill passed both houses on February 28, 1899, not during March. McKinley seems to have signed it on March 2.
  • "The selection of Gilbert was controversial, drawing opposition from Platt and several other groups" Platt was not a group. Also, it's worth a mention (see here that Platt's opposition was based in part on Gilbert not being a Republican, that being typical of Platt if you look him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Gilbert was a "westerner" who had newly arrived to New York City," I'd change "to" to "in". And if he had moved to NYC, should he be referred to, as you do, as "Minnesota architect"?
  • "A branch of the United States Postal Service" the United States Post Office Department, as we are pre-1971. And it was a station. Stations were usually within city limits, branches outside.
  • "From 1974 on, the Custom House was vacant," Wasn't the post office still open?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your feedback. I have responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Coordinator comment

edit

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

Epicgenius, I am reviewing this and will post comments shortly, but you might take a look at the citations. I have a script installed to show citation errors and it's showing several hundred Lua errors; every single citation has an error message attached to it. The first one, for Note [a], is " Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil). United States Gross Domestic Product deflator figures follow the Measuring Worth series. Cite error: The named reference "inflation-USGDP" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).", if that helps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is weird. The article doesn't show any visible errors for me - I checked this both on my account and as a logged-out user in another browser. I also don't see any hidden categories, specifically any subcategory of Category:Pages with citation errors, that may indicate a citation error in this article. It may be because Template:Inflation/fn uses unconventional syntax, since the entire citation is copied every time it is used (rather than using <ref name="inflation-USGDP" /> after the first use of this citation). Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have both "Beaux Arts" and "Beaux-Arts"; I don't know which is correct but it should be consistent.
  • What is a "membrane arch"? and a "timbrel arch"? I had a quick look and couldn't find suitable links.
  • "about the "old, damp, ill-lighted, badly ventilated" quarters there": we haven't mentioned 55 Wall Street for several sentences, so I think it would be worth making "there" more explicit -- perhaps "current quarters".
  • "As such, no progress was made until 1897, when a further appropriation was proposed": I don't think "As such" adds anything; I suspect you could just cut it.
  • "Republican Party officials wished to have the exclusive privilege of spending immense amounts on the new custom house building": I looked at the source to see what this was trying to say, and it's annoying because it's clearly referring to the desire for patronage, but it doesn't come out and say that. I think it could be clearer than it is, though. How about "Republican Party officials wished to have complete control of the spending for the new custom house building"? I think "control", more than "privilege", is the key here.
  • "The government stipulated that any plan consist of": suggest "The government stipulated that the plans should include".

That's everything I can see to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments. I have fixed all of those issues now, except for the reference issue, which I was unable to confirm. Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks like the Lua errors were nothing to do with the article; see here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You're inconsistent about the use of publisher locations in the book citations. Stern et al has a location; none of the others in the bibliography do. I think that's because you're using the {{cite New York 1900}} template; can that be tweaked to remove the publisher location?
  • Can you check for consistency in use of the publisher vs. website/work parameter? When I did the source review for 55 Wall Street, you removed some publisher parameters for consistency; does the same thing need to be done here? Examples of inconsistency for cite web:
    • [8] & [40] both have publisher and website (and in each the website is given as a domain name, which we should try to avoid). There are others like this.
    • [102] has publisher but no website
    • [149] has website but no publisher
  • You also have a couple of publishers given in cite magazine, but not in all of them.
  • You have "via columbia.edu"; again I would use the organization name rather than the domain name in these cases. For newspapers.com, their brand includes the ".com" so I think those are fine.

I'll take another look when you've responded to these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the source review. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through again, with footnote numbers now referring to this version:

  • Can we get a publisher for Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York?
  • There are still some inconsistencies in the web citations. In one cases (e.g. [35] I would guess it's because it's news citation formatted as a web citation; perhaps this should use cite news? They display identically so this is optional. For the rest, I'm still not clear on the rule you're using for publisher and website/work. There are twelve cite web citations, not counting [35]. All have a publisher except [155], [51], and [149]. All have a website or work parameter except [160], [159], [150], [40], [8], and [13]. Compare [40] to [51]; they are from the same website but formatted differently.
  • ISSN is not required, but just so you're aware, you are missing it for a handful of cite news citations, for the New York Tribune, the Brooklyn Standard Union, the New York World, and the New York Daily News. Again this is up to you; it won't hold up a source review pass.

I'll start checking links and reliability next and post here, probably later tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments @Mike Christie. I have reformatted the Documents of the Assembly of the State of New York cite and added some ISSNs. Regarding Template:Cite web, I have made some changes to the cite templates. However, according to the documentation for that template, we leave out the publisher's name if it's the same as the work, which is what I have done in this case. I've only added |publisher= if the |work= parameter did not seem appropriate and vice versa. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? It now looks like it's the other way round -- all the cite web citations have publishers, and only four have website/work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, my bad. What I mean to say is that I only added one parameter or the other in most cases. Right now, this means the cite web citations have publisher parameters but, for the most part, not work parameters. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that looks good then. No issues with formatting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links, with footnote numbers referring to this version:

  • The archive link for [7], [80], & [87] don't work. I thought it might be a problem with the Columbia links, but [111] does work.
  • The archive link for [150] is giving me a blank archived page.

Those are the only problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, thanks again. I fixed the archive links for the Columbia refs. I also removed the archive link for 150, since it's an interactive map and couldn't be archived. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

I'll comment as I read, leaving the lead for last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC and infobox are fine. I read through Transverse lobby without problems and need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offices and rotunda

  • "Each painting is surrounded by a gold frame" - I had to look at the pics to understand what that means, but that may be just me.
  • ref numbers are not always in numeric order, - intentionally?
  • "... hang from the ceiling. It is normally closed to ..." - The ceiling is closed?
  • general question: we are in the description but from time to time have sentences about the present use vs. the original purpose. Can they be clearly marked as such. (Possibly that's what I get for missing the lead.)
  • captions: I'd probably leave Explorer out of the link to the person.

Other stories

  • "Near the building's south end is the United States Postal Service's former Bowling Green post office" - I had to read that twice.

Competition

  • "Architectural writer Donald Reynolds wrote" - writer wrote?

Got to Customs use, need a break, probably until tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, thanks for these comments. I've fixed all the comments you mentioned above (except for the "Explorer" bit, which is part of the proper name of the artwork). I haven't gotten to your comments about the lead yet, but I will fix them soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read now all of the prose with no more questions. Lead tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I'd like in the lead more clarity about the names and functions. The prominent name of A.H. was added only in 1990, that is not clear. That new name is missing in the infobox. The museum mentioning reads as if it was simultaneously with the customs collection. Sources name it also New York Costum House which would show the location more prominently. Perhaps the very first sentence could say first custom then government and museum?
  • same: "The Custom House is a ..." - no, "The Custom House was a ...", for present tense it should be the current name, no?
  • I don't know if rotunda is a common word or should be linked.
  • "The ground floor contains ..." - perhaps offer a "now" or better a year when this happened, unless - probably better - that year comes up in the first para. I'd move that sentence to later, because the next is the history.
  • To make things harder: I could imagine to first cover history and then description, in the article. But I think the current order would work if the different uses and their times would show more clearly. That's all, the article is a diligent work of art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gerda. Here are my responses to these points:
  • I have reworded the lead to include the former name and to describe it as a "former custom house, government building, and museum".
  • The sentence is now present tense.
  • I have added a link to rotunda (architecture).
  • I clarified when the museum opened, but I think putting the architecture paragraph before the history paragraph is consistent with the section order of the article. Thus, I've moved the opening date of the museum to the history paragraph.
– Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: In the two weeks since Gog's last comment, this nomination has now received several prose supports, as well as a source review and an image review. Is anything else required for this nomination? Thanks. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2022 [46].

Kelenken

edit
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the upload by the original artist:[47] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included
Fixed now, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should include book editors
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
What ref would be an example of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN8: JSTOR URL plus JSTOR ID. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed URL. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11 is missing publisher
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers

edit

Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.

Re: "dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked.
Ah, good catch, the source specifies placental mammals, which I somehow overlooked, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified as "The describers concluded these bones belonged to a single specimen" to keep it in past tense for the narrative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it hasn't been done to this particular area I can't say, and I have looked for newer articles that might have done it, but nothing came up. But I have added "from different areas of the Collón Curá Formation". 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Support by CMD

edit

I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is

  • Article: "...hunting in areas with tall vegetation, providing the agility needed to move amongst vertical obstacles, while the narrow upper maxilla permitted greater access to small prey animals hidden among tree trunks or stones"
  • Source: "...hunted in regions with high vegetation, permitting their greater agility between verticle obstacles. A very narrow upper maxilla would furthermore facilitate the apprehension of small animals hidden amongst trunks or stones"

Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller prey animals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "They" does not work here, as the previous sentence uses "They" to refer to Kelenken. Perhaps simply remove "They pointed out that"? Switching to support now, in anticipation that is resolved. Best, CMD (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed they to "these researchers", to make it clear it is their interpretation. Thanks for the second review! FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird", an extinct group of large, predatory birds)". Suggest 'Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird") an extinct group of large, predatory birds'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long and slender tarsometatarsus of Kelenken instead shows". "instead" of what?
Removed "instead", that sentence was copied from a place in the article where it is contrasted with some earlier views. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and eat small animals". As we have just been told that it is a predator, "and eat" this add anything to the lead. Why else would it chase them down? And this is covered again in the next sentence. Similarly in the main article.
Removed "and eat". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most completely known skull of a large phorusrhacid known at the time." "known ... known". Any chance of some variation?
Changed to "most complete skull of a". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Previously, such skulls were known only from the fragmentary Devincenzia and Phorusrhacos, the latter of which disintegrated during collection (leaving only the tip of the beak), which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes, until the discovery of Kelenken." This doesn't really work as a single sentence. Suggest breaking after "Phorusrhacos".
Split, though I wonder if semicolon could have worked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter of which disintegrated". Delete "of which".
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though their validity had not yet been confirmed through cladistic analysis". Perhaps 'had not then been ...'?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism". Anything in the sources which wuold allow you to suggest why.
There is probably not a common cause for all of these groups, but as was the case with mammals, there were just a lot of niches left for large animals after the non-bird dinosaurs disappeared. I can't find a source related to these birds that states it explicitly, though, but it is implied later in the article where it is compared to meat-eating dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while there are records from Europe, these are disputed." This doesn't make sense to me. (Records of what? Do you mean remains? What is disputed? Obviously not that they are Phorusrhacids as you have just said there are records of them in Europe.) I realise that this is summary style, but any chance of unpacking it a little?
Changed to "while fossils from Europe have been assigned to the group, their classification is disputed". FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they may also have made reverse movements." Which would be what?
To Europe and back again, but too much detail for this article, so snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that invaded from North America in the Pleistocene." "invaded"! Really? Is there not a more neutral synonym?
Changed to "entered", but "invasion" is commonly used in biology too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. Invasive species etc. But without context it reads oddly to me.
  • "very small wings". Actually, they weren't. The word 'relatively' needs to be worked in somewhere.
Went with "proportionally", since they were almost comically small compared to the overall size of the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid". Is it known how it ranks amongst post-dinosaur avians more generally?
Only in the skull-size, since so little of the skeleton is known, the sources don't say anything about how it would compare to for example the elephant birds. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "437.14 mm (17.210 in)". This seems a ridiculous level of purported accuracy, given what is being measured. Suggest rounding to the nearest mm.
Rounded to 437 and added sigfig to a bunch of measurements. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, does the source really offer a level of accuracy of a hundredth of a millimetre?
Table 1 in the source gives: "Tarsometatarsus, maximum length 437.14". FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!
  • "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid ... Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known". If you are going to repeat this, could the two statements appear next to each other? And why the switch in tense - "is" to ""was"?
Good point, combined to "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid, about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 m (9.8 ft)". Decimal feet?[!]
Should be fixed with the sigfig mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a strong downwards projection resembles most closely the condition seen in large to medium sized phorusrhacids such as Phorusrhacos, Patagornis, Andrewsornis, and Andalgalornis than the weaker projections of the smaller psilopterines." I think you are missing something like 'more' or 'rather' before "than".
Said "rather than". FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines". Is there a reason for the havering "apparently"?
The uncertainty is due to the crushing of the skull, so any comparison will to some extent be assumption. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link process.
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is almost quadrangular, which is different from that of brontornithines, which are rectangular". Are rectangles not a category of quadrangles? (Do you mean 'square?) Likewise with "The fourth trochlea is quadrangular, which contrasts with the rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia."
Hmmm, good question, but that's how the source puts it: "a subquadrangular midshaft of the tarsometarsus (differing from the rectangular and very wide midshaft of brontornithines)" and "a quadrangular trochlea of metatarsal IV (contrasting with the proximodistally rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia pozzi)". Will try to ping Jens Lallensack, who should be better at interpreting anatomical terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think we need to blame the source here! Apparently, with "quadrangular" they mean "irregularly quadrangular". Probably this term should be linked? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added "irregularly quadrangular" in two places. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly based on them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies". This construction does not work. It's the "rather than". Maybe something like 'Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks. These were not based on detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies ...'?
Them having large skulls with hooked beak is the fact these hypotheses were based on, so "had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks" won't work, as that implies their large skulls and hooked beaks are hypothetical. Tried with the following, though it may also have issues: "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly inferred from them having large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses". FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "14 m s−1 ~50 km h−1". Should the conversion not be in parentheses? And the "-1" should be superscript.
Probably, but I don't know how to do either in this kind of context, any pointers? FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~50km⋅h−1, which is ~50km⋅h<sup>−1</sup>.
Added, and all of it in parenthesis with converted numbers, but not sure if it looks right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I think I have fixed it.
  • Cheetahs - is their speed known? Even if only in a foot note. Almost any reader is going to be looking it up.
There is, as can be seen here[48] in the introduction, but I'm not sure how to show it in the same format, my math and template skills are pretty poor... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Could you insert the source?
Thanks, done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This could be used for accessing the marrow inside the bones". What is "This"?
Added "strength". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle, the skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”." → 'These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle. The skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”.'
The part after the first comma is connected to the part after the second comma, so tried by replacing the first comma with a semicolon instead. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a maximum downwards strike". What is being maximised? (I am guessing either extension or force.)
Changed to "and for helping it rise from a maximum extension after a downwards strike". FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor; the "Psilopterine Skull Type", which was plesiomorphic (more similar to the ancestral type), and the "Terror Bird Skull Type", which included Kelenken and other large members, that was more specialized, with more rigid and stiff skulls." That's a heck of a sentence. Perhaps break it up?
Split by period instead of semicolon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the earlier late Early ..." Anything you can do about this?
Tried with "contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene". FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and instead allowed ..." Which of the two allowed this?
Rephrased to "The open environment allowed more cursorial and large animals to occur, contrasting with the earlier conditions during the late Early Miocene, with its well-developed forests with tree-dwelling animals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, answered all points, though the quadrangular issue is not yet solved. FunkMonk (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments above, but happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and assistance! FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dunkleosteus77

edit
Did to with paleobiology (added "Limb function" and "Skull and neck function" sections), but there isn't much of a natural cut-off point in the description, which apart from a short paragraph, is almost entirely about the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried with a skull and leg bone section under description, not sure if it works well. Wish they had described the known toe bone too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could also cleave off Beak or Mouth or Jaws? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the same bones participate both in the upper jaw and the rest of the skull, and the text (and description) doesn't separate the two, so there is no natural cut-off point. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added the "sigfig" parameter to some of these. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean, instead of saying "The holotype skull is about 716 mm (28 in) long", say "716 mm (2 ft 4 in)" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I'm not really a numbers guy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't more in the relevant sources (would be beyond the scope of this article to use sources not related to the subject), but could be nice with a dedicated article that could be linked, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the Dutch have a stub about it Kelenken (mythologie) [nl], which describes it as a demon born of the personification of night, and whose brother is "Maip" which incidentally is the namesake of another theropod Maip Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy of an article, yeah, not within my expertise, tough. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos" I feel like this is supposed to be saying that Phorusrhacos was the largest phorusrhacid previously known, unless the other largest phorusrhacids (mysteriously unnamed) were all roughly the same height Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually a workaround because the other "phorusrhacid" mentioned in the paper, Brontornis, is generally not thought to belong to the group anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "some bird groups". FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is clarified in the full sentence: "While they are the most speciose group within Cariamiformes, the interrelationships between phorusrhacids are unclear due to the incompleteness of their remains." FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to talk a lot about what happens well after Kelenken disappears from the fossil record, and I wonder if you should make it a point that Kelenken far predates the joining of the Americas, the extinction of the thylacosmilids, and the first phorusrhacids in North America if you're going to mention those kinds of things, especially because you never say how old Kelenken is until the very end of the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the following before that part, which should make it clearer: "Kelenken itself lived during the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add when they arrive in North America Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most people aren't familiar with geological time, so an actual number date would be more useful than saying just Pliocene or Pleistocene by themselves Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in question don't give numbers, and I think it's too much detail for this article anyway, the number is given for the subject of the article, which should be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It think it would be pointless unless a section about something other than diet is added under paleobiology, but there simply isn't anything to add yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most people don't know what Paleobiology is, so a heading of Diet would be helpful for someone looking for info on diet specifically just checking the table of contents Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Feeding and diet section with the others as subsections. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the source says, I don't know enough about such equations to change it, and I'm not sure it's good to present a different format than what the source does. Perhaps Gog the Mild has ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dunkleosteus' point. If it were my article, which it isn't, I would have 'suggested a speed of 50 km/h (31mph), and that of Mesembriornis suggested 97 km/h (60mph)' etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you got confused with the source's units actually. The source says 14, 27, and 29 m · s-1 (meters per second), but you write m · h-1 (meters per hour) which is quite different. You should use the template for conversion, {{cvt|14|m/s|mph kph}} which outputs 14 m/s (31 mph; 50 km/h) Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit over my head, if anyone wants to change it, feel free, but I simply don't know enough about it to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just said "less adapted for running" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Skull and neck function, you should include somehow that the authors said "But all available evidence suggests that large-bodied taxa, such as other patagornithines (e.g., Andrewsornis, Patagornis) and the truly gigantic phorusrhacines (e.g., Kelenken, Devincenzia), resembled Andalgalornis in transforming all three flexion zones into thickened, reinforced, and immobile junctions" just to more clearly connect Andalgalornis to Kelenken. Right now it seems pretty tangential or out of place here. And surely Kelenken has a much more streamlined beak and the conclusions from FEA would've been pretty different had they studied Kelenken over Andalgalornis Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "such as Kelenken" after "and showed it had lost a large degree of intracranial immobility (mobility of skull bones in relation to each other), as was also the case for other large phorusrhacids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the gist of the study, and where the mention of Kelenken fits best. The skull is rigid because of the lack of intercranial mobility, but the two terms are not synonymous so both need to be presented. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "the other skulls belong to a red-legged seriema and a white-tailed eagle". FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the sides and middle" when you say middle I thought you meant the top, halfway between the head and the tip, not the side of the beak in the middle (at least according to the image). It might be better to say in front of some anatomical landmark Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Said midline instead of middle. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, added "By manually manipulating the vertebrae". FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is already stated as "it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago." FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunkleosteus77, how are things looking for you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can get it to make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to upper beak, beak is too unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wubslin

edit
  • Phorusrhacids were large, flightless birds with long hind limbs, narrow pelves, very small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak. Are "pelves" pelvises? I think an English plural is more suitable for our general readership than a Latin one, as this may make the meaning unclear.
Changed, can't say if that is indeed the most common spelling, but sounds plausible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kelenken differed from other phorusrhacids in a combination of features, including the length of its beak, in having a supraorbital ossification (a rounded edge above the eye socket) that fit into a socket of the postorbital process, and in having an almost triangular foramen magnum (the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters). That's quite a sentence! I suggest removing "a combination of features, including"
But not all the features are listed, hence the "a combination of features, including". But changed to "in features such as" to make it shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of placental mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals. Rather than the apparent contradiction of saying one thing, then the contrary, I suggest recasting this sentence as "Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and apex predators. They dominated Cenozoic South America when there were few placental mammalian predators, and co-existed with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals." or something similar.
The point is the contrast, though. Boryaenid mammals (which were related to marsupials) were less of a competition for the birds than the more "advanced" placental mammals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wubslin: - do you still anticipate having more comments here? Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

edit

I know I'm late on this, but it's only a few nitpicks.

Never too late when it's still a nominee! FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "generic name" in lead?
I wonder if that's needed when genus is already linked (and has the same destination)? Should it be changed to "genus name" instead? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that the reader won't now that "genus" and "generic name" refers to the same concept, and that the link would have the same destination. Yes, maybe "genus name" is simpler. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that fit into a socket of the postorbital" – "fits"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • each other's closest relatives within the group – "within the group" is just redundant/misleading, as it applies to outside the group, too.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines, – should the "the" be deleted?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • approximately at the level of the – "approximately level with the"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • that corresponded to the Middle Miocene Climate Transition, global cooling which had a drying effect on continents. – not sure, but should this be "a global cooling event" instead of just "global cooling"?
Did that, and linked "global cooling". FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the mammals that characterize sediments of this age, there are also a few fossils of birds, – Since this article is about a bird, maybe give the other bird fossils more room? Not sure why mammals get the focus here. Are these bird fossils indeterminate?
Very hard to find anything on this (nothing turns up on Google Scholar other than Kelenken), the book source only says "In addition to the mammals that characterize the sediments of this age, a few specimens of fish, amphibians, anurans, reptiles and birds are present (Pascual et al., 1984)", and refers to what appears to be a congress talk from 1984: "Pascual, R., Bondesio, P., Vucetich, M.G. et al., (1984). Vertebrados fósiles cenozoicos. IX Congreso Geológico Argentino, Relatorio 2, 9, 439–461. San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina." I assume they're not named or indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also guess that larger mammals are more relevant for the ecology of a large bird then are small birds. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, answered all. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2022 [49].

Betsy Bakker-Nort

edit
Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of post-war Dutch parliamentarian Corry Tendeloo a few months ago, I started the article about her pre-war predecessor, another women's rights fighter largely forgotten these days. Thanks to the thorough reviews of Johannes Schade at GA and SusunW at PR the article is in much better shape than I could manage. Yet no doubt more improvements are needed, which I look forward to hear about. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Betsy-Bakker-Nort-1922-by-AS-Weinberg.jpg does not appear to be PD-US, unless there is a known publication before 1927
  • I did a bit of research. Photo taken in 1922 by portrait photographer A.S. Weinberg according to [50]. I can't find anything about it being published anywhere. The site hosting it says it is in the public domain. The site's owner, Atria, is an institute that is a descendant of the International Archives for the Women's Movement. Since starting in 1935, they received many personal archives including Betsy Bakker Nort's, according to [51]. It is likely that this photo was never published until Atria did so on their website. The site hosts other Bakker-Nort images, and lists some of those as in Copyright, see for example [52]. So they seem to follow the rules. None of the digitized 1920s, 1930s, 1940s newspaper articles on delpher.nl that mention Bakker-Nort feature this photo. So I made the change and tagged it PD-US-unpublished, is that correct? I also added the info I gathered to the file on Commons.
  • File:Group photo International Woman Suffrage Alliance June 1908 in Amsterdam.jpg A publication before 1927 is probably needed to make it PD-US, unless it was out of copyright in NL on 1 January 1996
  • Given that it was an event in 1908, it very likely was published somewhere soon after that event, although I have not found a specific publication.
  • I have checked the newspaper archives for the June 1908 event [53], as well as the monthly magazines for the relevant topic in that year (see [54]). I could not find this photo published. According to this researcher here [55], the photographer was hired by the organisation to document the event. I expected to find the photo in the report of the event, which according to this newspaper report [56] came in July 1908. Google Books does not allow a preview, but it does allow a search inside the report, [57]. None of the relevant keywords produce a result that suggests this photo is in this report. The photographer died in 1947 according to [58]. Like the lead photo Betsy-Bakker-Nort-1922-by-AS-Weinberg.jpg, this photo comes from the Atria institute, probably donated by one of the event organisers to the International Archives for the Women's Movement in the 1930s; Atria have shared it with the EU run Europeana.eu; both list this photo as in the Public Domain. It is likely this photo was never published. Shall I change its license to PD-US-unpublished?
  • File:Peace Palace in the Hague in 1922.jpg Need to know publication date and/or author's death date to determine copyright status
  • It doesn't mention a name, just Agence Rol. Agence photographique. The site, run by the European Union, lists this item as No Copyright, with a link to [59]. My best guess, given that it is made by a press agency and the file has 1922 in its name, is that it was published in 1922 in France. Can we keep it?

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to reserve a spot. Poke me if it slips my mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image for the Reichstag fire seems disproportionately large.
  • I have cropped it a bit
The image is still the same size.
I cropped it even further, made it the current version, but I too do not see the new version appear on the page yet. Perhaps the image is cached somewhere for some time. I'll check again in the morning.
  • Cite 75 has a p/pp error.
  • "she received enough votes to be elected". I suspect readers will understand how elections work; perhaps 'she was elected'?
  • "After the German invasion in May 1940". Could you specify which one, and the link is Easter eggy.
  • "Bakker-Nort did not return to the House." What and/or where is "the House"?
  • Why "concentration camp Theresienstadt" rather than 'Theresienstadt concentration camp'? Also in the article.
  • "Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task of leading the women's movement Jacobs had given her." Suggest → 'Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task Jacobs had given her: of leading the women's movement.'
  • "Historian Marianne Braun" to 'The historian Marianne Braun' to avoid false title.
  • "when a corresponding law". What is a "corresponding law"? And/or, what does it correspond to?
  • "legally incapacitated and denied them any say over their own children and property needed to be reformed." → 'legally incapacitated, denied them any say over their own children and property needed to be reformed.'
  • "a more conservative group". "more conservative" that what/who?
  • "two female board members on the board of the VDB". Can "board" twice in five words be avoided?
  • "The VDB retained its five seats". It would be helpful if at some point a reader could be told the total number of seats.
  • "slowly taking up more feminist's viewpoints". Why the 's?
  • "which since the 1929 election had two female members of parliament, with van Itallie-Van Embden joining Bakker-Nort". This fits clumsily inside a sentence on a different topic. Could it be given a sentence of its own?
  • "wearing their national flags". How does one wear a flag?
  • "The Hague Convention resulted in little progress". On anything? Or just on women's rights? If the latter, say so.
  • On anything. No agreements were reached on the other topics (territorial waters nor foreign property).
  • "Bakker-Nort continued to fight for the right of a married woman to choose to keep her own nationality, but during her whole time in parliament she was a lone voice." Could you confirm that VDB policy was opposed to this position?
  • I can not. The source says she was the only one raising the issue. I imagine the others thought the same but let her do the talking. Is "lone voice" not a good description of this? Is it better to just remove it?
I can just about live with it, but if it were me I would remove it. If you can think of a more nuanced way of putting it that would be good.
I removed it
  • "to remove any restrictions for women to be appointed notary". This seems a little convoluted. Perhaps 'to remove any restrictions on women being appointed notaries' or similar?
  • "had most recently tried in 1927". Tried what? To argue for? If you mean tried to introduce a bill, say so. If you mean succeeded in introducing a bill but it had failed to become law, say so.
  • removed altogether to simplify
  • "and had most recently tried in 1927, but was voted down again" Voted down again in 1927, 1927, or both?
  • removed altogether to simplify
  • "the Nazis were the instigators of the fire." Can one instigate a fire? "to incite; to bring about by urging or encouraging".
  • "She urged people to value the freedom and justice that democracy provided and to fight all who aimed to curtail them/" I assume this was directed at the German government. If so, could this be made clear?
  • Possibly but that would be speculation. The source only says she spoke at a meeting in Amsterdam. Perhaps "She urged the Dutch people to .."?
That would be fine.
  • "She had tried to at least put a time limit of five years on the law". I don't understand. Five years before it came into effect? Five years before currently employed women were fired? Something else?
  • Time limit as in how long the law would apply for. I rephrased it to make clear her amendment was about making it temporary
  • "which banned Aryans from marrying Jews". I think Aryans needs explaining in line per MOS:LINK "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."
  • I did but please check
Excellent.
  • "They were spurred on by the activities of for instance the VVGS". Suggest either deleting "for instance" or specifying the wider group which the VVGS is exemplifying.
  • "The late 1930s saw a rise in antisemitism in the Netherlands, once many Jews fled Germany." This seems to say that antisemitism increased in the Netherlands because Jews were leaving Germany. Does the source support that? (I fail to see the connection.)
  • Yes, 30,000 Jewish refugees came across the border, which was a relatively big group compared to size of Dutch Jews population. However, rather than trying to explain all this, I have dropped the second part.
Ah. (You could have added "to the Netherlands" to the end of the sentence.
  • "it condoning the Nazis' actions." What actions?
  • elaborated a bit more, linking to Kristallnacht
  • "the next election, leaving it to the next generation." "... next ... next ..."
  • "the bill for punishment on treason and espionage." Should "on" → 'of'?
  • "The next day the Nazis invaded the Netherlands." 1. "the Nazis" → 'Germany'. 2. Could we have a link to German invasion of the Netherlands in there.
  • "the occupiers dissolved parliament". Could it be stated that the Netherlands was defeated and occupied. Perhaps giving the date of the end of the fighting and/or the start of the occupation.
  • Lead: "during her time in the chamber mainly argued the case for more women's rights with respect to marriage law and labour law"; article: "Bakker-Nort had spent 18 years in the House, addressing parliament mainly on the issues of justice, education and labour". The lead should be a summary of the article, but they don't seem to match.
  • Not literally indeed, but in the lead we have the specific topics that come up time and again in the body of the article. This sentence here in the body is wider in scope, but I suspect it is more useful for the reader if the specific topics are in the lead. Happy to change if you disagree.
Ho hum. I see your case, so your choice. Leave as is if you wish.
  • "As the Nazi occupiers". "Nazi" → 'German'. Check other uses of Nazi as well please.
  • Is there a reason why Nazi should not be used? It seems to me it is quite common to use Nazis and Germany interchangably.
And a thoroughly bad habit it is too. (IMO. (In an encyclopedia article.)) One would not write "The demorats liberated Paris" or "The communists were victorious at Stalingrad". The ideology of a nation's government should not be used as a shorthand for the name of the country. (IMO. In an encyclopedia article.)
I see your point. I have replaced Nazis with Germans in quite a few places, particularly where it involves them invading or occupying or anthing international. However, there are a few cases with the Reichstagbrand and internal aggression towards German jews where I feel Nazis is more appropriate.
Yep. That's fine.
  • "She never had belonged" → 'She had never belonged'.
  • "She was single since 1939 when her husband had died." → 'She had been single since 1939 when her husband died.' And why is this mentioned out of chronological order?
  • I tried to find a good place for it in chronological order but it kind of breaks the flow of the 1937–1940 section. So I removed it altogether.
I think it too important to remove. I have reinserted it, but feel free to move or rephrase. (Obviously!) Or to come back for any further discussion.
  • "accepted an offer to resign taking their pension." → 'accepted an offer to resign and take their pension.'
  • "Bakker-Nort was found alive at the camp in June 1945". Is it known by who, or in what circumstances or why this was a month after the end of the war?
  • I added a litle bit of what is known but nothing known about the circumstances.
  • "of which Bakker-Nort was one of the most prominent." "which" → 'whom'.
  • "The newly acquired right to study quickly became normal". I assume you mean at university'?
  • "At some point in the 1930s, she had donated her documents to the International Archives for the Women's Movement in Amsterdam, which also housed personal documents of, among others, Jacobs and Rosa Manus, as well as documents of women's organizations and journal issues." A long sentence. Suggest breaking at "Amsterdam, which".
  • "In 1992, the feminists' materials were identified in the Russian Military State Archives and recorded on microfilm, and 10 years later returned to the International Archives of the Women's Movement." Did this have any effect on academic interest in Bakker-Nort or on the publication of works about her?
  • Not as far as I can see. There is no extensive biography. Yet.
Hmm. If access to this mass of material 20 years ago has really led to no academic follow up, perhaps that could be noted? Possibly adding that women's stories have been generally lost because they weren't a focus of academia and that lack of archival records and digitization has contributed to this? I am pinging SusunW in as they covered similar issues in the last section of their FA Inter-Allied Women's Conference. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree that lack of academic focus and records upon which they could have relied (but chose not to) had a huge effect on women's stories being lost. Perhaps This source will help. Look specifically at pp 496 re Rosemary Foot's observation and 497 the impact of a lack of women's archives. SusunW (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed review. I believe I have addressed all your points. There are a number of cases where I have explained something or asked you a question, see above. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thank you. A handful of come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have them addressed but do check. If the image problem persists I'd love some guidance. Thx, Edwininlondon (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still twitchy about the academic interest issue, which I have recently expanded on, and which Susun has chipped in on, but I think that FAC is met as it is so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, and your support. I agree it would be good to say something about the archives and scholarly research, but I struggle to find something that pertains to Bakker-Nort. While insightful, SusunW's references are quite remote from the IAV archives and Bakker-Nort. Ideally I find a source that says "while some scholars have used the recovered archives to write about Aletta Jacobs and Rosa Manus, none have published (yet) about Bakker-Nort". But there is no such thing I can find. I have found evidence of the archives being used to write about Jacobs (see [60]) and Rosa Manus (see [61]). Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows that lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. While not directly about Bakker-Nort, it in general applies to every historic woman. IMO there is no possible way that the stolen archives could not have impacted her story being told. Had there been access during the push to create women's studies courses (1970-1990), there is no doubt in my mind that she would already have a full blown biography because she ties into too many other critical Dutch feminists. But, it happened like it happened. I do see your point Edwininlondon, but as long as you aren't drawing a conclusion, I think you have enough. You can make the general statement "A lack of archives or access to them..." and follow it with "For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus". But, its your call. SusunW (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm happy to add this: "A lack of archives or access to them impacts both the way history is presented and whether women's stories can be uncovered. For example, the retrieval of the IAV records led to new biographies on Jacobs and Manus." But I'm not finding the exact source for this first sentence. Nothing on pages 496, 497 or even further on in Glenda Sluga's article quite cover it I think. Is there something else? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sluga discusses the paucity of women's presence in national archives (but wealth in feminist records) and lack of scholarship on women 500-501, but in this case, perhaps this is helpful, which specifically talks about the IAV. 27 talks about how lack of materials make it difficult to include women in the historic records, 29 talks about how the records were used to counter government assertions about women, 39 talks about importance of archives in generating scholarship, and 41 talks about how the lack of records leads to invisibility. Hope that helps. SusunW (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid, thank you. I've added the 2 lines and sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SusunW

edit

I'm putting a placeholder here and will review it in the next couple of days. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC) As I already reviewed the text at the peer review, a read-through since the changes were made indicates to me topic is well presented and comprehensive, with no major issues. It's a support from me. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

I'll take a shot at the refs here. All references appear to be from RS and a spot check during the peer review revealed no overt issues with close paraphrasing, OR, or mis-cited pages, etc. Formatting issues are noted below, but overall conforms with MOS, in my opinion, though were it me, I would list issn and oclc for any journal articles that had such identifiers as it makes it easier for people abroad to locate and/or request materials in my experience. version reviewed:

  • Bundle the four refs after the 2nd sentence of death and legacy section.
  • Betsy Bakker-Nort – biography 1st ref, should be Biography
  • ref 54 fire should be capitalized
  • ref 56 title should be in title case
  • ref 77 goes to the search page, rather than a direct link to the article
  • ref 78 again goes to a search page, rather than any article and I see nothing titled "Bakker-Nort". Perhaps a better way to avoid OR would be to state "While the national newspaper Het Dagblad published only a short notice of her death…" and remove the citation to the search page.
  • Braun, after the : "The" should be capitalized
  • de Haan's title shows "iav/iiav's" which should be IAV/IIAV's as these are acronyms/abbreviations for organizations.
  • de Wilde is missing location, i.e. Assen and both "is" and "years" in the translations should be capitalized.
  • In Gijsenbergh looks like there is a stray . after Cham (as in Cham, Switzerland)
  • Posthumus-van der Goot is missing location, i.e. Utrecht; according to worldcat this was the 3rd revised edition, and oclc is 258044133, which should be added
  • Presser: English translation should be in title case and “the” Hague should be capitalized.

That's it from me. Overall, very thankful you wrote the article on her. Well done. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me now SusunW (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

Happy to be challenged on any of my comments, expecially about prose, where I make no claims of expertise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could a cropped version of the infobox image be used, with reduced white space around the subject?
  • Done

Early activism

  • "She was the 14th woman to enrol at the University of Groningen. In 1871, Jacobs had been the first.[14] She finished her studies four years" - maybe subsitiute the name for the second "she"?
  • Done. Also realised the year is a bit ambiguous, so rephrased that as well
  • "She finished her studies four years later" maybe amend to something like "...finished her degree..." or "completed her degree", as she later went on to complete a doctorate?
  • Done
  • "Bakker-Nort was the first female to earn a doctorate in law" - should this be "...the first woman..."?
  • Done
  • "...Bakker-Nort started to work as a lawyer and attorney in Groningen, which she would do until 1930, when the couple moved to the Hague, where she continued her legal work..." - when I first read this I expected there to be an interruption in her legal work, rather than just a change of location. If sources tell us that she did continue in the same line of work without a significnt gap, consider rewording.
  • Done
  • "among the first wave feminists" - it's not clear to me from this (without clicking the wikilink) whether Bakker-Nort was amongst those first wave feminists or not. Maybe state it, if she was, or add a few words about the first wave?
  • Done. Changed the first sentence of the section, to make her part of the 1st wave
  • "active suffrage" - I was unaware that this means the right to vote. It may be clear enough from the previous sentance what the term means, but just have a look again.
  • Done. Added links for both active and passive in previous sentence
  • The article has "Vereeniging voor Vrouwenkiesrecht (VVVK)" and "Association of Women Citizens (VVS)" & "Association of Women with Higher Education [nl] (VVAO)" - slight inconsistency, which I guess arises form there being a wikilink to VVVK and not the others. Shouldn't VVVK also have a translated title?
  • Done. I'll make the red link go blue one day soon. I think it is notable.

Political Career

  • "By 1918, Bakker-Nort was on the board of the VDB, one of two female board members, Mien van Itallie-Van Embden being the other" - maybe "By 1918, Bakker-Nort was one of two female board members on the board of the VDB, Mien van Itallie-Van Embden being the other"?
  • Done
  • "with the majority of the House being members of Christian parties, her arguments to stop the bill failed" - maybe add something like "and opposed this", as them being members of Christian parties was not the direct cause.
  • Done

Death and legacy

  • " reduce the rights of women based on the Bible," - I haven't read the source, but shouldn't this be something like "..based on their interpretation of the Bible,"?
  • Done
  • "She had donated, at some point in the 1930s," - maybe "At some point in the 1930s, she had donated"?
  • Done
  • "they moved all stolen materials to Moscow" - is it "all of these stolen materials"? Again, I've not looked at the source.
  • Done

Lead

  • I wonder if a little could be added to summarise more of the legacy part of the article?
  • What do you think is best? Something like "According to VDB chairman Pieter Oud, Bakker-Nort had successfully accomplished the task of leading the women's movement Jacobs had given her."

Great work, Edwininlondon (and GA/PR reviewers). I've got a few questions and comments above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

I have written historical biographies, but am unfamiliar with this person or their work.

  • "had made a name for herself as the first female student at a Dutch university," I think this can be shortened to "was the first female student at a Dutch university,"
  • "Together they went from town to town to make the case for women's rights in speeches." -> "Together they went from town to town to adcovate for women's rights in speeches."
  • "that this early work already showed her calm and determined approach and social-liberal orientation." Delete already as unnecessary
  • "In 1871, Jacobs had been the first." This is already mentioned earlier in the article so this can be removed.
  • "This meant, for instance, that married women could not" Delete "for instance" as unnecessary
  • "Getting the vote, however, was important not only in order to make progress on women's issues, she said; it was a fundamental right for women to have a say in all matters." I don't know about this phrasing and punctuation, as I originally thought everything after the semi-colon was a quote. Maybe: "She said that getting the vote was important to make progress on women's issues and that it was a fundamental right for women to have a say in all matters."
  • "outlining what a modern marriage law should look like and " -> "outlining provisions she thought should be included in a modern marriage law" to express that she is sharing her opinion on the marriage law.
  • "and wrote in a column in its monthly magazine that the old laws which made married women legally incapacitated, denied them any say over their own children and property needed to be reformed." -> "and wrote in a column in its monthly magazine that the old laws, which made married women legally incapacitated, denied them any say over their children and property and thus needed to be reformed." Added a comma, removed "own" and added "and thus".
  • "but decided to play a waiting game and not to revoke the agreement." -> "but decided to not revoke the agreement." waiting game is going a little to far into MOS:IDIOM in my opinion, and I don't think deciding to wait is a necessary addition to this sentence.
  • "Her successor Tendeloo was instrumental in ending married women's incompetency to act and the mandatory dismissal of female civil servants once they married." I am not sure how this connects to Bakker-Nort. Maybe a comment in this sentence about how it built upon Bakker-Nort's work, or delete it altogether.
    I see your point. I have removed the 2nd bit about the dismissal. Since the text repeatedly refers how Bakker-Nort tried to end the incompetency to act, I think the connection is clear now; it was the dismissal bit that came out of nowhere.
  • While not necessary for my support, I suggest that the "Sources" section be divided into two columns so that a reader does not have to scroll as much to compare sources.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2022 [62].

Angel Locsin

edit
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously worked on two Filipino BLPs, I chose to work next on Angel Locsin, a Filipina actress whose career in film and television include portrayals of superheroines and mythological creatures before transitioning into well-received romantic dramas and comedies. I have given this article a major expansion early this year and I feel ready to bring this to FAC. FrB.TG has been so kind to provide his expertise in BLPs to help me prepare the article for this nomination, and has provided suggestions, improvements and copyedits to polish it to its current form. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit
  • If the mythological roles are in film and television as well, it might be better to write the second sentence as "She is known for her dramatic roles, and portrayals of heroines and mythological characters in film and television."
Done
  • "film and television" is repeated twice in the lead, so maybe the second usage could be trimmed.
Done
  • "the last of these is Locsin's highest-grossing release to date" - "these" could be replaced with "which" and the preceding semi-colon could be a comma
Done
  • Ref 4 should precede ref 8 in the sentence about her father's condition
Fixed
  • "She was then signed to a management deal with GMA Network" - Maybe say "She then signed a management deal with GMA Network"
Done
  • Since this is the English Wikipedia, I doubt many people would be able to understand the embedded external video and thus its usefulness. But I will leave this up to you.
Now that you mentioned it, it makes perfect sense to just remove it.
  • In the lead Darna is introduced as "the Ravelo Komiks Universe series" so this should be incorporated in the body as well.
Added
  • "described the production as "fresh" and "innovative"" - maybe the one-word quotes could be replaced by synonyms
Done
  • Any reason Nestor Torre Jr.'s full name is repeated?
Just realized that, only full name on the first instance, should be fixed now.
  • "and has been cited as one of the "greatest movie actresses" in the last decade" - attribution is always a good idea with claims of this magnitude
Attributed the list to Yes! (Philippine magazine) which is published/relegated to it's online site PEP.
Fixed
  • "From 2005 to 2016, Locsin was romantically involved with several high-profile personalities" - I would remove the word "several" here since it is subjective
Done
  • The paragraphs in the Personal life section could be merged since the second is currently too small and they seem to be thematically cohesive
Done
  • The release years for the films do not need to be repeated in the Acting credits and awards section as these are usually only introduced at first mention
Done
The article is grammatically perfect, well-researched and seems to present all viewpoints fairly (including her projects which received negative reviews), great work here! That will be all from me.--NØ 10:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kinds words and for doing a thorough and very helpful review MaranoFan. I have addressed above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG

edit

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • "She is known for her dramatic roles, and portrayals" - don't think that comma is needed
Comma removed
  • "She remained with of the series" - "with of"?
Thanks for catching this, fixed now. Should be remained with the series
  • "Locsin rejected the title role in television remake" => "Locsin rejected the title role in the television remake"
Fixed. Thanks for catching this omission
  • "Bayani San Diego of the Philippine Daily Inquirer drew similarities between [...] to that of" => "Bayani San Diego of the Philippine Daily Inquirer drew similarities between [....] and that of"
Done
  • "former midfielder Phil Younghusband" - I would say "former footballer Phil Younghusband" as people who don't follow football won't know what a midfielder is, and specifying his playing position is an unnecessary detail in this article
Agreed and changed.
Thanks for the helpful review ChrisTheDude. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

edit
  • I have a clarification question about this: Locsin is reluctant to publicly discuss her family background. Is there a reason why she is reluctant to discuss her family or is it like how celebrities in general are less comfortable discussing their personal lives?
It's primarily the latter, where they're generally not comfortable discussing their personal lives. The sourcing only mentions that she was estranged and reasons for why that happened are have not been publicly discussed.
  • For this part, who later suffered complete blindness, I would use a different word than "suffered" as the current word choice sounds somewhat too melodramatic for Wikipedia.
Revised this. Went with "was later diagnosed with"
  • I believe the following sentence needs more clarification: During its premiere, Darna received the highest Nielsen ratings for a television series pilot episode with a reported 47.1 percent viewership. I am imagining this show does not have the highest Nielsen ratings for a television pilot around the world? The citation makes it sound more like the highest rating for that network.
I've clarified now that it is a Philippine TV series. For the second point, although the article only covers shows broadcast by GMA Network, there is a note before the listings that says AGB Nielsen's ranking of the highest rating in the Philippines, which applies to the pilot episode.
Done

I hope that my review is helpful. I have honestly never heard of this person before, but I still found the article to be very engaging. As the article's prose has already been reviewed by three reviewers, I have very little to add here. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review, Aoba47. I have addressed your above comments. Let me know if I missed anything or if anything remains unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, I hope you are doing well and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, Aoba47. Sure, will have a look at PR this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720

edit

Version reviewed: [63]

Removed now, only used it as a secondary source.
  • Ref 69: Where in this source does it verify that this was Locsin's only release in 2013?
Reworded
  • Ref 79: Original link is a deadlink.
Archived link should be the main one now
  • Ref 85: I could not find an editorial masthead on their website. What makes ClicktheCity.com a high-quality source?
I thought about its use, since movie reviews are generally provided by contributing/freelance editors for the website. I believe it would be okay to quote commentaries from film critic Philbert Dy, who contributes for multiple mass-media outlets, including the site. And since the purpose of the citation is more on commentary, and not contentious/controversial claims.
Since the film critic seems to highly regarded in the Philippines, that will be sufficient to qualify as a high quality source.
  • Ref 113: Needs a publisher listed.
Added
  • Ref 121: Why is Metro not wikilinked?
This is a publication in the Philippines (which doesn't have a wiki article) and not related to Metro in the U.S.

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the source review Z1720, I have provided my responses for the above. Let me know if there's anything that remains unaddressed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh

edit
  • "Born in Santa Maria, Bulacan, Locsin began her acting career" — perhaps, should be mentioning about her education in the lead as well, at least that she was "educated at the University of Santo Tomas High School".
Added
  • "Angelica Locsin Colmenares was born on April 23, 1985 in" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
Done
Done
  • ""I've learned a lot, especially as to how film acting should be done ... How you use your eyes, your position, and how you maximize camera angles ... I didn't know those things before," she said." — Avoid starting a sentence with a quotation. Same with ""You should not be limited to certain things", Locsin opined"
Tweaked for both
  • "Rappler's Carljoe Javier opined that" — our article does not italicize Rappler
Fixed
  • The values, US$3.7 million and US$3.3 million are of that time, or adjusted to inflation?
I've adjusted the values and included year parameter (per Template:To USD)
  • "in Marawi, Lanao del Sur to reconnect" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
Done
  • Do we really need a link to falling accident?
Unlinked

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Kavyansh.Singh. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. --Pseud 14 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 August 2022 [64].

Sally Ride

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Askeuhd (talk)

This article is about Sally Ride, the third woman to fly in space. She is also the first astronaut known to have been LGBT (but not openly at the time of her spaceflight). The article is a popular one: it averages around 1,600 page views per day, and has been classified as a level 5 vital article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

edit

I'll have some prose comments coming up soon, but I also see one "comprehensiveness" issue: her career as a physicist is not properly discussed in the body (all we have is "In 1989, Ride became a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and director of the California Space Institute."). The lead at least mentions "primarily researching nonlinear optics and Thomson scattering" but that is missing in the body. [65] [66] [67] are some of her articles that verify these research themes. It would be nice to know whether she stopped being a professor of physics at some point (it does appear she devoted herself more to outreach and popular science after a few years), whether she had PhD students etc. if this is known. (Depending on what sources can be found, I'd expect something between an extra sentence and an extra paragraph here, but there is currently an imbalance between how much we learn about her as an amateur tennis player versus how much we learn about her as a professional physicist). —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead is a bit short and doesn't quite summarise the entire article.
    The lead was unchanged during my expansion of the article. I have added a bit more. Let me know if there is anything else that you think should be included.
  • "former Women's Tennis Association player" why not simplify to "former professional tennis player"? (For a moment, I was wondering whether "Tennis Association" is a specific type of tennis, like rugby league and rugby union).
    The WTA is the principal organizing body of women's professional tennis. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life: link Presbyterian Church?
    Linked. And elders as well for those who don't know about Presbyterianism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her father served..." is followed by "he had gone" about a later period in his life. Tense seems off.
    Tweaked the tense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story about Swarthmore and homesickness for California would be easier to understand with a mention of the location of Swarthmore.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in those days before Title IX women's tennis was not well-supported at the college level" Even after reading up on what Title IX is, I am not certain that this is relevant here (was men's tennis well supported at Swarthmore?) Either drop Title IX or explain why it is relevant.
    The article explains that it increased funding for women's sports. It should be burned into the brains of American readers. Because they had to spend equal amounts on women's sports as men's, and colleges have to spend prodigious sums on gridiron football, which women do not play, vast amounts of money were released for other sports. The reference also places events in the social context of the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her foray into professional tennis was unsuccessful; her whole body ached" what was the extent of this foray? So far we have been told that she had the aim to become a professional tennis player, but not that she did anything towards this goal. What made her body ache?
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • mention who Billie Jean King is for the tennis-unaware
    I would assume she is one of the most famous living Americans, but sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selection and training: no complaints here, nicely done.
  • STS-7: not a fan of linking "[[STS-7|seventh]] Space Shuttle mission" and "[[STS-1|first]] Space Shuttle mission"; I would prefer to include "Space Shuttle mission" in the link. Alternatively, something like "first Space Shuttle mission (STS-1)" would also work I think.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there an interesting reason why Kraft preferred Fisher?
    Source doesn't say, but I believe it was because she was more at ease with the media. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony here is that Resnik was passed over because she was reticent with the media on account of the skeletons in her closet but Ride had bigger ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could mention that the photograph was taken by a camera on SPAS-1.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the runways at KFC" isn't it just one? STS-7 tells us it was brand new.
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • STS-41-G: The Crippen/quick turnaround story could be explained better (Crippen flew on both STS-41-C and STS-41-G but he seems to have been the only one on both of these?) Is the "crew training" discussed here the training for STS-41-G?
    Yes. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer "KSC" without definite article "the KSC" but both are fine. The article currently has both versions, please choose one consistently.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Ride] immediately and gracefully began moving about" this isn't immediately after liftoff, but immediately after going into orbit?
    When the captain switches off the fasten seat belts sign. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "manipulating the robot arm much faster than she had been trained" was the quick manipulation necessary for the shaking or was this just her showing off how awesome she was?
    The former. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Getaway Special" mention that these were small experimental payloads made by outside groups?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cancelled mission: mention what time it was planned for, and that the Challenger disaster was in January 1986?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rogers commission: mention when the investigation happened?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After NASA: "the end of the Cold War made this much less of an issue." but the Cold War hadn't yet ended in August 1989...
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, it would be nice to know more about her work as a physicist and whether she kept her position at UCSD.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention what the position of NASA Administrator is (the second mention saying that it is the NASA administrator makes it sound like a much better position than some random mid-level administrator at NASA).
    I don't think that is necessary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a member of the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, an independent review" the committee is not a review, they just performed one.
  • Awards: what is the "Lindbergh Eagle" and who awards it?
    The Charles Lindburgh Fund. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two paragraphs in this section could be combined.
    Combined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Women quarters: appeared in March, needs to be updated
    Updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In popular culture: lots of very dry sentences with very little meat, a rather boring read not providing much context other than "these cultural references exist". Is the Janelle Monáe song just called "Sally Ride" or is it actually about this Sally Ride? Is "Ride On" about Sally?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links: Festivals link is broken for me. Camps is a domain squatter. If you link to the archived version of Sally Ride Science instead of the current one at UCSD, mention that it is the archive and from when. Whole section needs a spring cleaning.
    I think the archive links are of little value here, so substituted the current link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quite enjoyable article about an important astronaut. I expect I will be able to support once some issues are addressed (but note that I have not done any source checking). —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes, but the nonlinear optics etc. from the lead that I mentioned at the top of the section are still not mentioned in the body. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a reference to the papers she published. Ride retired from UCSD in 2007 and became at emerita, a position she held until her death in 2012. There is no record of her having supervised any PhD students. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better now. One more thing: The "cancelled mission" section heading is a bit weird if you read linearly, as it hasn't been cancelled yet, so "planned third mission"? (It isn't too much about the mission, though). —Kusma (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed as suggested. Regrettably, I don't have much about the cancelled missions. Due to scheduling pressures of all kinds, it seems that the STS-61-I crew were reassigned to the STS-61-M mission, and a new crew assigned to STS-61-I, but the crew were still scheduled to fly in July. The core objectives of each mission were the same, but everything else changed quite a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok. Support. —Kusma (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • " The purpose mission deployed two communications satellites and the first Shuttle pallet satellite (SPAS-1). " Is "purpose mission" a thing?
    Deleted stray word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her second space flight was the STS-41-G in 1984, " it's the "the" before the mission designation that's bothering me here.
    Added "mission" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war he went to Haverford College on the G.I. Bill, where he earned a master's degree in education at the University of California in Los Angeles,[2]: 4–6 " "where" seems to be referring to "Haverford College", but the degree seems to be from UCLA. By the way, it's "University of California, Los Angeles". And it's double-linked.
    Corrected. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a pass through the article removing duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Ride was rated number 1 at Stanford and Tyson was number six, the two played doubles together." Leaving aside the question of whether the "although" is justified, why "1" and "six"?
    They wanted her to play with number two. Changed "1" to "one". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "National Air and Space Administration (NASA)" AIR?
    Heh. That's a good one. Concealed by a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crew presented Reagan" Whodat? Not linked or otherwise identified.
    You have to be a certain age to remember the Great Communicator. I had the privilege of hearing him speak once. Linked an identified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had the privilege of seeing him go into the Army and Navy Club when I was a law student in DC. He waved to me and the small number of people who happened to be on the street.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Once in orbit immediately and gracefully began moving about." Odd sentence.
    Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She still performed her astronaut spouse duties for Hawley when he flew in space for the second time on STS-61-C in January 1986, which included the post-mission publicity tour." Can more be said about what these were? I imagine they did not include waiting behind a white picket fence and holding up signs "SO PROUD"?
    I have expanded on it. The inclusion of spouses in publicity tours etc dates back to the days of Project Mercury. I would hope it has been re-thought and no longer occurs. It must have been awful for them, but Ride's non-appearance would have too obvious, and questions would have been asked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was paid a professor's salary of $64,000 (equivalent to $140,000 in 2021) plus $6,000 (equivalent to $13,000 in 2021) as director of Cal Space, which employed 28 full- and part-time staff and had a budget of $3.3 million. (equivalent to $7 million in 2021).[37]" Do we need three inflation templates? Surely the reader will get the picture as to the current value of 1987 dollars with one.
    Deleted the second one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She once again turned down an offer to become the NASA administrator, but served on the board of the National Math and Science Initiative in 2007 " Did Obama offer her the post? A year should be put in here, since you are going back from 2008 to 2007.
    Fortunately, we have an account from Lori Garver. Garver contacted Ride about whether she she would agree to have her name put forward, but Ride made it clear that she did not want the job. So there was no formal request from Obama. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ride died on July 23, 2012, at the age of 61, in her home in La Jolla." I would probably say "at her home" etc.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Pass: Source review Comments by Dugan Murphy

edit

Will add some comments here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I felt compelled to look at all the citations first.

  • Citation 21: Why no page number for a citation in a 240-page book? And why does it say it is in Arabic when the Google Books link shows it in English?
    Added page numbers. Don't know where the Arabic language tag came from. Removed. It is not known how many tampons were actually packed. Ride did not use them; she did not menstruate. On her mission, Judy Resnik entertained the boys by pulling a seemingly endless bandolier of tampons from the kit like a magician pulling a scarf from her hat, so there may well have been 100. It was observed that anyone who needed so many would probably die from blood loss. Apparently, it was many years before someone tried one, only to find that they dio not work in space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 38: The D in the author's name should be capitalized if this is the same person, which seems likely to me.
    I see what happened here. On the linked newspaper page it is all capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 39, being a list of publications by Ride to support to support "Her research primarily involved the study of nonlinear optics and Thomson scattering" smells a little but like original research to me. What do you think?
    Seems a reasonable summary of the subjects of the papers to me and the contents of the source page to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think you're right. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue looking at the citations and will write more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not declare this to be a source review? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I just changed the heading. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More source review comments below.

And that's what I found when I combed through the list of citations. Aside from any issues raised above, this list seems to me to include all reliable sources. Mostly my comments are nitpicky formatting consistency issues, opportunities for Wikilinks, and the like. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are addressed. I'd say this nomination passes my source review. All reliable sources, formatted appropriately, easy to follow the citations to the original texts to corroborate the claims made.
@Hawkeye7: If you have time, this FAC nomination is stalled and could really use a source review or more general comments. I hope you can help! Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Figureskatingfan

edit

Sorry I'm so late to the party; been meaning to come here for a while. I support this article's promotion to FA. It's very well-written and interesting, and the sources, as stated above, are all exemplary. Congrats to Hawkeye7 for all the hard work and scholarship that went into it. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Balon Greyjoy

edit

Nice work! I support this nom. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The block quote renders strangely, with a comma after Ride's name and then the citation bracket link. Is there any way to take out the comma using that template? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [68].

Wiley Rutledge

edit
Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
  • "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
    • Done.
  • "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112  Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
    • Done.
  • "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
    • Done.
  • It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
    • I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
    • I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
  • " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
    • Reworded.
  • "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
    • Removed.
  • " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
    • That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
  • " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
    • Good catch; fixed.
  • "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
    • I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.
I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

edit
  • Support: I have read the article multiple times, and had reviewed it during the peer review. The changes after my reviewed version have just improved the article. My only suggestion would be to add "|ref=none" in the further reading works. Otherwise, a well researched, comprehensive, well illustrated article that uses high quality sources. A first-rate work which fully deserves the bronze star! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

A beautifully written and interesting article. I can find very little to comment on. A couple of minor points below:

  • "He wrote to Biddle eschewing all interest in the position": if I understand the intended meaning, "disclaiming" would be more precise.
    • Done.
  • "but during the era of the Warren Court they garnered considerable acceptance": suggest "gained" instead of "garnered", to connote that it was a change.
    • Done.
  • A MoS issue -- you have both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes; per the MoS you have to pick one or the other. I changed one example before realizing there were multiple examples of both.
    • I've tried to change them all to unspaced em dashes; let me know if you see any I've missed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and the kind words, Mike Christie! Responses above. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An outstanding article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • You have state abbreviations for locations, such as "Boston, MA". There's a short list of cities for which it's OK not to be more specific -- New York, Chicago, Boston, and a few others -- but if you want to add locations anyway that's up to you. However, for the sake of non-US readers, we should use the full state name rather than the abbreviation.
    • I think I've taken care of this (removing the abbreviations for major cities and expanding them for the rest); let me know if there's anything I've missed.
  • Why is one law case cited in the references ([29]) when the others are all cited in the notes?
    • Someone felt strongly that the block quote needed to be cited directly to its original source, so it's in the references section because, unlike the other cases, it's actually verifying content.

The links all work and I can see no formatting errors; the above are the only issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Re your message: the Internet Archive has Atkinson's book, so I've added a bit from it; thanks for the pointer! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Z1720 - pass

edit
  • No licencing concerns
  • ALT text used
  • Upright used (not px)
  • Captions are fine

No concerns with the images. Z1720 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [69].

Rachel Dyer

edit
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel by John Neal (writer), considered by scholars to be his best. Nobody's ever heard of it, but it is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials and had a clear impact on later works by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Whittier, and Whitman. If you have heard of it, that may be only because of the book's preface, which is somehow more famous than the novel itself. It deals with universal themes like justice, sexual frustration, and cultural pluralism. I've taken a few articles through FAC and one of them was about a novel, so I feel pretty equipped for this nomination. The article just went through GAN review, so it's somewhat polished already. I'm excited to read and respond to whatever comments people have to help me further improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rachel_Dyer_by_John_Neal_Title_Page.jpg: it's unlikely this is creative enough to warrant copyright protection
Good point. I just switched the licensing tag to {{PD-ineligible}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed and licensing tag switched to {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! Let me know if you find something else or if you think the licensing tags should be changed again. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Would you say that the nomination has passed your image review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh

edit
  • "around genuine historical figure George Burroughs" — I doubt whether we need 'genuine' here.
We can probably get by without it. My concern was distinguishing Burroughs as a real person from history, versus Neal's fictional character, Rachel Dyer. Deleted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which the author" — "in which Neal"
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of English common law's" — capitalize 'c' in 'common'
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have repeated 'George Burroughs' many times, when we can simply write 'Burroughs'
I removed 4 Georges. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... highlights the relative value placed on human life in either era" — According to whom? should be specified in the text.
Fair. Names added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rachel Dyer was published the same year as Noah Webster's first dictionary." — Is there any connection between these both. If not, is it worth mentioning?
I just rewrote that part. I believe I have made the connection clearer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His choice to" — Whose?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this way, argue the scholars Watts & Carlson" — Better would be to write "according to the scholars ...". Also, any reason why we have not been introduced to these distinguished gentlemen by their first names?
I took your suggestion on rewording the sentence and I also added first names. I now have Carlson's full name written out twice in one section, but it feels wrong to use only his last name when Watts's name is fully written out right next to the second instance. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of ''[[Blackwood's Magazine]]'''s" — "one of ''[[Blackwood's Magazine]]''{{'s}}"
Good catch. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Blackwood accepted the story" — perhaps 'Scottish publisher William Blackwood accepted the story"
Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After returning to his native Portland, Maine in 1827" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
If you got paid a nickel for every missing geocomma you have found in something I've written... Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in five issues of The New York Mirror in" — According to our article, 'The' is not in the title, thus would not be italicized, and 'New-York' would be hyphenated.
Good catch. That's the kind of thing I like getting right. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burroughs was well-known for" — 'famous'?
Sure! Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote it, he said, "hoping it ..." — Optional: "According to Neal, he wrote them "hoping it ..."
I like yours better. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is clear that he wrote" — can remove 'it is clear that'. If it is that clear, we don't need to specify it.
Indeed. Deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chapter One of Rachel Dyer is preceded by a three-page preface" — Doesn't the preface always precede the first chapter?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal wrote the latter in 1825 for Blackwoods Magazine as an" — It is "Blackwood's Magazine", with that quote mark which Neal omitted, but we should not!
Good catch. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington Irving as a copy of Joseph Addison" — Is 'copy' the most appropriate word?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""I shall never write what is now worshipped [sic] under the name of classical English ... the deadest language I ever met with", Neal said" — Avoid starting a sentence with a quotation. Same with " "Wherever Neal's imagination has been employed"
Sure. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! Kind of embarrassing since I wrote Seventy-Six (novel) and brought it through FAC myself. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader might benefit from knowing who 'Fritz Fleischmann' is.
Added (earlier in the article). Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#24: "Pethers 2012, p. 24–25" — pp.
Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article! Just few nitpicks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: And an excellent list of nitpicks. I really appreciate you taking the time to read it through, follow the Wikilinks, and even check the coding behind the apostrophes. I feel that I have resolved all your comments and the article is better as a result. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Happy to support the article as it meets the criteria. I always enjoy reviewing articles that interest me, and it is pleasure to read articles like this one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

I can review but it'll be a couple days Hog Farm Talk 17:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Neal expanded Rachel Dyer after returning to his hometown, Portland," - in the lead recommend making it clear that this is Portland, Maine; while Maine is mentioned earlier in the lead IMO it isn't obvious that Neal lived in Maine
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the mix of historical and fictional figures in the plot, maybe note upon reference in the plot that Rachel Dyer isn't a real figure or (presumably) based on one? The tangle of real and fictional people reminds of reading Rifles for Watie as a kid and trying to keep track of which officers were real and which weren't. I know Dyer's status is discussed later in the article, but it leaves the reader wondering until then
Good point. I added a phrase in parentheses stating her purely fictional status. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In that way, Neal anticipated many 21st-century historians' arguments that the witch hysteria grew from colonists' anxieties born of recent wars with Indigenous nations" - recommend inline attribution to the author who wrote this
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With Tituba and John Indian the only couple in the household" - the only reference to John Indian I can find the article, I would suggest some sort of gloss to indicate what kind of role he plays in the story
I added a reference to John Indian as Tituba's husband at her first appearance in the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many in Portland had rejected him based on controversy surrounding his earlier novels and articles for British magazines" why where these controversial? Was it that he was publishing for the Brits not long after the War of 1812, or were his works accused of lewdness or something?
Neal included a few well-known local Portland figures in his earlier novels (particularly Errata). He called out his old schoolmaster for physical abuse and his first employer for shady business practices. His pieces in the British magazines included some biting criticism of American authors, written by Neal behind the thin veil of an assumed English pen name, Carter Holmes. So many Portlanders felt like he was selling his hometown and his country short for a profit and for a leg-up in his literary career. I rewrote that sentence a bit to make it a little less mysterious. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is now worshipped [sic]" - why sic? Isn't the double-p spelling the more common anyways?
Looking it up just now, it appears that double-p is the British standard while single-p is the American standard. He uses "critick" and other archaic spellings, so I figured his was one of those. I'll remove the [sic]. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second edition was not released until it was republished by facsimile in 1964." [from the lead] vs, "nd never saw a second edition, though it was first republished by facsimile with an original introduction by John D. Seelye in 1964" [from the body]. So was the 1964 facsimile a second edition or not?
Good point! I added "in Neal's lifetime" to the second instance to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you very much for reading through the article and writing out these comments. I believe they are all addressed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • All sources are of high quality.
  • Formatting is fine
  • Spot checks: fn 30, 58, 67 -okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The first two sentencese in the "Plot" section are "The novel opens with the narrator stating that belief in witchcraft is a universal human trait and was well established amongst educated authorities in the 1690s in both the United Kingdom and British North America. Puritans fled persecution in England when they colonized New England, but quickly used violence against Quaker colonists and Indigenous Wampanoag." These two sentences seem unrelated to each other. Does the second give us more information about what the narrator is telling us? Or is this just historical background about the setting?
    Good point. I reworded as three sentences for clarity. I'll continue assessing your other points soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need a few more words introducing the sentence about Mary Dyer and Elizabeth Hutchinson. Dyer was hanged in 1660, but we're using the historic present after talking about the 1690s, so it's not clear this is prior to the main action of the novel; and in fact we haven't explicitly given the time and place where the novel is set.
    I changed the verbs to past tense and merged these sentences with the previous paragraph to make it more clear that this is what the narrator is describing as the lead-up to the witch hysteria, which is the main action of the novel. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "display demonic behavior": presumably this means people think they are possessed, but unless we believe in demons we shouldn't say it was actually demonic behaviour in Wikipedia's voice.
    Agreed. I added language to make it clear that we're talking about Matthew Paris's perception. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tituba, an Indigenous household servant whom he enslaves": this phrasing makes it sounds as though the enslaving happens over the same time period as the interrogation -- should this be "has enslaved"?
    Yes. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time of Martha Corey's trial...": the reader doesn't know who Martha Corey is. Similarly a word or two introducing Judith Hubbard would be good: "A neighbour, Judith Hubbard" or whatever is appropriate.
    I described both as "Salem resident" because neither are given much characterization. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "spectral evidence" is a little too obscure to go unglossed in the article, even with a link.
    Reworded to more clearly connect that phrase to the testimony described earlier in the paragraph. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal connected the disparate mid-17th-century stories of Quaker dissenters Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer of Boston into 1692 Salem": "into" seems the wrong connector here. Neal connected the mid-17th-century stories with the story of the Salem trials, so just "with" might be better; or perhaps more explicitly mention the witch trials "...with the story of the 1692 Salem witch trials". And given that this is already somewhat apparent to the reader, and the point is the interpretation given in the next sentence, it might be better to join the sentences: "Neal's connection of the disparate mid-17th-century stories of Quaker dissenters Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer of Boston with the story of the 1692 Salem witch trials is interpreted as a critique..." even though that leads to a fairly long sentence.
    Swapped "into" for "with" as recommended. I see the potential to connect those two sentences, but I think that is too much information for one sentence, so I'd like to leave it as two. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal's desire to nationalistically portray them": suggest "Neal's nationalistic [or perhaps just nationalist] desire to portray them".
    Accepted! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intrinsic to the creation of a new legal system that abandons common law through codification": I see that the novel is a critique of common law, and I see that the American literary nationalism movement would be a natural ally for a movement to create a separate legal tradition, but "intrinsic to the creation of" seems a stronger phrase that I'm not sure how to interpret. Does Neal mean that the literary was actually a prerequisite for the legal change? Or just that the two movements were prompted by the same republican sentiment, and their motivations were not separable from each other?
    The latter. I swapped "intrinsic" for "deeply connected". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have past tense for some scholars' comments ("Seelye felt that") and historic present for others ("David J. Carlson and Fritz Fleischmann feel"); they should be consistent.
    I do! Should be all present tense now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both books represented a broader textual search for a national American identity": "textual search" is a bit compressed; if I understand the intended meaning correctly, could we make this something like "were examples of a broader search, carried on the literature of the period, for"? If Seelye is only referring to these two books, and not referring to other examples in the literature of the time, I don't understand this.
    Swapped "textual" for "literary". I agree that the former is a little too academic for Wikipedia. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any change is necessary to the article, unless the sources comment on it, but I was interested to see "thee will" in the stichomythic quote box. If I'm not mistaken, normal usage would be "thou wilt". Do you know if the usage was different in either Neal's time or the 17th century, or if perhaps this was a mistake by Neal? Or am I wrong about this?
    Ha! I really don't know. I'm pretty sure that Neal's use of "thee will" is not discussed in any of the listed sources. But searching for the phrase in the book, it seems Neal used that exact wording in 9 different places. I really don't know if either is considered correct or incorrect. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if Quaker usage differed from the standard. Our article on thou and thee is unambiguous and even gives "thou wilt" as an example. As the sources don't comment there's nothing we can say, but I'll leave this unstruck in case other reviews have a comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the novel it precedes, the "Unpublished Preface" rejects precedent": can we avoid "precede" and "precedent" so close together?
    Certainly. I swapped "it precedes" for "itself". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Neal's self-review in The Yankee anonymous, or pseudonymous? He speaks of himself in the third person and I wondered if that was because his identity was concealed for the review.
    He signed his self-review, so I added "Speaking of himself in the third person," to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Awesome. Thank you so much for the comments and for making a bunch of copy edits yourself. I believe I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you think anything needs more attention. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [70].

Toa Payoh MRT station

edit
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's oldest MRT station, and this is my 5th FAC nomination. I hope for a successful review, and to have it passed and featured on 7 November. ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Licensing looks fine but source is needed in the image description of File:SGMRT-LRT (zoom) map.svg for the location of the transit lines. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, a great article! However the prose is not exactly up to par in my opinion. Seeing "station" 4 times in the row at the start of "Station details" paragraphs is both repetitive and boring and some phrases are very ambiguous ("Train frequencies vary"?, "extension of eight months and additional monetary claims in November 1985" – is the extension or the claims made in Nov. 1985? Or is it just the claims?) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical ramblings: Image placement can be improved by moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section; there's no reason to collapse the track layout template as it is very short; some numbers can be written out such as 2.5 to 5 minutes -> two and a half to five minutes; "Notes and references" and its child headings are redundant, you only need "Notes" and "References" level 1 heading only; the note itself need wikilinking; DEFAULTSORT is redundant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section
The two center-aligned images are there rather than in "Station details" as a compromise solution. Reason being that the track layout is floated right (seems to be the norm in these articles) and depending on screen/browser width, text size or zoom settings, it can interact with the infobox to cause really awkward layout, something like this. {{clear}} has been applied before the "Station details" heading to remedy that, but it causes a different issue on wider screens, leaving a really large blank space between sections due to the height of the infobox. The images help fill that space. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane made changes as per requested ZKang123 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730: I understand, thanks for the explanation. ZKang123: Thanks for your edits! I don't think my reviews are comprehensive enough for a support, but I do think that the prose is better now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit
looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text
I've attempted some layout tweaks, hopefully the new image placement is less awkward for the overall layout.
  • For History section, highlight the commemorative plaque by placing it at top of section. Float left.
  • Put photos of concourse and platform levels together in horizontal gallery at bottom of History section. Thumbnail heights matched, align centered
  • These could have been used to accompany the text description in the Station details section. But for layout reasons, putting here helps fills space (esp. on desktops with larger screens) before the {{clear}} needed ahead of Station details and {{Routemap}}.
HTH! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit
Lead
edit
  • "HDB (Housing and Development Board)" - Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
  • "Lorong 1 Toa Payoh, Lorong 2 Toa Payoh and Lorong 6 Toa Payoh" - Are these all street names?
  • By the way, what does Toa Payoh mean? You may want to expand the lead a bit with details such as the station design and etymology.
  • "The station was constructed as part of Phase I of the MRT system." - You may want to add details about when Phase I was proposed and when construction started, since you already have details about when construction was completed and when the station opened.
  • "On 7 November 1987, the station was one of the first MRT stations to open for revenue service." - I'd split this into two ideas, e.g. "The station opened on 7 November 1987 and was one of the first MRT stations to operate in revenue service."

I will leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
An unusual situation, because the building is properly named "HDB Hub", using the abbreviation rather than the full name of the government body that it houses(ha!). I will tweak the phrasing.
Are these all street names?
Yes. Tweaked wording before to "underneath the street intersection between..." to help make that more explicit. Those are the official street names used in English (originating from Malay), so replacing with a translation isn't appropriate. Would a wiktionary link help?
what does Toa Payoh mean?
It is a place name; the article for that has been linked, and does discuss its etymology. The station being named for the area it serves is unremarkable and I don't think it really merits further elaboration.
split this into two ideas
Agreed and done.
– 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second reply: yes, a Wiktionary link will be very helpful, as it's not a particularly common term in most of the English-speaking world. As for what Toa Payoh means, I would like to know the nominator's opinion on including etymology. While it may seem evident that the station is named after the planning area, other articles about MRT stations, such as Dhoby Ghaut, do explain the station's etymology in the article itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History
edit
  • "Toa Payoh station was included in the early plans of the MRT network in May 1982." - This should probably be "the early plans of the MRT network, published in May 1982".
  • "as part of the Phase I MRT segment" - Should this be "as part of the Phase I segment of the MRT"?
  • "This segment was given priority as it passes through areas" - There is a tense mismatch; it should probably be "passed through areas".
  • "The line aimed to relieve the traffic congestion on the Thomson–Sembawang road corridor." - Relieving congestion specifically on that road, or on a general corridor?
  • "the Toa Payoh and Novena station" - The word "stations" should be plural.
  • "the Toa Payoh Central bus terminal was relocated to an adjacent site" - Was this because the bus station was right above the MRT station site?
  • "beginning of the MRT network construction" - I suggest "beginning of the construction of the MRT network".
  • "Due to various soil conditions, " - This was announced after the topping-out?
  • "It was later announced in September 1987 that the section would open earlier on 7 November" - First, I would delete "later". Second, instead of saying "the section would open earlier on 7 November", I would say "the section's opening date was rescheduled to 7 November" (the reader presumably already knows that 7 November is an earlier date than early 1988).
  • "the station was opened for a preview" - I'd say something like "the station hosted a preview"
  • "Many expressed excitement and curiosity, with plenty of others planning to take the MRT ride on the system's debut" - You may want to say which news source reported this. Otherwise it may be seen as a bit irrelevant
  • "was the most visited out of the opened stations" - This wording is a bit weird. I'd say "was the most visited station on the newly completed line" or something like that.
  • "backed and commissioned the planning" - I'd also rephrase "backed" as it's a bit vague. For example, if Cheong funded the project, say "funded". If he championed the construction of the MRT system, say something like "advocated for".
  • "inaugurated the start of MRT operations" - This phrasing is a bit redundant; one would not inaugurate the end of something. I'd say "inaugurated MRT operations" or, even better, "started MRT operations".
  • "On the day itself" - I'd also get rid of "itself" since the reflexive pronoun isn't used like that.
  • "flood prevention measures at this station, alongside 11 other MRT stations" - Do you know what types of measures? Also, I suggest "along with" rather than "alongside".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I will add more comments in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, I think it's been a bit, we'll be looking to close if you can't get back shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, I actually already reviewed the rest of the article below. I thought the nominator had resolved all of these issues satisfactorily, so I supported the nomination. Sorry for the confusion. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, sorry, that'll teach me to get caught up in versions from the history and forget to look again at the current page before pinging... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I believe this is eligible for the bronze star then? (Definitely not squealing in anticipation)
@Ian Rose? ZKang123 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Station details
edit
  • "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) between the Braddell and Novena stations." - The current sentence makes it sound like Toa Payoh serves the NSL, which only runs between Braddell and Novena. I'd separate the sentence into two ideas, e.g. "Toa Payoh serves the North South line (NSL) and is between the Braddell and Novena stations on that line."
  • "Being part of the NSL, the station is operated by SMRT Trains" - Do you mean that SMRT operates the NSL and all stations on that line? If so, you should say that directly.
  • "The station is also situated" - The word "situated" is unnecessary.
  • "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with ‘Toa’ meaning ‘big’ and ‘Payoh’ meaning ‘swamp’), a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens in the area" - A couple issues here:
    • This is a long sentence. I would recommend splitting this into two sentences or, at the very least, adding a semicolon between the two parts of the sentence.
    • I think "in the area" is also repetitive; I'd say something like "there". E.g.: "Toa Payoh means 'big swamp’ in the Hokkien dialect (with 'Toa' meaning 'big' and 'Payoh' meaning 'swamp'); the name is a reference to the large swampy area which existed prior to the development of Chinese market gardens there".
  • "The station has two underground levels: the conourse at the upper level and the platforms at the lower level" - The word "concourse" is misspelled. Additionally, you can simplify this by saying "The station has two underground levels: the concourse above and the platforms below." Or "The station is underground, with a concourse on the upper level and the platforms on the lower level".
  • "has the island platform arrangement" - This can be simplified to "has an island platform".

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius Addressed issues above. ZKang123 (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Toa Payoh is also one of the few stations on the initial network to have a lofty ceiling." - How so? How many metres high does a ceiling have to be in order to be considered "lofty"? If you mean "double-height ceiling", that may make more sense.
  • Similarly, do you know what sizes of crowds the station is supposed to accommodate.
  • "reflected on the pillars and canopies" - Unless it's literally reflective, you can just remove the word "reflected", e.g. "Toa Payoh station uses a bright yellow colour scheme for its pillars and canopies".
  • "features a 'rainbow dressing'" - It may be better to specify that this is a mural when you first mention it.
  • "the station features The Toa Payoh Story" - The word "features" was used in the previous paragraph. I would reword it to something different. e.g. "contains"
  • "this mural intends to tie the area's significance to major milestones in Singapore's history." - I think it is better to say "the artists intended for the mural to tie the area's significance to major milestones in Singapore's history".
That's it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They (LTA or MRTC) haven't really specified much about the height. And it also isn't clear how many people the station is supposed to accomodate.
Addressed other points raised. ZKang123 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good to me. It's all right if you couldn't find stats about the height or crowds; I just thought these facts would benefit from some elaboration. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • I see some inconsistencies in the formatting. You give a domain name for the work parameter in [2], [16] and a few others, and in some of those cases you omit the publisher parameter. Any consistent approach is fine but I don't see the logic here. It's usual to only give the domain name if there's no clear name for the website, but that's rare.
  • [40] needs a page number in the cite.
  • How does [2] support the text it cites? The link is dead and the archive link only goes up to 2016, and it's not clear that that graph relates to Toa Payoh in any case.
  • Why is [28] cited? I don't see anything in the archived page that relates to the text it supports.

Links and reliability look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh didn't realise there's a source review until now!
  • Addressed the publisher format, though there might be a couple few I've missed out. I recall a user remarking their preference for the publisher parameter, but I'm a bit on the fence, because other users prefer the domain name. If you think I should remove the domain name then I might do that.
    The requirement is consistency. If you want to use domain name for publisher throughout, that's fine, so long as you do it everywhere. Domain name for work everywhere would also be OK though that's probably less helpful to the reader; again you'd have to do it everywhere, for consistency. You can certainly use both publisher and work, and lots of people do, and you can have a rule such as "use work in every case; only use publisher where it's not obvious from the work", which would mean for example that "work=New York Times" would not get a publisher parameter, since the publisher is the New York Times, but "work=Billboard" would need "publisher=Penske Media Corp". The most common rule I see is to use work only, not to use publisher, and not to use domain names for the work parameter unless no website name is apparent. And in case it's not clear the rule can vary by citation type, if you want it to; books often get publishers but websites often don't. Again the key is consistency -- whatever rule you pick has to be consistently applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Made further rectifications ZKang123 (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added page number
  • Actually that's the website from which you generate the data for the passenger numbers... It's a bit complex to get the data and I could probably only cite the source and that's the website. Updated link to the new domain.
    One way to address this sort of thing is to put instructions in the citation, telling the reader what they have to enter to get to the supporting information. See [300] in Mick Jagger, for example; that says '"British album certifications – Mick Jagger". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 20 August 2019. Select albums in the Format field. Type Mick Jagger in the "Search BPI Awards" field and then press Enter. ' I believe that particular one is generated by a template but you could reproduce something along those lines manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I'm not sure under what parameter for "Cite web" it should be in. But the instructions are as follows:
    You need to be a registered DataMall subscriber to get an Account Key. Using the following API guide, you can generate the url for the passenger volume data (as per Page 23) via Postman Monitors. ZKang123 (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's subscription required, then I don't think it's necessary. You could add the subscription icon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright did that. ZKang123 (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed citation 28.
Thanks for the source review so far! ZKang123 (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consistency is the only remaining issue. A couple of questions (footnote numbers refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toa_Payoh_MRT_station&oldid=1099904261 this version):

  • Still some websites using domain name: [16], [23], [28], [32], [33], [34], [36], [38], [40], [47], [48]
  • No publisher on [28]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fixed accordingly. Since some of the publisher parameters is the same as the website name, I removed the publisher parameters in favour of the website parameter. ZKang123 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I've copyedited; please revert if you disagree with any of my changes.

  • I'm confused by some of the dates. The history section talks about 1986/87 plans for construction, and then jumps back in time to say construction actually began three years earlier. Can you clarify the sequence of events here?
  • "The Toa Payoh Central bus terminal was relocated to an adjacent site as the station was to be constructed on the original site": suggest "The station was constructed on the site of the Toa Payoh Central bus terminal, which was relocated to an adjacent site".
  • You say "Construction started in October 1983, with expected completion in early 1988" and then a couple of sentences later repeat the information with a bit more detail: "Construction of the tunnels between Toa Payoh and Novena began with a groundbreaking ceremony at Shan Road on 22 October 1983". I would combine these two and move the sentence about the bus terminal before or after the combined sentences.
  • "Tunnels were driven in either direction from that shaft, but generally, the composition of the ground was of either sandstone, granite, marine clay, or decomposed rocks": why "but"? "But" implies that there was something surprising about the composition, which seems unlikely.
  • "The earlier opening was due to the cooperation of the public and the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation's ability to coordinate across various construction projects." This seems vague. How can public cooperation help a construction project? And the second part just sounds like the MRT Corp blowing their own horn; doesn't it just mean "because we're really good at project management"? I would be tempted to leave this out completely.

Generally this looks in good shape and I expect to support. It was interesting to see the mention of Braddell; that prompted me to check a map and discover that the station is only a few yards from where I used to live, on Braddell Hill, many years ago. Per Google Street View it looks very different now! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these comments likely tomorrow or Monday, because I will be on holiday. Thanks for this additional review however. ZKang123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so looking through:
ZKang123 (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query to FAC coordinator

edit

@FAC coordinators: coordinators may I ask if this is elligble for FA? It has passed IR and SR and has three supports. ZKang123 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2022 [71].

Back to the Future

edit
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, watched the film a few weeks ago and never knew that it is on FAC! I think that this article shines when you reads the whole thing, and with an exception of technical stuff, there's nothing much that I can think of to improve the article further. Some copyediting by others may be helpful, which is usually done in FAC anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues. Just a few ALT issues (see):

  • Missing alts for File:Michael J Fox 2020.jpg, File:Christopher Lloyd May 2015.jpg, File:Lea Thompson by Gregg Bond (2008) (cropped).jpg and File:Crispin Glover 2012 Shankbone.JPG

Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
  • "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
  • "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
  • "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
  • " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
  • "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
  • "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
  • Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
  • "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
  • "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
  • "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
  • "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
  • "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit

This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:

  • "Most reviewers agreed the film was almost the year's most entertaining, which offered a return to a focus on storytelling, despite Paul Attanasio considering some aspects to be "mechanically" designed to create the broadest audience appeal." This is a bit convoluted, and it seems to me that many reviewers actually did consider the film to be the year's most entertaining. Maslin in the NY Times writes "easily the most sustained and entertaining of this summer's adventure fables", for example. Can you re-word this?

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and post-production section: "more time in theaters" isn't accurate; what is meant is more times during the peak summer season.
  • Lead: I'd prefer "three Saturn awards" as "an Academy Award, Saturn Awards, and a Hugo Award" reads a bit odd.
  • Cast: Why no cite for Fox/Marty? (for completeness, as the others all have cites)
  • Comma before respectively? (Not sure)
  • Conception and writing: "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on 1985, making it more futuristic" I don't know who "it" is here: 1985 or the movie?
  • Some of the Casting section is actually about filming, but it seems to work OK.
  • Filming with Stoltz: " he and Zemeckis collaborated on Romancing the Stone" had collaborated?
  • Special effects: "Optical department" looks odd; optical department or Optical Department (as in the source)?
  • Delorean: "The time machine was conceived " consider adding originally for clarity?
  • Art direction and makeup: "Actual brand names, such as Texaco were" Curious whether this would work better with zero or with two commas? (Not a native speaker so ignore me if I am wrong)
  • Context "avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films" is that a thing?
  • Box office: "ahead of Independence Day holiday weekend" add the?
  • "the western Pale Rider" Western?
  • Cultural influences: "$78,500 was crowdfunded" when was that?
  • Sequel: do we know when they changed their mind about making a sequel? The current prose doesn't flow well from "sequel not originally planned" to "sequel written and split in two parts".

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus

edit

Exciting. Coordinators: are spotchecks still needed? If so I can perform them. In any case, will review over the next week or so since it's a long one. Ovinus (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovinus, spot checks are not required, Darkwarriorblake being something of an FAC veteran. But if you felt moved to do some, there never go amiss. The best way to attract the attention of the coordinators is to use {{@FAC}}. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Ovinus (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have very few comments so far.

  • "Originally, the changes to 1955 had a more significant impact on the future, making 1985 more futuristic, but every person who read the script hated the idea." I'm not sure if "changes to 1955" makes sense. I would clarify "Marty's changes to". Also what does "making 1985 more futuristic" mean? As in, much more technologically advanced than it was in real life?
  • With "between 1955 and 1985", maybe "between 1955 and 1985 culture" or something, since I think that's the point you're trying to make
I've made some changes here. The futurstic aspect is difficult because sources just say "futuristic" which I interpret as years ahead of its time, but I can't say with detail what changes they made. As a guess, I would say that 1985 would've been like the 2015 they envisioned for Back to the Future. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re below: I intended to recuse but I'm really sorry for not making that clear. I'll review the article in full. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made some prose tweaks which I have no strong opinion about; do revert ones with which you disagree
  • "He also wanted to change the name" who is "he"?
  • "the female crew overwhelmingly" what is this "female" detail for? Did the crew's men disagree?
  • "There is a dispute if a shot of Stoltz's hand is in the finished film in the scene where Marty punches Biff. Gale noted it is impossible to tell without checking the original film negative, which would risk damaging it." This is unneeded trivia, imo
  • "did not look erratic enough" maybe chaotic or dramatic? I'm not sure what erratic means here
  • "glut of youth-oriented films targeted at those under 18" is "targeted ... 18" a necessary clarification
  • "priced at $79.95" relevant? (idk what standard wikipedia practice is)
  • "but the filmmakers received financial compensation for their inclusion, making them symbols of commercialism and thus materialistic" How does paying for brand placement, an act not portrayed in the film, make them symbols of commercialism? Weren't they already symbols of commercialism?
  • "As of 2020, Wilson carries around cards containing answers to fan questions he has been asked over the preceding years, to avoid constantly repeating himself." A little too random... I'd recommend removal

I'm actually quite happy with the article. It's a bit long, but I reckon that's warranted for such an iconic film. Once these concerns are addressed, I'm happy to support. Apologies again for the multiple delays. Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • The female crew are the only ones discussed which I imagine was the authors' intent because it relates to a point about Marty's girlfriend.
  • It's a common dispute regarding the film, to remove it, I think, would just lead to people re-adding it down the line.
  • Changed, it's to do with the bolt looking random
  • In the film industry youth can mean people under 25 or under 30, it seems to change depending on the year and era
  • It leads into the point immediately following about sales figures at that price point
  • I've rewritten this a bit, it's discussing the act of inclusion of these symbols as materialistic but I get the confusion
  • Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, checked the new edits. Happy to support. Ovinus (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

edit
  • "A development deal was secured" with whom?
  • "delayed production and the film's release date but, following highly successful test screenings, the date was brought forward to July 3, 1985" wordy
  • Link critics to film criticism
  • "Critics praised the story, comedy" but the first sentence does not introduce it as a comedy
  • "was also a global success" WP:PEACOCK
  • "is now considered to be" by whom?

This is gonna be a long read... More to follow. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments... Do respond to me where you find inexplicable.

  • "but every person who read the script hated the idea" pretty harsh; the Guardian interview wrote "our script readers had problems with that", so something like "took issue with" should suffice
  • "The pair knew the time travel had to be an accident" how did they "know" that? On what grounds.. This bit is confusing
  • "They knew it had to be Lorraine who stopped the relationship" again with the verb "know"; I get what this means, but how could they "know" something before it materialized? "believed" or "conceived" would be more appropriate
  • "but he did not think it would impress others" who are "others"? The audience, the critics, the executives...?
  • I am not sure if we need to list every original contender for the roles
  • Some bits of info sound like trivia i.e. "Actresses Kyra Sedgwick and Jill Schoelen were also considered; Schoelen was told she looked too "exotic" and not All-American enough" then what? Ippantekina (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes as requested Ippantekina, with the almost-cast, I personally find the alternatives fascinating in an alternate history aspect of what we could have had, and ultimately if you don't include them, you will be constantly fighting a battle with people who do add them. You can cut the number down but where do you draw the line? Similarly, the Jill Schoelen thing, I don't consider it trivia, it's on par with Melora Hardin being rejected for making Fox look too short, and IMO if you read it, too "exotic and not All-American enough," comes across as pretty racist. Too exotic is basically too ethnic. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's justified. Thanks! Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several filmed but deleted scenes include" could just be "Deleted scenes include.."
Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina and Ovinus: - Do you have any objections to promotion, or have your comments been satisfactorily addressed? Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I totally forgot about this again. I read the first third of the article with no objections, but I can't give a support since I haven't read the full thing. Ovinus (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have no objection, but please bare with me until I have finished reading the full thing. Ippantekina (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ippantekina and Ovinus:, been a week since the previous ping, will either of you be likely to comment again very soon? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ippantekina and Ovinus:, sorry to bother again but it's been a couple of weeks. Ovinus, you might have recused yourself based on the above comments, I'm not sure. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Not required, but you might consider adding chapter page numbers to Schneider and Ní Fhlainn (2014).
  • You're missing the website parameter in [145].
  • For [277] you're using {{cite MC}}, which outputs a publisher parameter; this is inconsistent with your other web citations which don't use publisher. I'm not going to hold up a pass for this, but you might consider asking whoever maintains that citation template to add an option to exclude publisher. FAC requires consistency and it would be best if templates like that allowed you to match your preferred citation style.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • slashfilm.com [15] and [187]
    • backtothefuture.com [103], [168], [227]. I can't tell if this is a fan site or something with official backing.
  • Do you need the New York Post source for [165]? It's not a good source in general and you have it bundled so I can't tell if you really need it.
  • [138] seems to lead to different results when you click on the original and the archived link. I don't understand the non-archived link -- it seems to show a dramatically lower total for Back to the Future.

I'll check links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links:

  • I see you mostly archive NY Times links to archive.org, but [162] is archived to archive.today, and the link leads to archive.ph and a server error.
  • The archive link for [188] is not working.
  • [236] leads to what looks like an insecure usurped site for the main link, which would be OK if the archive link were working. The archive link leads to a page that's so badly laid out (as often happens with archive.org pages) that I can't tell if it retains the information you are citing.
  • The archive link for [267] is not working.
  • The archive link for [269] is not working.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ní Fhlain seems to have page numbers? The Schneider book is an e-book without page numbers so I only have the section unfortunately.
    I meant that in the "Works cited" section some editors add the page range of the chapter. Completely optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlashFilm does have a clear editorial and staff page here and a page detailing policies including ownership here which is run by Static Media and backed by Greycroft, BDMI, Lerer Hippeau, and Mark Cuban.
  • Backtothefuture.com is the official website, the social media accounts Twitter and Facebook link back to it, although the INstagram links to backtothefuture.events, which is the same website and LLC running it but the dedicated events page. There are separate LinkedIn pages for the company running it and Backtothefuture.com which indicates it was a fan site until 1995 and became the official site thereafter.
  • Removed the NYPost ref
  • I'v marked 138 as dead. The archive figure is correct, since BOM changed its website and made some things paywalled sometimes figures (which seem to be automatically calculated) are not always accurate on every page.
  • 162 worked for me but looking at it the screenshot was not the full page due to the "subscribe" thing, so I've replaced that with Archive.org
  • 188, 267 and 269 work for me? Took longer than usual but they did load. Maybe archive.org was down? 236 is the same, it does work, the formatting is terrible, but Back to the Future is there among I think 10 films total on page 2 covering 100 films.
  • made other incidental requested changes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck everything except 138. I can see that BOM ought to be treated as a reliable source, but if you're saying they now are producing errors I'm not clear how we can rely on the older numbers either. How can we get comfortable with the accuracy of the older numbers if they're no longer supported by the site? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily an error, looking at the live site it looks like the issue is that they've added individual figures for like 7 countries, and so it's only automatically counting those figures and churning out $11 million which BTTF obviously earned significantly more than internationally. The BOM reference is backed up by the Gaines reference which does give the same figure of $170.5. The only alternative is The Numbers, but that's even worse because it just adds every release on top of the figure, so if a film has had 5 re-releases over the decades it just adds them to the total figure and doesn't differentiate between releases, so I think the BOM archive and Gaines Reference are the most solid option. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to show only five non-US markets which I agree must be an underestimate. Unfortunately there's no archive.org copy of that page. Do you mean Gaines says $170.5M for overseas? If so let's drop the BOM ref for overseas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mike_Christie Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

edit
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2022 [72].

A.C. Monza

edit
Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
  • Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the new image added, File:Stadio Sada 1970.JPG, I checked the source and I'm not seeing how we can confirm the image was taken in 1970. Also, it needs to be published before 1989 for URAA to apply. Otherwise it follows the US rules for unpublished works (70 years from the author's death, if known, else the shorter of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation). (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I replaced it with File:Stadio Gino Alfonso Sada (Monza).jpg. Nehme1499 17:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Nearly three weeks in and this has yet to attract a general support. Unless this nomination attracts considerable further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: It's a bit disheartening to see a FAC failed due to inactivity. What do you suggest me to do next time I nominate this article for FA? Nehme1499 20:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be. Maybe ask some of the regular sports and/or general reviewers in advance for any informal comments and if they would consider reviewing it. Possibly do this formally via peer review. Sometimes an article doesn't get reviewed because potential reviewers think it is likely not up to scratch and wish to avoid the acrimony of having to say this. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, but PR may help address such issues if they do exist. Doing some reviewing yourself will help. One, you'll get a better idea of the sort of things needed by actually getting into the nuts and bolts of assessing them in a dozen or so articles; two, if potential reviewers have seen your name cropping up at FAC helping out with other articles they are more likely to be disposed to select one of your nominations the next time they are wondering what to review. Lastly, don't be afraid to ask; even now a polite, friendly, neutrally phrased message on the talk pages of half a dozen football article nominators/reviewers may save this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated! I've just contacted a few users who have recently reviewed football-related FACs. In case it doesn't work out, I'll go for a peer review. Nehme1499 21:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: hey, are four supports and an image review enough or do we need more voices? Nehme1499 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a source review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs)
@Gog the Mild: How do I go about requesting that? Nehme1499 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I was interrupted part way through writing and thought I had deleted that. A request has been posted here. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grazie :) Nehme1499 16:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Should be done. Nehme1499 17:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon

edit

I will have a look in the next day or so. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay but here are my comments:

  • Between the 2000s and 2010s, they faced financial issues and were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015 --> Can we make this simpler and just say "In the 21st century, they .."
    • The 21st century spans 100 years; the issues lasted only for the first 15-ish years.
      • OK, but I don't think I understand what between the 2000s and 2010s means. I have never seen this construction. Simplest is if you just give the years. Or add "around" if it is not exact.
        • Between the 2000s and 2010s means between 2000 and 2019 (more or less). In reality, I can't really give a precise date for when the financial issues began or ended. It's more or less between [after 1999/2000] and [around 2015]. Is there no better way to say "circa during the first two decades of the 21st century"?
          • I find temporal references always tricky, but I would say "At times during the first two decades of the 21st century, they faced financial issues; they were declared bankrupt twice, in 2004 and 2015."
            • Thanks, done.
  • Monza F.B.C. was founded --> should the acronym F.B.C. not be explained?
    • Done
  • to form A.C. Monza --> I would give the full name here
    • Done
  • when conscription forced teams to field their overage players --> I'm confused: what does overage mean?
    • The age at which you were forced to go to war. Not sure what it is (it's not explicitly mentioned in the source).
    • I've clarified it as when conscription forced teams to send their overage players to war. "Overage" is a translation of the Italian "maggiorenne", which is the opposite of "underage". Should I just use "adult"?
      • I have never seen overage. Adult is unambiguous.
        • Done.
  • The 2006–07 season was even more dramatic: in the first leg at home, --> is this in the play-offs again?
    • Yes, it's prefaced by "losing two consecutive play-off finals" before.
  • with high-end players with Serie A experience --> a few examples would be useful
    • I don't this it's that useful: I feel we'd be giving undue weight to these players. They were certainly "superstars" for the division (third) they were playing in, but not huge international names. I'd probably add examples for the upcoming 2022–23 Serie A season (once I add the paragraph next year), as Monza purchased a few Italy international players.
  • In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes. --> this does not seem to be mentioned in the running text. I don't think the illustrations align well with the text. "In 1971, Monza's kit underwent a slight but significant change: a vertical white band was added on the left-hand side" added to what? A red shirt I assume, but the text doesn't mention that.
    • I specified that the kit was red in 1971. I'm not sure what to do with the 1938/1962 striped kit.
      • Sorry, but I still don't get the shirts. 1) The text does not seem to mention the multi-stripe shirt from illustration 4. 2) The text "Monza's home kit has been red and its away kit white ever since" seems to refer to the colour scheme overall, but when it says "added" it seems to mean that the whole shirt was red.
        • Is it necessary to write in text that the multi-stripe shirt existed? It would literally be a copy-paste of the caption ("In 1937–38 and 1961–62, Monza wore stripes"). It is sourced by the same book(s) used to source the rest of the section.
          • I have never come across an FA where the caption introduces information not in the text. But I have not seen anything in MoS that says so, so I guess you could argue it does not break any rules. But it is just very odd, it breaks the storyline. A reader who has read the text and then looks at the illustrations, will get confused.
        • The club colours became red (home) and white (away) from 1932 to present. Generally, the home kit was full-red, but sometimes there were variations from season to season (such as the striped shirt). The first major (semi-)permanent change came in 1971, where the thin lateral stripe was added. The stripe is white for the (red) home kit, and red for the (white) away kit.
          • You should explain it like this in the text. The current text does not say this. In the current text, if I ignore the illustrations, it is not possible to understand what "was added" means.
  • why are the current away colours not mentioned here? Only in the infobox does not seem sufficient to me
    • They have always been white. I'm unsure how to phrase this.
    • Done
  • Following Silvio Berlusconi's takeover --> Following Berlusconi's takeover
    • Done
  • the Italian sources need a trans-title
    • Wouldn't this make the newspaper sources, which have quotes, excessively long?
      • To be sure it's clear what I'm referring to: I'm talking about the ones in the sections Bibliography and Further reading
        • Done.

That's it from me. Looks comprehensive. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the comments. I've answered everything above. Nehme1499 16:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: I've added further comments above. Nehme1499 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

edit

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - do you still anticipate being able to do a review here? Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think it's unlikely! Happy to pick up a review of another article when I'm back in full swing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

edit
  • No need to link Serie A twice in the lead
    • Done
  • "Monza F.B.C was" - missing dot after C
    • Done
  • "Monza's first recorded win came on 20 September 1912" - surely it would be better to mention their first ever match rather than their first win?
    • I've consulted various contemporary newspapers and journals, as well as books on the club's history. I could not find anything other than their first win. Even the history section on the club's official website only lists the first win.
  • "Monza first participated in the Terza Categoria (third level) in the 1913–14 season [it]; they played their first match on 4 January 1914" - the 1913-14 season didn't start till January......?
    • It's nothing too out of the ordinary. The Terza Categoria was divided by region; maybe other regions started earlier? Anyway, this is what I've got from contemporary newspapers (and fact checked with books).
  • "Monza were grouped with Milan, Cremonese and Pro Patria in their qualifying group" - qualifying for what?
    • I've clarified that we're talking about the Prima Categoria.
  • "The match between Monza and Verona on 8 October 1955, was " - no reason for that comma there
    • Done
  • "Monza again failed qualification in the final matches" => "Monza again missed out on promotion in the final matches"
    • Done
  • "Monza failed promotion to the top flight" => "Monza failed to gain promotion to the top flight"
    • Done
  • "Monza won a record-fourth Coppa Italia Serie C" => "Monza won a record fourth Coppa Italia Serie C"
    • Done
  • "Stadio Brianteo was dysfunctional" - don't think "dysfunctional" is really the right word here, but I can't suggest a better one as I don't know what you are trying to say. Can you expand a little?
  • "The new ownership didn't last long" => "The new ownership did not last long"
    • Done
  • "Monza registered to the Serie D (fourth level) on 31 July" - what do you mean by "registered"? Were they relegated to this division?
    • On 23 and 30 May 2015, Monza played the Serie C relegation play-offs, which they won. Sports wise, they should have played in the Serie C in 2015–16. However, due to being bankrupt, the club was re founded as a phoenix club, and started back from the Serie D. This is standard procedure for bankrupt clubs in Italy; the Serie D is the first non-professional league in the country.
  • "Having finished the first leg in second place" - first leg of what?
    • Of the 2020–21 Serie B season; I thought it was self explanatory. Should I add "of the season" after "the first leg"?
      • In 40 years of following football, I have never heard reference being made to the first and second "legs" of a season. I have only ever heard "legs" used in the context of two-legged ties. I would simply say "the first half of the season"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad. In Italy we would say "andata" and "ritorno", which I didn't know how to translate. I've fixed it now.
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the Colours section. I will try to look at the rest tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small stands were fitted" => "Small stands were built"
    • Done.
  • "when World War II made it impracticable" => "when World War II made it impractical"
    • Done.
  • "with the founding of the ultras group" =>"with the founding of the ultras groups" (because you talk about two groups)
    • Done.
  • Out on loan table looks weird with two columns but no players in the second column
    • The players are now two, so the table should be ok.
  • That's what I got on the rest :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

edit

Placeholder...bit of a traffic jam on this page now :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, are we likely to have the pleasure of your company anytime soon...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right then (sorry all)....do we know why they changed colours in 1932? gah, found bottom bit
  • Despite Monza's strong financial situation - I'd say "secure" maybe? I wonder if "strong" is a bit POV? (not a deal-breaker)

Ok, looks on course from me WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jim

edit

Another placeholder Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The club ... they
    • Not sure what I should change here. I'm using the collective "they" to refer to the club.
  • link bankrupt
    • Done
  • Forti e Liberi — needs a footnote, no idea what this is
    • It's a sports club based in Monza. Is it necessary to add a footnote to explain this?
  • behind direct promotion — automatic promotion?
    • Done
  • they needed an away win to first-placed Varese— against is clearer
    • Done
  • In May 2016, the club changed its name to S.S. Monza 1912; the team achieved promotion back to the Serie C under coach Marco Zaffaroni in 2017.[112] — perhaps and instead of semicolon
    • Done
  • Corona Ferrea — give translation, iron crown
    • The text already says "Corona Ferrea (Iron Crown)". Should I also give the translation in the image caption?
  • newly annexed city of Fiume — say who it was annexed from, and perhaps a footnote saying it's Croatian again now
    • I've added a footnote (Fiume (today known as Rijeka) was part of Italy until 1947, when it became part of Yugoslavia. The club is today known as HNK Rijeka.)
  • The costs in lira are pretty meaningless now, especially outside Italy, perhaps current equivalents in euros?
    • I've written the equivalent in Euro using an inflation converter (inflationhistory.com). Not entirely sure if this is the best way to show the conversion.
  • @Jimfbleak: I've commented/taken care of all the comments above. Nehme1499 23:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • two follow-ups: Forti e Liberi I think needs a little clarification in the text or a footnote. With that name, I wondered if we were talking about sportsmen associated with a far-right orgainisation
  • Thank you for the conversion to euros. I couldn't see a reference or footnote to the converter you have used; I might have missed it, but if not you will need to add one. Also, in the ref and the first example in the text you will need to say what year the euro convertions relate to. I assume 2021, but you don't say that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jimfbleak: I've added the following ref: Historical conversion from Italian lira to Euro according to the Italian National Institute of Statistics online calculator (rivaluta.istat.it/Rivaluta/). Euro figures refer to June 2022. I've tried to clarify the Forti e Liberi part, let me know if it's good. Nehme1499 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Check for p/pp errors, e.g. [25], [141].
    Done
  • Authors in bibliography are out of alphabetical order.
    I thought I had to order them chronologically.
    Chronological is fine; I was just checking because most people use alphabetical. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about using publisher location in your book citations.
    I've added the locations wherever I could find them, should I just remove them altogether?
    If you can't find them that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Calcio Monza 1984/85". Corriere di Monza e Brianza (in Italian). 1984." in the "Further reading" section doesn't provide enough information for a reader to locate it.
    Removed.
  • I see by looking through the Italian Wikipedia that the convention is often not to capitalize the initial letter, in e.g. "il Cittadino", where in English you would capitalize it. I can't tell what the rule is, but can you confirm it's correctly applied throughout? For example, I see 'Camesasca, Enrico (July–August 1962). "sulla "corte" in camicia azzurra nasceva 50 anni fa il calcio monzese"' in the bibliography, but the magazine contents page lists it with a capital "S". Conversely, you have "La Gazzetta dello Sport" and "Il Giorno" in some citations.
    "La" and "Il" are equivalent to "The". I've capitalized all instances.
    Still [88] to fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done
  • In a few cases you have a domain name (e.g. "goal.com") rather than the website name.
    I've fixed these instances. CalcioMercato.com uses the domain name as part of their brand.
  • I can't easily judge the reliability of the book sources. Can you say if any of them are self-published, or published by the club itself, and hence to be treated with caution for some kinds of information?
    None of the books is published by the club itself. They are all written by football experts and/or journalists (for example, Stefano Peduzzi works as a director for Monza-News, which is an officially registered newspaper).

I will check links next and look at the news and website reliability while doing so, as far as possible, given that the sources are in Italian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • You have a dozen cites to "il Cittadino" and two dozen to "il Cittadino (Rivista di Monza e del Circondario)"; are they the same source? If so, the names should match. Or is it the same paper with a different title at different times?
    Same paper with different title at different times.
  • You have both "Il Corriere di Monza e della Brianza" and "Corriere di Monza e della Brianza".
    One uses "Il", the other doesn't. It seems to be a minor newspaper of the 1920s; even searching online I find inconsistent titles (some use "Il", others don't). Not sure what to do here.
  • Missing lang tag on several: [13], [116], for example; please check for more.
    Done
  • You have direct external links as sources in the "Club officials" section; can you convert these into the usual citations"?
    Done
  • Starting to look at the sources. Is "il Cittadino (Rivista di Monza e del Circondario)" the same paper as Il Cittadino (quotidiano di Monza)?
    Yes. Should I {{ill it?

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources? I am going to guess that many of these would be completely obvious to an Italian speaker, but if they're listed below it's because I couldn't figure it out from either the Italian Wikipedia or the source's website.

  • MBNews -- per this page it appears they invite reader submissions, which is a concern for reliability.
    It's officially registered as a newspaper per their footer. The reader submissions is just a sort of "suggestion" or "event report" by users. I assume the newspaper double checks that the info is correct.
  • Blasting News -- I can't find out anything about them.
    I've replaced the source with a Gazzetta dello Sport one.
  • Monza-News -- ditto
    Monza-News is also officially registered as a newspaper per their footer. Their director Stefano Peduzzi works as a sports journalist and TV host for several notable TV stations such as Sportitalia and Telelombardia (see link)
  • Tutto C
    Officially registered as a newspaper. Associated to the "Unione Stampa Periodica Italiana" (USPI), and a section of TUTTOmercatoWEB.com, whose director is Michele Criscitiello.
  • PianetaEmpoli
    Officially-registered newspaper.
  • SAB Monza
    The official ultras group of the team. I've replaced the source with a Monza-News one.
  • Sport People
    Officially-registered newspaper.
  • Squawka -- looks like a blog post?
    They are associated with Opta Sports. It is definitely one of the top data-related football websites.

-- That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I should have taken care of all the above. Nehme1499 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. An interwiki link for Il Cittadino would be nice but is optional. For Il Corriere di Monza e della Brianza I would go with whatever you think is more usual, or just pick one, but I don't see a reason to retain the inconsistency. Neither is a reason to hold up passing the source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've ill'ed "Il Cittadino", and kept "Corriere di Monza e della Brianza" for consistency with Corriere della Sera. Thanks for the review :) Nehme1499 17:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nehme1499, sorry, just realized I never checked the links. Going through them now, it seems [93] is broken and there is no archive link. I'll post here again when I've finished going through them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And [184] has the same problem. Those are the only two errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've used the traditional Wayback Machine for the second, and a Google cached version for the first. Is it an issue for the latter? Nehme1499 20:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a cached Google page will work -- won't that disappear eventually? If we know it's stable that's fine; if not I think we need a different source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a contorted way to do it, but I've archived the cached version on Wayback and used that. Is that fine? Nehme1499 21:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2022&oldid=1107768757"