Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2020

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

---

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

• When/where was the lead image first published?

• How many Proctors were involved?

• For how long did she attend school?

• When and why did the brother go to India?

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?

• When/where was the lead image first published?

I'm looking into that now.

• How many Proctors were involved?

Three - I've named them in the article now.

• For how long did she attend school?

The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.

• When and why did the brother go to India?

Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

Good call, I've reworded that sentence.

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

1780 - I've added that.

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

As discussed above.

• How are you ordering sources without authors?

I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, did you want to take another run through now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I don't have any further comments at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
• "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".

SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.

So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.

Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.

• We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.

Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Reworded - is that better?

Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

• Marker down for me to comment - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Early life

• "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
• Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?

So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?

The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.

Inheritance

• "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?

Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.

With Charlotte Temple

• "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")

I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.

• "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?

I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers.

• Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not Gog, but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[2] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

• Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?

Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?

No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?

That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.

I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.

It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?

Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". Cassianto^Talk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.

I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.

Reworded.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? Cassianto^Talk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £36,000,000 in 2024 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.

  Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.

• "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.

  I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.

• "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.

  Agreed, removed.

• "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.

  Agreed, reworded.

• Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.

  Gone.

• "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.

  Reworded.

• "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?

  You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

• Reworded.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.

  It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.

• "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.

  Reworded.

Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Around this time, Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander of the Royal Navy,[40] visited Aberlour." -- around what time? New para, new section, new date.

  Reworded.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• "Shortly before the marriage, Temple had written to Simon Keir, a partner of Macpherson Grant's agents at Milne & Co., directing that his accounting of sales no longer be sent to Macpherson Grant directly..." -- close succession of "directing" and "directly".

  Changed 'directing' to 'requesting' (which is possibly a better choice of words, since I'm not clear she actually had the authority to direct him).

• "Dissatisfied with this new arrangement, and with what he saw as Temple's interfering in his affairs..." -- was there ever any likelihood of him being satisfied? I doubt it. I would change "dissatisfied" with unhappy.

  Done

• "By this time, with Temple gone, Macpherson Grant was depressed, mentally unstable and drinking heavily. → "With Temple now gone, Macpherson Grant became depressed, mentally unstable and drunk heavily." Also, depression is depression, drunk heavily (as we've said earlier), yes, means she drunk lots of alcohol, but how was she mentally unstable? One is left questioning this, unlike the other two you mention.

  Reworded per your suggestion. 'Mentally unstable' was a reference to Lang's assertion that she was going through a psychotic episode. I've reworded this so that we're attributing it to Lang - do you think that's OK, or should we cut this (since Lang is an historian rather than a psychiatrist)?

• "She died on 14 April 1877..." Who did? We mention both Temple and MG in the preceding sentence.

  Do you think this is really necessary? MMG is the subject of the previous sentence, with Temple just mentioned in an aside - don't you think it would be awkward to use her (rather lengthy) name again here? (I'll make the change if you really think it woule be better).

  If fact, we also mention Lang, so that's three females in the preceding sentence. I'll leave it up to you, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch that she had gifted to Macpherson Grant, and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." → "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." Cuts our the awkward repetition of MG's name.

  Done.

That's all from me. I can see me supporting this once these have been addressed.  Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassianto - that all looks reasonable and doable. Something has come up at work that means I'll have very little time for a couple of days, but I hope to be able to get this done towards the end of the week, or over the weekend at the latest. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cassianto - I've made all the changes you suggested bar one - let me know if you really think that one is necessary. Thanks again for the very detailed review, most appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Support based on the above fixes. I have really enjoyed reading this article and I hope to see you back here again soon, Girth Summit. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

• William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.

• Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)

• Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
• Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing

• I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.

• The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.

• I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.

• MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.

• The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.

• "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.

• Fixed.

• A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)

• Fixed

Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".

• fixed

• "ball room" – one word, according to the OED

• fixed

• "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)

• Another one I didn't know - fixed.

• Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.

• Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit _(blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.

• I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".

• I've reworded this sentence.

• "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?

• Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.

• "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?

• Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
  • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The date and page are correct. The article (unsigned) is headed "Grouse Shooting: The Scotch Moors". It says that Captain Yeatman "bagged 26 brace of grouse, two hares and two plovers". Plover butties, anyone? Tim riley talk 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that out Tim riley - much appreciated, I've added the citation to the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.

• done

• "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.

• I wouldn't want to get involved in any arguments about capitalising job titles! Happy to change.

• "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.

• Clarified

• "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".

• I've reworded this.

• "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.

• I'd prefer to keep this in - I appreciate that it's not directly related to MMG herself, but another reviewer expressed an interest in what happened to Temple/Yeatman after MMG's death - I wasn't able to find much other than this, and it seemed interesting enough to include it. I'll take it out if you feel strongly about it.

• Not a bit! I don't seek to twist any arms, and it's your drafting, not mine. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
  • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've cut it.

I hope these comments are of help. Tim riley talk 09:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley - I really appreciate your detailed review, very helpful indeed. I've addressed most of your points, and made a few comments above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll be back after a further read-through, to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1

Comments from me to follow, but it'll be over the next few days, I'm afraid. One immediate query:

• "entering into what was described as a form of marriage" (lead) and "Her relationship with Temple was described as being much like a marriage" (With Charlotte Temple). - It would have been pretty surprising for the time if the relationship was publicly described as akin to a marriage and I'm not seeing the contemporary sources that do so describe it, beyond the "remarkable tomfoolery" comment, which isn't quite the same thing. Do we have contemporary sources that do describe the relationship as "like a marriage" and, if we do, can we cite them? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  Hi KJP1 - the phrase comes from Shaw and Gordon source (1882) - page 181 (near the top): "...something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant 'married' Miss Temple, placing on the latter's marriage-finger a suitable ring... ...Miss Temple not only reciprocated the remarkable affection, but likewise manifested similar extraordinary proofs of it - she termed herself 'wifie' in her letters to Miss Grant...". Does that address your concern? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It very well might, if it could be included. But I’m not seeing it in the article, unless I’m overlooking it. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was cited after the sentence about the tomfoolery - since it supported both sentences, I thought it would be OK to cite it once, but I've added another reference to it now. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not making myself clear. I wasn’t looking for a cite but rather for an explanation, within the body of the article, as to who was describing their relationship as akin to a marriage. Were the sources that did so newspapers or what? Were they contemporaneous? Something like: Gordon and Shaw/Moray County history/whoever, in their subsequent reporting of the affair, described the relationship as “something like a marriage”. Hope this is clearer. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, OK, gotcha. I'll add some attribution into the text just now, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - just what I was after. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay on this. I'll be back to finish up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delays in getting back to this. So:

Early Life and family

• "trading out of a property on Billiter Square" - can you check the spelling of the Square. The source has it as "Biiliter Square". Assuming it's this, [3], it could just be that the source has a typo, or that the spelling of its name changed, as it clearly has over time.

  I'm sure it's a typo - the source actually spells it both ways (first as Biiliter, but further down as Billiter) - Billiter Square seems actually to have existed, and while Google does throw up a few hits for Biiliter Square, from a quick glance they all look like typos (or possibly errors in machine-reading of old print newspapers) to me.

• ""with help from the bookkeepers and overseers" - links?

  Good call, done

• "issued by the High Court of Chancery" - And again?

  Done

Adult life

• "the output of the estates varied with changes in conditions" - Economic conditions? Weather conditions?

  Going back to the source, it's talking about the economic conditions - variability in prices, increase in labour costs (post-abolition of slavery). I've clarified.

With Charlette Temple

• "high sheriff of Wiltshire" - if it's MoS, just ignore me, but the lower cases look odd to me. They're upper case in the main article.

  Done

Philanthropy

• "which was built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" - being uber-picky, Pevsner gives a construction period of 1866-1869 (Highland and Islands, Buildings of Scotland, John Gifford, Penguin, 1992, isbn 9780140710717, p=188).

  Thanks - I don't have a copy of that one, I've added those dates. Can you check that I've hyphenated the ISBN properly in the sources? Gog's already done a source formatting check, don't want to break anything.

Temple's marriage

• "a retired commander of the Royal Navy" - "in" rather than "of"?

  Not sure about this one - since he was retired, can we still say 'in'? I'll change if you're sure it's an improvement.

That's all from me. I think it a comprehensive account of an interesting individual. The prose has benefitted from input here and I'll be pleased to support once the nominator has had the opportunity to look at the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1 - I really appreciate your input. I've addressed most of the points, a couple of queries above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

All looking good. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from TRM

• " with Alexander Donaldson and Alexander Thomson, who died in 1807 and 1818 respectively" reads like a very odd construction to me...

  Reworded

• "forty-two"/"twenty-two-year-old"/" forty-third" any reason why we're not using "42" and "22-year-old" and "43rd"?

  Personal preference - are digits preferred by the MOS? Happy to change if necessary.

  I think MOS allows for numbers expressible in one or two words to be written out, so no issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• " the organ for Inverness Cathedral, built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" the organ was built in 1866?

  I think so, but probably not by Alex Ross - I've added 'which was'

• " at St Peter's Church, Eaton Square in" probably a GEOCOMMA needed after Square.

  Done

• General: you discuss her "relationship" in detail and allude to some kind of homosexual relationship, but neither lesbian nor gay nor homosexual is noted with reference, yet there are LGBT categories here. I'm not aware of if this is "okay" because the LGBT nature is implied strongly enough, or if we should seek for stronger reliable sources stating it plainly? Just a thought.

  No source outright describes her as gay, or a lesbian, which is why I haven't directly used that language in the article itself. I think the article has relevance to the LGBT Studies wikiproject, but perhaps it is going to far to have the LGBT person categories on there - happy enough to remove them if you think that would be the right move?

  I think it wise, or at least remove them temporarily and perhaps see if the LGBT wikiproject have any thoughts, I'm happy to go with a consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise it's a very nice article.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man - changes made, couple of comments/questions above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem, a couple of replies above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories removed, and I've left a note about it at the WikiProject talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Then it's a yes from me, and a yes from him. Cheers, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Comments from Gleeanon409

• Not sure where to land comments about LGBTQ categories so feel free to adjust the formatting to make them work.
  • We need no proof of sexual relationships—in most cases a near impossibility—for these categories. Often the only evidence that LGBTQ people even existed was criminal records for euphemistic physical activities.
  • In this case you have two women marrying each other, not sure you really need much more than that. That they exchanged rings as well should clear any remaining doubts. It’s unsurprising that great pains are made to spell out that they didn’t have sex as likely that would be just too scandalous to survive. To me this is all along historical erasure of LGBTQ romantic relationships. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW, I am inclined to agree with Gleeanon409. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Gog. I think Gleeanon409 has rather too much a 21st-century take on the matter. Context is vital. In the post-Freudian era people obsess endlessly about sexual intercourse at the expense of considering the wider nature of relationships. It seems to me that the main author has got the balance spot-on, making due reference to what the reader may infer was a lesbian relationship, without making a production number of it. It doesn't matter whether or not the relationship was physical. From the 19th century citations it seems that the two women's contemporaries didn't make a big deal of things, and I think we should follow suit. They were plainly an item, but what that itemness consisted of is neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear - a frequent occurrence - I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on. I was supporting Gleeanon409 in so far as they disagree with the LGBT category tags being removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, I'd keep them, I think. Labels are tiresome but we all need some reference points in putting people in context. It would be pushing it a bit to suggest that LGBTQ is an inappropriate tag. Tim riley talk 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was pointing out, for lack of better term, researchers’ bias. If one isn’t looking for evidence of LGBTQ-identity, it’s quite common to never see, and therefore acknowledge it exists. In historical cases, that anything non-heteronormative is noticed is a clue that a LGBTQ story is there but has been systematically erased—for whatever reasons—by people who had the ability to shape or write the history. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

In another case, where it was explicitly known that a woman had serial long-term relationships with same-sex partners, but the exact nature of those relationships could not be ascertained, we opted to use the category "same-sex relationship", instead of LGBT categories, and keep the LGBT project banner on the talk page. Don't know if that is helpful, but it does serve to not obliterate the relevance of different types of relationships in the period. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If the subject of the article was in a same-sex relationship, which no one seriously seems to be questioning, our modern construct of LGBTQ or similar is the appropriate categories. I would restore them and ask people like @Bearcat: who are familiar with LGBTQ issues, and Wikipedia’s category system to weigh in. Ultimately categories help our readers and building the encyclopedia so no rush. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This exchange is worthwhile and thoughtful, but I don't think it belongs on this FAC page, which isn't concerned with categories. Is it all right if I transplant the whole section to the article talk page? Tim riley talk 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I’d suggest waiting a bit until the discussion is over. Then copying there for documentation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This minor issue has no bearing on whether this article is promoted or not, so I don't see why this has to be discussed here and not on the talk page. I suggest moving it as soon as possible. Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man brought it up in the context of their review. I don't think that further discussion should be moved unless they are content with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

And that's fine, but when compared to the criteria, for me, this doesn't seem like a make or break issue. Supports should be based on the criteria and this meets it, with or without what cats it carries. Therefore, it should be moved to the talk page if this topic requires complex discussion. Given that the nom hasn't even answered yet, I would like to assume good faith with the nom that this wasn't an "attempt" to do the LGBTQ community a disservice by erasing anything. Cassianto^Talk 00:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I’d like to wait until Bearcat or someone else who’s versed in LGBTQ categories can offer advice. Unless there’s a pressing need? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto I have just replied in detail to the similar comment you posted, addressed to me, on Gleeanon409's talk page. The conversation is becoming fragmented. Perhaps you would like to move, or copy, that part of it to here? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on Gleeanan409's talk page has nothing to do with this FAC, more your comments on Gleeanon409's talk page, so I'll leave them there. Cassianto^Talk 10:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your insightful comments. My personal view is that the categories are probably OK; I removed them in response to what seemed to be a reasonable concern by a reviewer, and I will be entirely happy to reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. I see Bearcat has been pinged as someone well-versed in this area, so I'll wait to see if they comment, but if not my feeling fron this discussions is that there is a rough consensus to reinstate them. I'd be happy for further discussion of this to take place on the article's talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. I've been accused of some odd things in the past, but some of the insinuations dotted around Wikipedia are startling offensive. My comment was entirely derived from what I considered to be a lack of appropriate verifiable sources for categories in a FAC, and it has somehow been completely corrupted into me somehow making "inappropriate" comments, homophobic comments, attempting to erasure LGBT history etc etc. Thanks for that, noted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No, just no. I don't know who you are responding to, but with respect, you seem to be confusing two separate discussions. Nobody is accusing you of anything of the sort; in fact, nobody is accusing anyone of being homophobic. There are two discussions taking place; this one, to do with your legitimate comments re the cats, and this one, where somebody else who used an emotive word (not intentional) to describe the nom's act of deleting the cats, which I assume had been done as a result of your comments in this review. This diff is what the other discussion centres around, more specifically the word "attempt" which to me implies that someone was attempting to erase all traces of someone's homosexuality, which of course, could be homophobic. I did not believe that that was the case, especially since the nom had yet to reply, and "attempt", with much respect to Gog, was removed. Cassianto^Talk 13:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll just add that Gleeanon has accepted that this was all done in good faith - noone is suggesting any wrong doing by TRM (or anyone else). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• So, it's been a few days now, and no further discussion of this has taken place here, the article talk page, or at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies (aside from a note that there is a related discussion going on at Wikidata). So far, one editor (The Rambling Man) has expressed concerns about including the tags, and three editors (Tim riley, Gog the Mild and Gleeanon409 have indicated that they think they are appropriate. I'm going to interpret that as a consensus to reinstate them, with a note for the record that I would be happy for anyone who remains concerned to restart a conversation on the talk page, or to kick off an RfC. Thanks all for your views. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems fair and reasonable, no need to hold up the FAC process further. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since there's a lot of text above, I thought a quick note might be helpful to summarise it. Nikkimaria, who performed the first review, indicated that they didn't think the article was quite there yet; since then, Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, Cassianto, The Rambling Man and KJP1 have made suggestions for improvement, and have all noted their support after I followed up on them. I don't think there are any outstanding actions from any review. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Tks for the summary, GS, but checking that sort of thing is why they pay us the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

• "The Macphersons married on 30 April 1825,[3] and had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson, in 1828." I found this a weird inclusion; it was mostly superfluous to the subject of the article, and took us back in time. Personally, I'd just note that she had an older brother, and move on.
• "..attended school in Hampstead.." I know it has a wikilink, but further inline clarification of where Hampstead is would be appreciated, to avoid me having to click that link and leave this article.
• "..trading out of a property on Billiter Square." This feels like excessive, unnecessary detail? What does this add about the subject of the article?
• "Resolution of the various lawsuits was not completed until 1861, seven years after Macpherson Grant came into possession of the estates." It feels odd to be told this before being told in the next section that she inherited his estate.
• Wikilink pimento.
• On the first use, you write "Milne & Co", and on the second "Milne & Co.". Be consistent.
• In my opinion, almost all of the Later events section is beyond the scope of this article.

In general, this is a good piece of work, but I have some concerns about how well it balances being comprehensive with remaining focused on the main topic. It has plenty of support above, so maybe I'm seeing things that aren't really there, but it just seems slightly aimless at times. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I was looking to close out this long-running nom and as I read through the above I felt that we could probably leave these things to be actioned post-promotion, until I got to the last bullet point re. Later events, which is more substantial and really should be considered here. Girth Summit, can you address that last point first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ian Rose - I'll read through {{|Harrias}}'s points and respond fully this afternoon. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Harrias - first of all, thank you for your detailed review, I appreciate your suggestions and your candour about the balance between being comprehensive and maintaining focus. I've implemented the copy editing/minor changes that you suggested, but would like to explore some of the more substantive points further.

• Her brother. There seems to be some disagreement about this. An earlier reviewer suggested including more about her brother, such as why he went out to India, how he died and so on - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out anything more about his life, but I'd be inclined to keep what we do know about him, including his date of birth, in the article. I take your point about jumping back and forth in time however, so I've reordered the paragraph to list the births chronologically - does that meet your concerns?
  • This reads much better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Billiter Square I'm not wedded to this exactly, but I think it's relevant. Alexander Grant built Aberlour House and made it his official residence, but the sources suggest that he never actually lived there - it seems relevant to indicate that sources show he actually lived at an address in London.
  • I think it is sufficient to say that "although it is doubtful that he ever actually lived there". Also, at the moment, the article says that he traded out of a property there, which doesn't necessarily indicate that he lived there. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lawsuits I take your point, and thought about how I could restructure this so that we mention the resolution of the lawsuits at the right point in terms of chronology. I couldn't see an obvious way to do that elegantly however, since we don't really discuss the lawsuits again in the next section - we'd be breaking up a single paragraph covering them into two chunks, which would probably end up repeating information unnecessarily. I've reworded that sentence somewhat to shift the focus slightly in an attempt to address this concern - does that look any better to you?
  • This also reads better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• Later events I disagree with you on this one. Other FA biographies have much longer sections with titles such as 'Impact and Legacy', where we discuss the lasting effects the subject's life had on society. MMG had no children, and she wasn't in a position of political or intellectual influence that would have allowed her to leave the sort of mark on society that we might typically discuss in sections like this. However, her impact on the architecture of the region was not insignificant: both Aberlour House and St Margaret's church are nationally significant buildings, one of which she remodelled extensively, the other she founded but did not live to see completed. The orphanage she founded went on to become the second largest such institute in the country after her death, and still operates as a children's welfare charity (which I plan to get around to writing an article about at some point). I don't think that it's beyond the scope of the article to have a short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death.
  • It looks like we fundamentally disagree here. While I would not object to a "short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death" I do disagree with that as a description of what is present. The first paragraph, fine, though even here I would suggest that the additional detail about their son, such as the memorial, is unnecessary.
  • "James William Grant of Wester Elchies, another member of the Grant family, purchased the ruin of the Aberlour church from the other legatees, after it burned in 1861." What is the relevance of this? Also, 1861 isn't a later event, it takes us back to the Inheritance section time-frame.
  • The remainder of that paragraph (slightly reworded to succinctly explain who William Grant is) is fine for the reasons you lay out.
  • "William Grant died in 1877" This was mentioned in the last paragraph as things stand.
  • Given that Aberlour House (building) has its own article, and was built by someone else, I think the final paragraph can be vastly reduced. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review - looking forward to your feedback on the changes I've made, and the points I've made above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK Harrias- thanks for your speedy response. I've trimmed the Billiter Square sentence, and I've cut back on the final section, removing detail about the house (which, as you say, is detailed at its own article), and some of the stuff about the old Aberlour Church, which I agree was a bit confusing since it jumped back in time 20 years. On the point about Temple's son, another review further up suggested putting more in about Temple and her family after MMG's death - I couldn't find much unfortunately, but I thought this was an interesting point and I'd prefer to keep this in if you don't mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I think that's much better. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just three relatively minor points from me left, Girth Summit:

• Isn't "benefited" the US spelling? Presumably this article uses BrEng? (Moved this from above.)
• Why are the images placed on the left, rather than the right, which is more normal? I'm not keen on the aesthetic.
• It would be worth clarfying and bringing together the two "William Grant" paragraphs in the Later events section now. The repetition is a bit odd, almost leading one to wonder if it is two different people. Also, I think it would be worth specifically highlighting that St Margaret's Church was completed after his death. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Harrias - you're right about 'benefitted', I missed that before. (My collaborator on this article writes in AmEn usually - I tried to find all the inconsistencies, but that one didn't jump out at me.) Image placement was purely personal - I find having them all on the right a bit boring, but nobody else has commented either way so I've changed this. I've also combined the two 'William Grant' paragraphs as you suggested - I agree that that is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries; good work on this article, I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Ian Rose, I know this is why you earn the big bucks, but just a courtesy ping that my concerns have been resolved. Harrias ^talk 16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tks guys for working together so quickly and efficiently to resolve these points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just added the required note that I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review. Harrias ^talk 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [4].

---

Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Nominator(s): Brianboulton 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This was Brianboulton's last big almost finished project, so it would be nice to get it to FA as a tribute. I've made a few corrections, added and subtracted some tiny bits and cut down the mentions of "harrowing" (Brian's favourite word), but it is basically the same article that he left us with and I don't think it is too far short (in my ten-year out of date opinion). Tiny parts of it are quite harrowing, but mostly its polar exploration done properly. Yomangani^talk 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from From Tim riley

Just booking my place (the first of many, I suspect, and quite right too). More over the weekend. Tim riley talk 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

First batch of comments

First, thank you so much, Yomangani, for taking this up. I can't think of a better tribute to BB than your navigating this article through FAC. As to the review, it need hardly be said that sentiment can play no part: the review must be as rigorous as any FAC. Brian would not have countenanced anything else. (I have recorded elsewhere how on one occasion he ticked me off, very gently, for suggesting that FAC criteria could be less rigorously applied to certain non-academic articles, and on another he consulted me with some urgency when he thought a WP luminary was getting too easy a ride at FAC.) These are my comments. They are from someone with negligible knowledge of Antarctic exploration, and are therefore mostly on prose. It will take me two or more goes to get through the text, and this batch of comments goes down to the end of the Cape Denison section:

• Lead

• I'd lose mention of George V at the end. I doubt if he played any part in nominating Mawson for the accolade.

• Done.

• Background

• "to both brief Shackleton and check that he was still committed" – though the notion of a split infinitive is, as Fowler says, a superstition, nonetheless I think I'd lose the "both" here, which is a split and a half and, more to the point, impedes the flow of the prose.

• Done.

• "he received confirmation from Shackleton that he would not be going" – a confusing pair of "he"s. Perhaps better just as "Shackleton confirmed that he would not be going"

• Done.

• Aims

• "As a consequence, decided" – missing a "he"?

• Done.

• "none of these was available" – "none was" is not wrong, but the OED and Fowler prefer "none were"

• Done (but, as my brother always says, Fowler died in 1933 so he's not going to care.)

• My compliments to your bro, together with a plug for the fourth edition of Fowler, revised by Jeremy Butterfield and issued by the Oxford University Press in 2015: well worth reading. Not, perhaps, quite as much fun as the old buzzard's quirky original, but full of sound advice. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ship and equipment

• "I might link Tasmania.

• Done.

• Personnel

• "resident of Antarctica, polar veteran Frank Wild" – this must have been an early BB draft. I nagged him out of using false titles years ago. A definite article before "polar" will do what's necessary.
• "Swiss ski-jumping champion – ditto

• Done both; I just missed that when rearranging.

• Finance

• "in the Daily Mail" – Not making a point of this, but I think capitalising and italicising the definite article and including it in the piping was BB's preferred style. I may be wrong.

• Not in the expedition articles I've checked, so not done.

• Fine. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Voyage south

• "half-drowning the dogs – it's a vivid image, but can any animal be half-drowned?

• I had exactly the same reaction and was thinking of changing it to "soaking the men and dogs", but as an image it is spot-on even if it is strictly impossible; soaking is a bit feeble by comparison.

• Fine with me, then. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The weather finally abated" – there is always weather: perhaps "the bad weather finally abated"? (Or just "the weather finally improved"?)

• Done.

• First season: winter 1912

• I'm wondering why the wind speeds are given in metric with imperial equivalents in brackets, but the distances – feet and miles - are the other way about. To me it would seem natural, given the date and the nationalities involved, to standardise on imperial with metric in brackets, but I don't press the point.

• This was something else I noticed - I assume it was because Borchgrenvink, being mostly Norwegian, used metric. But I'll go back and check the source.

• Borchgrevink, like a proper explorer, used miles per hour; the were converted to km/h in Turney's book.

• "centred around various scientific activities" – there are some (not me) who get very exercised about "centred around" and insist – logically but slightly unnecessarily perhaps – that it should be "centred on".

• Doesn't have the same rhythm but harmless, so done.

• "with extraordinary eclat" – just checking that the source omits the acute accent in éclat.

• It does.

• Sledging, 1912–1913

• "Eastern Coastal party" – and many others in the same format: are we sure about the capital letters? I'm sure the participants capitalised the parties but should we?

• Checking that, but I've gone lowercase on the only uppercase one for the moment.

• Changed to uppercase where Mawson generally does the same. He's not very consistent, but where he's referring to the planning of the parties he does capitalise.

• "which fortunately had not fallen" – amen to "fortunately", but it's nevertheless WP:EDITORIAL, and likewise "frustratingly" two sentences later.

• I reckon these are so evidently true that we can dodge the cosh. I think Wikipedia's culture of beating the adjectives out of articles in the name of policy doesn't mesh well with engaging prose (and I think Brian was at least somewhat of the same mind).

• Hmm. If they're that evidently true then they don't need saying. But I don't press the point, though don't be surprised if other reviewers do. Tim riley talk 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• They don't need saying but I think they give the prose a bit of a lift; I'll fight the other reviewers when the time comes.

• Well said! Tim riley talk 22:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

More later this weekend, I hope. – Tim riley talk 18:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Quite right on maintaining standards; any attempt to wave it through will have me haunted by Brian leaning over my shoulder, tutting and shaking his head. Yomangani^talk 22:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch from Tim

• Macquarie Island

• "By mid-February, the station had made contact with Australia, and by 12 May, was transmitting daily weather reports to Wellington" – Looks slightly odd, to my eye anyway, to have one country and one city. It would seem more natural to have "Australia … New Zealand" or "Cityname … Wellington" if Cityname is available.

• Done. Sydney was first.

• Oceanographic work

• "had been searched for without success on numerous previous occasions" – we could do without "previous" here, I think.

• Done.

• Aftermath

• It looks a little strange to include "Dowager Empress" in the blue link but to exclude "King" from the one in the next sentence.

• Done.

• "Bage–already an officer in the Royal Australian Engineers–was…" – if my ageing eyes don't deceive me we have unspaced en-dashes here. The MoS bids us have spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.

• If somebody could sort that out I'd be grateful - never got my head round this - they are just all dashes to me.

• Done. Tim riley talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Notes

• Note 3: "gifts of supplies, equipment, whisky and tobacco" – as whisky and tobacco are surely "supplies", it might be worth turning the order round: "gifts of equipment and supplies, including whisky and tobacco" or "gifts of equipment, whisky, tobacco and other supplies"

• Done.

• "Worth linking "New South Wales" – its only mention in the article?

• Done. Victoria too as that was only mentioned as part of another link.

• Further reading

• Some tidying up of capitalisation wanted for the first two books.

• Done.

• Lead

I've just spotted a couple of points on rereading the lead (apologies!)

• "at the end of the second paragraph "utility" does not strike me as an improvement on a plain "use".

• Done.

• "I think it might be better to trim the links to Ninnis and Mertz down to just "Belgrave Ninnis" and "Xavier Mertz". We don't give Jeffryes's middle name, and, to judge from their articles, Ninnis and Mertz didn't use theirs.

• Done Mertz. Ninnis' dad, Belgrave Ninnis, was an explorer too and couldn't oblige us by giving his son a different name, so I've left his Edward in (just in case a fan of the Ninnis family reads the lead and can't believe we think Belgrave Ninnis went on the expedition? Not very likely, but it doesn't do any harm to show we know our onions).

That's all I can find to quibble about. Tim riley talk 09:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've adopted most of your suggestions as they all seemed sensible to me, but please note my inability to understand the different use of these: –—−. Help. They are all just lines. Yomangani^talk 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Noted, and tweaked. I'll be back during Sunday after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 01:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy to add my support. What a sad pleasure it has been to review a Boulton article for the last time. This one seems to me comprehensive, well illustrated, thoroughly referenced, balanced and a first-class read. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Thank you, once again, Yomangani, for bringing the article to FAC. We are in your debt. – Tim riley talk 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• All the sources are reliable for what they're cited for.
• Checked a few sources and they supported the content.
• Verifiability issues: Some citations were moved to the ends of lines, but did editors check to make sure that the source covers all the information?
• Further reading sources: these also look like reliable sources (especially Hall and Roberts look like they would be useful). Could any of them be used to expand the article? At just 33kb of readable prose, it seems likely that there's more to say about this historic expedition. buidhe 05:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for looking it over. The two books you mentioned from further reading are more concerned with the exciting (dare I say harrowing?) Far Eastern Party and most or all of the other pertinent information is available from the sources used. There is more to say on the expedition, but I think it is best handled in sub-articles as it would unbalanced this article or swell it to unmanageable size - if you look back in the history to before Brian copied his sandbox version over, you can see there is an article approaching a similar size just on the wireless work. (And just 33kb? That's War and Peace for the Twitter generation.) Yomangani^talk 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  I can see the argument for using summary style, especially if there is more coverage of Far Eastern Party than the rest of the expedition. That seems like a reasonable editorial decision. buidhe 22:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

Very pleased to see this here; my support is unconditional.

• "General plan" section, first paragraph ends without a cite.

  Done. (Though I need to tie down the date).

  Date done too (though Riffenburgh doesn't say where he got it from).

• In the "Aftermath" section, we close with "He was the recipient of many further honours". As he had just received a knighthood, this reads that he had received "many further honours" that day, after the knighthood. Is this the case? If not, "future honours" may be better.

  I'll look at that. "Future honours" sounds a bit strange to me (that's just me, probably). I don't even know if AusEng - which this is supposed to be written in - uses honour or honor.

• The Australian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed, 2004) gives "honour" as the default, with "honor" admitted as a variant. Tim riley talk 23:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim. Now reworded with an example.

• I've just put the full text through an AusEng spell-checker, and the only thing other than names that it flagged up was "programme". I checked this in the Australian Oxford Dictionary which gives "program" for all uses of the word but adds "also programme, except in computing contexts". But before we're done we might seek guidance from a user of AusEng: Ian Rose leaps to mind. Tim riley talk 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Tks Tim. Yeah I think the AOD puts it well... I always use "program", although that might be influenced by having worked in the IT field, including as a -- ahem -- program manager. So I see "programme" as more BritEng but I wouldn't go round overriding it willy nilly in an Aus-related article.

• I have changed it anyway. Yomangani^talk 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• If I can find the time I'll recuse and review in detail but this will have to do for now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "... was killed during the Gallipoli campaign in 1915,and Leslie Blake, the cartographer and geologist of the Macquarie Island party, was killed..." was killed/was killed.

  Yeah, I didn't like that which is why I pushed them as far apart as possible. If you can think of a workable synonym...

  I managed to fudge it a bit.

• "Two days after arriving in Adelaide, Jeffryes took a train heading to his home in Toowoomba, but he never arrived there" -- Do we need "there"?

  No; gone.

• "Appraisal" section, first para, finishes without a cite; and the second para appears not to finish at all, closing with a conjunction?

  Second one was just me being useless. First one might be difficult to cite; I'll have a look but it might just be accepted by everyone without them having to say. Do we still have "likely to be challenged" as a get out?

  Found a source that said it.

Reading this has made me reflect on what a wonderful editor Brian was. I shall miss him and his articles terribly. You have done him a great service with this, Yomangani. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Mawson_main_base.jpg is claimed as source and author unknown, but the source link provided does specify - is there a reason not to trust it? Also, what is the status of this image in the US?

• File:Douglas_Mawson_1914_1.jpeg needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg, File:Return_of_the_Night-watchman._Hodgeman_pushing_his_way_through_the_snow_into_the_Hut_after_a_visit_to_the_Meteorological_screen_Aae_36697h.jpg

• File:A_voyage_to_the_arctic_in_the_whaler_Aurora_(1911)_(14783726242).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, can more specific tagging be added? Same with File:Unloading_supplies_at_Cape_Denison,_1911-1914_(6438929857).jpg, File:Wild_and_Watson_in_sleeping_bag_tent_on_sledge_journey.jpg

• File:Mertz_and_Ninnis_arrive_at_Aladdin's_Cave.jpg needs a tag for US status

• File:Air-tractor1.jpg: source link is dead, needs publication info and a tag for US status. Same with File:Memorial_cross_for_Mertz_and_Ninnis.jpg

• File:Wireless_Hill_from_the_south.JPG: source provided is a red link, and needs a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, can you tell me what the requirement is for US status? Most of the images seem to be only tagged with PD-Australia - both the ones you've mentioned as needing US status and the others. It's quite possible I'm missing something - I haven't done this for years and the PD rules change every five minutes (well, they don't, but the interpretation of them does). Thanks Yomangani^talk 00:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Everything needs to be either free or PD in the US to be "free" for our purposes. Broadly, anything where we can confirm publication before 1925 will be PD in the US; same with any Australian works PD in Australia before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

So I just need to add {{PD-US}} to everything? (Everything that qualifies that I can confirm the publication date, I mean). Yomangani^talk 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look at the documentation for {{PD-US}}, it actually breaks down pretty nicely which tag to add based on when and where the image was first published (where that can be determined). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

All sorted (the Wireless Hill pic has been swapped and the Antarctica_wind_Mawson_Hurley.jpg dropped) Yomangani^talk 12:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

Hello. I'll be making comments later, but for now, I'm trying to make sense of the first sentence.

• Does "Australian continental landmass" have a meaning different from mainland Australia?

• "Australian continental landmass" means mainland Australia, Tasmania, and Papua New Guinea. You could say "mainland Australia" here, but it is also south of the other two constituent parts so it is a bit odd to exclude Tasmania at least, or you could say "the Australian continent" but that gets you more involved with "which do we count as a continent nowadays, Oceania, Australasia, or Australia/Sahul?", you could even just say "Australia" but "due south from Australia" feels a bit like it should still be Tasmania. I've linked so anybody who doesn't get it can check. It was Brian's choice of wording not mine, but I don't see any reason to change it unless there is a particular objection.

• Entirely concur with Yomangani. The existing wording is clearer and more precise than the mooted alternative. "Trying to make sense" forsooth! Tim riley talk 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Does "due South" have a special meaning here? The longitudinal spread of Australia is 40 degrees (from 113 E to 153 E). The coastal arc running east from Gaussberg to Port Adare is 80 degrees (90 E to 170 E) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  "due south" here means if you head due south from anywhere on the Australian continental landmass you will end up in the area he wanted to explore. Though he might have moved the extents beyond the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent, that describes the area he was interested in; the Weddell Sea or Ross Ice Shelf for example, you wouldn't describe like that. Yomangani^talk 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• OK, I'll be moving on. I'm noting for others that Gaussberg is due south of Dhaka, Bangladesh. From west to east, there is Burma, Indonesia lying due north of this coastal region before one reaches the Australian continent. On the east, the segment of the coast lying between 165E and 170E is immediately south of New Zealand, not the Australian continent. In my view, it would be better to describe it more generally, probably by not using direction at all, but maybe distance.) Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC) PS I have some support in Britannica whose video on the Mawson and the AAE says between 00:26 and 00:34, "to map the coastal area of Antarctica closest to Australia." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Quite aside from inaccuracy of "map" as the expedition's aim, the Britannica phrasing has the same problem with a lack of precision that you seem to think "due south" has. The current wording is fine as a shorthand for telling the reader where to look, and is further defined by giving the eastern and western limits - anybody reading it as "completely and only the area contained within the bounding longitudes of the Australian continent" is going to be very much in the minority.

  I was typing up replies to all the latest points but lost power in a storm just as I was finishing and being too lazy to type it all out again, I'm just going to give short answers to the points I disagree on; don't take it as rudeness; I might disagree with a lot of your points, but I do think you are picking up some things that need looking at again.

• "the expedition was organized into three bases." Does "base" have the meaning of "sub-expedition?" Or do you mean "the expedition was organized from three bases," or "the expedition established three bases," or "the expedition had three bases?"

  All of these; this is a summary, it doesn't need any great level of detail.

• "outside work" Is "open-air work" meant?

  Yes, as a synonym.

• "sledging parties" Should "sledging" be wikilinked to sled dog? Given the poor performance of the air tractor mentioned later, I'm assuming motorized sleds were not used, or were they?

  I prefer to link that later when it is more closely related; there is man-hauling too.

• "full oceanographic program" Do you mean "physical oceanography measurements" (pressure, temp, salinity, surface currents, underwater currents, ...) given that the collection of biological samples (plankton, krill) and geological samples is mentioned separately? Even experts today might be hardpressed to define what a "full program" meant in the Southern Ocean in 1911.

  You are reading that wrongly after "full oceanographic program" and, having looked at it again, I think that misreading will be rare, so I haven't re-ordered it.

  PS Very sorry to hear about the power outage. My general concern is that the "full oceanographic program" is probably a dated term. I don't hear it much these days, with the ocean being so instrumented. So, even if I have misread the bit after, a better explanation of the full program might be in order, especially in the lead where the reader has a lot to process all at once. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  I think readers will be able to get the gist - they aren't generally going to be analysing every word in the lead, as if they want to know more they are are going to read the article or the bit of the article that interests them. At some point there's an article to be written on the oceanographic programme which we can just link.

• "on his return to civilization?" This, besides being an ideological can of worms, is not the common contrast to a land uninhabited by humans (Antarctica). What he was leaving behind, in any case, was in 1914 a defining expression of civilization. I am not sure what is meant, but I suggest rephrasing precisely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  Changed.

• A definition of "civilization": (esp.) advanced stage or system of social development, all civilized States". Whose definition? Fowler and Fowler's. – Tim riley talk 08:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• It is a term somewhat loaded with Imperialistic baggage though, Tim, and the change was painless.

Background

• "In January 1909, a three-man party from Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition reached the location of the South Magnetic Pole" This is considered a claim today, see South Magnetic Pole, or here, or "Follow the needle: seeking the magnetic poles," Gregory A. Good Earth Sciences History, Vol. 10, No. 2, SPECIAL ARCTIC ISSUE (1991), pp. 154-167; p 163) You could say, "... calculated they had reached ..." (Riffenburgh's language in Encyclopedia of Antarctica article on the 1909 expedition)

  It does take the wind out of its sails a bit, but you are right.

• His particular interest lay not in the South Pole, but in investigating the lands west of Cape Adare, immediately to the south of Australia, ... visited since." (Nice; also more accurate).
• As the scheme looked doubtful, ("Scheme" already has a meaning of an underhand venture; would "project" or "enterprise" be overall more neutral?)

  It was fairly dodgy and I was trying to differentiate it from the "project" or "enterprise" of the expedition. Gone for "proposition".

• quickly crossed the Atlantic (What did "quickly crossed" mean in 1910, disambiguated from "quick crossings?" Is "promptly/without delay" meant?
  • I.e. would "As Dawson found the project doubtful, he promptly sailed to America to brief ..." be better? It is also Riffenburgh's description.

    It really needs to convey the worry on Mawson's part; gone for "hurried across" which gives a sense of urgency without committing to a speed and avoids parroting the source.

    • All sound good. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• With this assurance, Mawson returned to Australia. (Nice)

Preparations/Aims

• A full scientific and geographical investigation of these lands would be accompanied by a ship-based oceanographic program. (This is the generic language of proposals; it should be qualified a la: A full scientific ... oceanographic program, he claimed (or he proposed); the source says that as well.

  I think that is implied by the section titles and the preceding sentences: "...revealed his plans...","He intended...","Mawson said...". Constant qualifying makes for laborious reading.

  • OK, that's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Could a map similar to the one in File:Dumont d'Urville 1837-1840.svg be added to this section? It would only need to be of the right half, i.e. the world above Eastern Antarctica. I think it would be immensely helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  (EC) Not sure what benefit that sort of voyage tracking map would have in this section. It might be possible to do something like File:Antarctic expedition map (Amundsen - Scott)-en.svg or File:Shackleton Endurance Aurora map2.png (without the plotting of routes), showing the proposed (and actual) base locations and pertinent features (and perhaps the bottom of Australia to give it some geographical context). Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?

  • Yes, the Shackleton-Endurance map is a good one too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Mercator is another option as it blows up Antarctica, giving more room. I whipped something up: File:AAE Denison Mercator projection Square.jpg. They could do a much slicker job. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

    See my edit conflicted comment, obviously the answer was yes.

    What do you think of this: File:Australasian Antarctic Expedition English.png? I realise the labels are huge, but that's so they can be seen in the thumbnail. Yomangani^talk 11:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Looks great. I especially like the finer divisions of longitude. (I'm assuming you have the longitude of the Far Western Base, which in the article, at least what I have read thus far, is only generally identified as being on the SIS, 95 to 105E. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, you'll see it later in the article, and it is also marked on the expedition map (which I would have liked to have included but is pointless at thumbnail size).

    Oh. I didn't realize there was an expedition map. Thumbnail or no thumbnail, it is an absolute must in the Oceanography section. It could have a caption: The expedition map showing the research cruises of the Aurora. But don't respond yet. Let me get to that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship and equipment

• "The specialist equipment required for the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas ... shallower depths. ("Sounding machines" in the age of ROVs and sonar is confusing. Many will assume it is some form of early echo sounding (patented 1913) which it was not. I would link it to: Depth_sounding#Mechanisation, maybe even have a "Mechanised sounding line" instead of "sounding machine" (although the latter is what they were commonly called).

Personnel, Finance

• Both nicely done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Expedition history/Voyage south

• On 28 July 1911, heavily laden with sledges, dogs and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left London for Cardiff, where she loaded 500 tons of coal briquettes.
  • As you probably know, there were 48 dogs, all on the decks, (although 50 had been ordered from Greenland). They have been written about: 1) Dogs, Meat, and Douglas Mawson, Australian Humanities Review, 52, 2012 (for DOI) (Elizabeth Leanne works in the English and Antarctic Studies departments of the University of Tasmania) 2) Riffenburgh in Polar Studies 50:2 (2014) (I would recommend removing "heavily," especially when employed just before a mention of 500 tons of coal. Also, "laden with dogs?" )
    • . i.e. What do you think about: "On 28 July 1911, carrying 48 dogs on its deck, and laden with sledges and more than 3,000 cases of stores, Aurora left, ..." (this will also make the reference to "half-drowning" later more comprehensible)

      I'll look at this; I think we want to get across the impression that the decks are crowded.

      • "her deck teeming with the 48 dogs that had survived the trip from Greenland," (A beauty!) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

        I still think the "and" was my best work

• The rest of the section is nicely written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Cape Dennison

Nicely done. I especially note: " ... made their daily readings, regardless of conditions. In rare lulls, efforts were made ..." and "When there was a dearth of birthdays, other occasions were eulogised;" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to take credit for that bit, it was untouched from Brian's original.

Sledging, 1912 .../General plan

• "bring them away" (I hear this in conversation all the time, not to mention in Shakespeare's. But just double checking that you want "bring" and not take.") :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Take is more natural to me, but I think bring is preferred for Australian English. I might change round to avoid the need to choose.

• Another couple of days and I should be done. (Flat out of extra time these days.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  :) I'm sure that last edit summary is over-modest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Far Eastern Party

• and made good distances when weather allowed (made good distance when the weather allowed)

  I think distances is fine. It feels more disjointed, stop and start.

• were forced make frequents stops (^to^)

  Ta.

• which fortunately had not fallen (it is perfectly comprehensible, but in the encyclopedic register, would you want, "which fortunately did not fall?" the past perfect is a bit of contradiction in terms)

  Done

• As he drew nearer to safety, (as he drew nearer to Camp Denison; safety here makes an assumption)

  Thanks to being in the future (relatively) we know it was to safety, but changed anyway.

• Well those are the nitpicks. The rest of the article—and I've read through to the end—is very well-written of course, but the descriptions seem very general. I wish they had a little more on the science. I am aware, of course, of how difficult it is to describe science in high-level heuristics. So I empathize with the enormity of the task. But please don't respond yet, I will reread this section, the FA Far Eastern Party, and the remaining sections tomorrow, and again the day after, and come up with something constructive and concrete. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• I have reread the article a third time. I left some notes with references for the future in case the need is felt to expand the science. I have self-reverted as it does not need to be done now. I am happy to support this article for promotion to a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

SG

Yomangani, you must try harder. No instances of "the the", "a a" or "and and". But "Island and" did trick me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yo-man, continuing to work through the little MOS stuff: Wikipedia MOS allows either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes. The article had four sets of emdashes, but oddly, one set of endashes, so I changed the one set of endashes to emdashes for consistency. [5] But then I checked several of Brian's recent FAs, and he seemed to always use endashes. I'm not sure where the emdashes came from; do you want me to switch them all to what seems to have been Brian's preferred style? MOS-wise, it doesn't matter, but since we are trying to preserve Brian's style here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And, Brian's last edited version used endashes rather than emdashes, so unless someone objects, I will switch them all back to his style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine - a a dash is a a dash as far as I'm concerned, so if the the MOS demands consistency we should use Brian's preferred style. Yomangani^talk 09:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will switch all the the dashes to the the endash which seems to have been preferred by Brainy Brian. [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am secretly (well, not anymore) hoping the Coords will leave this FAC open for months, just to give us all such uplifting and joyous distractions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Co-ords, please ignore the above comment. "Nominator being a smartarse" is NOT one of the FA criteria. Yomangani^talk 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, now they know why I'm not supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards

This in the Lead "sledging parties covered around 2,600 miles (4,180 km) of unexplored territory" suggests an area because of the word "covered". Perhaps "traversed" would be better? (We have "travelled for a total of" in the Body). Graham Beards (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - "covered" seems like a fairly commonplace synonym for "travelled/travelled across" to me ("we covered 30 miles yesterday", "he quickly covered the ground") and the numbers are a distance not an area. I will change it though if you feel strongly that it is likely to mislead.

Comments and support from Gerda

I miss Brian greatly, and am thankful for the endeveaour to bring his last work here up to FA, thankful to all involved. My 2ct to follow.

Lead

• First sentence: I'd prefer to have mentioned - before "brainchild" - that this was an expedition by whom and when, setting places (on top of time), for readers who don't already know that.

  Trying to avoid anything close to "The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was an expedition to the Antarctic by an Australasian party that took place between 1911 and 1914". I think it is fine (basically untouched from Brian's first draft)

• End: it ends now at the single achievement of one person, while I could imagine an additional concluding summary of the achievements of the expedition.

  Good point, I'll look at this.

• I could imagine the map - now next to Preparations - to follow the lead image, to help us understand where the places mentioned in the lead are.

  Do you not think that is better handled in the body of the article? - the lead is meant to give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on"

  No, or would not have mentioned it ;) - I was impressed by the enormous distances between camps, and on land, which shows better - for me - on a map. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Images

• I could imagine to have the lead image from List of members of the Australasian Antarctic expedition also in this article.

  I've replaced the Aurora image with a contemporary Hurley photo and there is a image of unloading and another of netting from the ship, so I think Aurora is well represented.

• I could imagine some more pics of people involved, perhaps in a gallery, for a closer look at them. Ninnis and Mertz, and others mentioned by name, perhaps.

  This is meant to be a high level article on the expedition - there are already sub articles for the personnel (some of whom have their own articles), Far Eastern Party, and Western Base Party and there is copious material for articles on other facets of the expedition - so I think the bulk of the photos belong there. This is just to give a flavour.

  While I understand, and agree with the bulk there: seeing more faces would add a personal touch, for me. By some, I mean perhaps the two victims, and camp commanders. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ship ...

• I'd like a bit more caption for the Aurora pic, time and place.

  Hopefully this request is rendered moot by the new image

• What is a "No. 1 Lucas sounder"?
• What is a "Kelvin machine"?

  Sounding machines - "...the oceanographic program included two sounding machines: a No. 1 Lucas sounder for work in depths up to 6,000 fathoms ... and a lighter Kelvin machine for use in shallower depths". I'm not sure there is anything else relevant outside a specific article for the models mentioned.

Voyage south

• "the trip from Greenland" - I had forgotten the Greenland dogs, and don't recall a trip being mentioned, - I may be the only one missing some explanation or link.

  I can't help your forgetfulness, but I've tried to make the trip more obvious.

Denison

• The little image below the header remains abstract to me at that size.

  Made bigger, but image size and placement relies a lot on how and where you are reading from. It might be tiny for you, doesn't mean it is tiny for everyone.

And here we sit comfortably and warm. What a story! ... told in admirable prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, explaining and acting. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello Yomangani, thank you sincerely for this. I've added my comments but please defer to Brian's style if anything I've noted is contrary.

• motor-sledge v motorised sledge - make consistent where appropriate?

  I think they are serviceable synonyms

• base v Base consistencies eg Far Western base v Far Western Base and Main Base v Main base v main base

  These arose because they are general descriptions as well as titles. I've sorted it by dropping the capitalised versions and removing "Far" as the literature calls it the "Western base" as least as often as the "Far Western base"

• There are some members with only surname, (leftover from when Brian separated the personnel list to own article in Oct 2019). I've checked every member and included ones that need first name below.

  Sorted those that needed sorting

• and a lighter Kelvin machine - wlink to Kelvin Hughes? ("The firm manufactured binnacle compasses and deep sea sounding machines, many of which were installed on the great ships built on Clyde side.")

  That is covered better in the preceding link to Depth_sounding#Mechanization but you have tempted me to a redlink for Lucas (which Brian would have probably hated)

• Eric Webb, a 22-year-old New Zealander who became chief magnetician - wlink magnetician?

  That's bit of an Easter Egg link as you end up at Magnetism - not that helpful

• state governments together provided £18,500.[44] Together with private - tweak to avoid 2 x "together"? combined?

  Fixed

• On 8 January, they found a wide - should we add the year when moving to a new one?
• She left Cardiff on 4 August, and arrived at Queens Wharf, Hobart, on 4 November, after a three-month voyage - "after a three-month voyage" not necessary? (I'm guessing that maybe when Brian added this departure date, he did not mean to leave in the "after a three-month voyage"?)

  I'm inclined to leave it - it eases the staccato rhythm as bit

• the land reported by Wilkes in 1839 appeared to be non-existent - that was Jan 1840? His article has "reported the discovery "of an Antarctic continent west of the Balleny Islands" of which it sighted the coast on January 25, 1840." and Brian has in Background section "That coast had been indeterminately explored in the 1840s by the French under Dumont D'Urville and by the American Charles Wilkes, but had not been visited since."

  Just a quick fill that I didn't correct later - the voyage started in 1839

• which they named Cape Denison, after Sir Hugh Denison - not knighted until 1923, remove "Sir"?

  Fixed

• return to base by 15 January, when - add year?
• support parties for the main journeys.[90][89] - ref order

  Fixed

• but early in the New Year there - are caps necessary (usually only used for Jan 1st)?

  Substituted

• they resumed their journey on 4 January - add year?
• and, in particular, the condition of his feet - frostbitten?

  Generally poor condition: skin flaking off, raw, probably a bit of trench foot and frostbite.

• Three days later, Mawson reached the cave, but bad weather - was he able to find stores here, esp nutrition?

  Yes, added (also there was food at the first cairn he found)

• Bickerton, Bage, McLean, Madigan and Hodgeman - Hodgeman needs first name Alfred here. Ditto for Archibald McLean (others okay)

  Hodgeman was already named and linked further up in an image.

  Perhaps name and link him in prose then use as a MOS:REPEATLINK in the caption (just in case the image is removed at some time?)

• but a severe gale prevented the ship from anchoring - do we know how long Davis waited to see if gales would abate, hours, days?

  One day. Added

• The East Coast Party under Madigan left the base - previously written as Eastern Coastal Party

  Fixed

  another tweak ie "Eastern Coastal Party" v. "East Coastal Party"?

• named Horn Bluff, after one of the expedition's sponsors - wlink William Horn (per ref 2 his article)

  Yep. Done

• Their most important geological find was a meteorite, the first discovered in Antarctica - wlink to Adelie Land meteorite

  Done

• produce and edit a magazine, the "Adelie Blizzard" - italics for a mag?

  Apparently so (though I tried it in bold first)

• when strong winds brought down the wireless masts - insert "again" brought down?

  Added "once again" as it gives a more exasperating feel

• Bickerton began practising operating the wireless - insert 'to learn morse code'?

  Probably more to it than that, I don't think the sources restrict it to that or mention whether Bickerton already knew morse.

  Ah, I'd read that in Sidney Jeffryes' article. Ref 1 "Bickerton stepped into the breach, teaching himself Morse code in the process." Also here but no prob if not added.

• instructed Ainsworth to censor - maybe insert "on Macquarie Island" after Ainsworth

  Done

• They finally left Cape Denison on 26 December - I'd add year here
• though he signed a letter to indemnify Davis from responsibility should a disaster occur. - add a ref? was this at Davis's request?

  Can't find any mention of that in the sources, so removed it.

• establish wireless contact with Camp Denison failed - this is the only time Main Base is called Camp Denison

  Fixed

• Sawyer, who had fallen ill, was taken off the island - add Arthur (and wlink to List of Personnel?)

  Done

• replaced by members of the Commonwealth Meteorological Service - swap "Service" to Bureau per previous (doesn't seem to have changed name in that period

  Done

• Macquarie Island and further south towards the Auckland Islands - Auckland Islands not further south than Macquarie? further east? p68 of ref has "A course was then set (N. 46 degrees East. true) for the Auckland Islands."

  Northeast. Done.

• Mawson noted as much in his diary: "I hope the strain won't tell any more of him" - do you have access to Riffenburgh, should that be on him?

  No, it's "of him" - I had thought that was probably a typo too, so I've already checked.

• through the profits from Hurley's film - add Frank, add 'official photographer', add wlink

  He should be mentioned in the personnel section really. I'll sort that. (I have sorted it)

• The outbreak of war later in 1914 delayed - seems obvious but we should change "war" to World War I (or, the First World War)?

  I've just linked it

• loss of public interest as a result of the war.[174] As a result, the scientific reports - reword to avoid 2 x "as a result"?

  Reworded

• Royal Australian Engineers - wlink

  Done

• died after being badly wounded by - badly not needed?

  Not essential but does suggests he died of his wounds directly rather than complications. Also, adverbs are nice to have around.

• Hurley joined the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition - use ITAE here?

  I was breaking it up, to avoid two ITAEs or two Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expeditions within a few words

• Hurley's photographs and films provided a comprehensive pictorial record - ref mentions film singular (though prob many reels?). Also is singular when mentioned in Aftermath.

  That was just my typo.

• including Cape Mawson, Mawson Coast, Mawson Peninsula,[187] Madigan Nunatak,[188] Mertz Glacier,[189] Ninnis Glacier - needs 'and' before "Ninnis" (and if so, remove Oxford comma)?

  Done

• claims on the Antarctic continent,[184]and was - space after ref
• note 7 vitamin A poisoning - wlink to Hypervitaminosis A per Mertz article?
• note 8 New York Globe -wlink?
• Smith 2014, pp. 239. - one p
• Fitzsimons, P. (2012). Mawson - Cap S in name (throughout) and authorlink to Peter FitzSimons
• Cansdale - move to Websites. Change wlink from the US ABC to ABC News (Australia)
• Gorman, M.L. - spaced initials per others?
• Gorman - "Aberdeen University’s penguin egg" - straighten curly apostrophe

  All the above ref changes are done

• image Australasian_Antarctic_Expedition_English.png - something odd here, Sydney appears too far north on coastline.

  I've moved it (Sydney, not the marker in the image. If you are in Sydney and you look out the window now you'll see you are now in what used to be Coff's Harbour.)

• misc - in Air-tractor sledge and in Cape Denison, Boat Harbour is mentioned but not in this Expedition page (which would be expected?)

  The name is more a modern tourist thing, but it does crop up in some of the literature, so I've crowbarred it in.

• misc - winds, a number of linked articles (eg Mawson's, Commonwealth Bay, Cape Denison) name and wlink katabatic wind. Should this, if in sources?

  Added another sentence about different ways they got blown around

That's me for now. Thanks again. As Mr Riley says, "a sad pleasure" to review. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In case the need is felt for citing Mawson and Katabatic, here is a reference (which I had noted at the time of my review, but not included). It is page 116 of: Cassano, John J. (2013), "Climate of Extremes", in D. W. H. Walton (ed.), Antarctica: Global Science from a Frozen Continent, Cambridge University Press, pp. 116, 102–136, ISBN 978-1-107-00392-7 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think all your points have been addressed now in one way or another. Thanks for the forensics (single curly apostrophe; how did you find that?).

  nothing special, simply by sight.

Thanks Yomangani, I have added a few replies above and have two new minor questions...

• What happened to the H on verandah? I've seen both spellings (verandah and veranda) in the sources but the H is more usual here in Oz.

  I saw some Australian source using the h-free version so I removed it.

• At Sources / Books, is it intentional that the link to the Davis book at Internet Archive does not open in new window (or is this "a thing" I've not noticed before)?

  I think that is because the titlelink is a pseudo-interwiki link.

As none of the extras above are of much concern, I am happy to add my support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from 7&6=thirteen

The very first sentence is unreadable. It has fifty words. If you can't figure out this is poor writing, see my user page for supporting studies. Joyceian excess is no way to start off an article. 'tis true that it is nowhere near Longest English sentence.
We honor Brian's memory by furthering and improving the project, not by casting a perpetual memorial to editorial misjudgment. It is way over anybody's ability to understand intelligibly. There was no need for this mountain. It is not up to the standards of a WP:FA IMO. 15:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it was even remotely difficult to parse and I certainly disagree with the hyperbolic criticism of it here and on my talk page, but I have lightly edited it. Yomangani^talk 19:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bit more of a philosophical discussion on the process than directly related

On the one hand, the sentence does wind a bit, and we expect the lead to be digestible to the average reader, not just the Antarctic aficionados. On the other hand, I can't see a way to do it better that I like. Stopping at the first comma seems too choppy, but my prose stinks. Here are both options, for others to opine. Original Shortened The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson, who was inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 to spearhead an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west. The Australasian Antarctic Expedition of 1911–1914 was the brainchild of Douglas Mawson. Inspired by his role in Ernest Shackleton's Nimrod expedition in 1907–1909 he spearheaded an investigation of the largely unexplored coast due south of the Australian continental landmass, between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west. The first sentence in a lead matters. A lot. We should discuss and come to consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC) One solution might be to lose the final clause, "between Cape Adare in the east and Gaussberg in the west", which may be more detail than the lead needs, and would help reduce the length without having to chop at the first comma. The average layreader might not need to know those specifics in the lead, while the aficionado probably already does know this, so doesn't need it spelled out either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I reedited the first sentence once. That was my proposal. And it was found wanting. I called attention to the problem, but won't edit war. I will leave it to you all to develop consensus. I want the article to be promoted to WP:FA. But I want this to be a lasting and fitting tribute to an esteemed editor. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I, for one, really appreciate your intent, 7+6. This matters a lot to me because almost every single medical FA has been destroyed by a misguided application of guideline by a small group of editors to restrict sentence length in leads to 12 words, and only so that these articles can be dumbed down for translation to other languages. Tell me that reading the lead of Asperger syndrome, an FA, doesn't give you a staccato headache. Partly for this reason (and others related to same), production of FAs in the medical realm has ceased. I understand your concern, but resist overly short sentences as well. I felt your first sentence was too short, but agree the original sentence was too long. What we do in FAs matters, as they become examples that other editors follow. I leave it to others to solve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC) WP:FA ought to be an attainable goal, not a mythical Chimera. I claim no pride of authorship, so I am not affronted by being overwritten. The strength and virtue of wikipedia is our multiple viewpoints and skills. And there is no such thing as good writing. There is only good rewriting. Everything is subject to editing recrafting and rehabilitation. WE should concentrate on fixing the problem, building an encyclopedi; not fixing the blame. But throwing a Sabot into the FA works is neither helpful nor constructive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I found the opening sentence a bit tangled too, like I should know what Mawson already did. It's a paragraph that feels like it's not the start of something.I'm sure there are a number of options that would decompress the information in that sentence a bit. Not often do we see "brainchild" as the first noun on a page (other than the article subject). A more literal approach couldn't hurt; I find the first paragraph of Nimrod Expedition, which is also a(n) FA, sets the stage much better. In this first paragraph, it's talking about bases before it's talking about the background/preparation, the ship or any slightly detailed purpose of the expedition. Outriggr (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is my sample lede: [7]. Also, there isn't a link to Antarctica in the whole article. Outriggr (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've adopted a modified version of Outrigger's lead. I find it sad that we are writing for people who don't appreciate "brainchild" or "spearhead". Thog hit mammoth with rock.

Oh, I enjoy a brainchild in the right time and place. Some of my best friends are brainchildren.

Lead sentences and paragraph look good to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎)</spa 13:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I have to admit I wasn't sure about the emotive word "harrowing" in the lead (not that I doubt it was such) but I see it's been addressed up front here and it's the only instance in the article. Thanks Brian, Yomangani, and everyone else involved for your efforts here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 March 2020 [8].

---

Battle of Sluys

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect. I took this through GAN in July 2018, ACR in July 2019, have worked on it since and think that it is ready for the scrutiny of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• DeVries — what is the evidence that the website has permission to post the pdf? Most pdfs on sites other than the author's or publisher's are copyvio.

None. I wasn't aware of any policy or guideline that put an onus on the editor to ensure that an external webpage they link to holds the copyright or a permission for the contents.

Please see WP:ELNEVER

Well, well. Always something new to learn on Wikipedia. Thank you. De Re Militari are pretty reliable, but I can find no definitive proof that they have formal permission, other than a catch-all "We thank the authors and publishers for their permission in republishing this material" so I have removed the link.

• Checked some refs from DeVries.
  • Where on page 223 does it state that there are "numerous" contemporary accounts? I can see that she says there are accounts from all three involved countries, but I'm not sure that supports "numerous".

Fair point, I was probably trying to simplify the referencing. He mentions 2 foreign sources on page 225; 12 English sources on pages 225-228; 6 Low Country sources on pages 229-230; 5 French sources on page 231; and the three iterations of Froissart on page 233. There are more, but this seemed sufficient to establish numerous. (And this is without going to other (secondary) sources which mention contemporary sources DeVries doesn't.) Citing "pp. 225-231, 233" seemed unhelpful, but, as I said, I see your point. Should I amend the cite?

Yes, I think that would be better. buidhe 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Done.

• • Other checks had no issues. buidhe 00:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, that is an impressive and swift service. Two good if slightly tricky points. See my responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: both of your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pass. Sources look reliable and most are recent. There is a considerable number of sources cited and it doesn't seem that the nominator missed anything major that could be added to the article. buidhe 20:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

An excellent article, vivid as ever from Gog, and evidently comprehensive and balanced. A few very minor points on the prose:

• Opposing navies

• You might give the Channel its full name and link it here – first mention in main text

Done.

• "Genoa and Monaco" – better to move the later links to these two places up to these first mentions.

Done

• Earlier activities

• Link Portsmouth?

Done.

• "Edward was able … Edward wished" – perhaps "he" the second time?

Done.

• Sources

• "accounts of the battle … after the battle" – perhaps "afterwards" the second time?

Done.

• "English; French; or Flemish" – the semicolons look a bit odd here. Commas would suffice, I think, and look more natural.

Done.

• "they lack detail; so much so" – the semicolon is definitely wrong here, I think. It deprives "so much so" of a main verb to relate to. A comma or dash is wanted instead.

I disagree that it is wrong (would a full stop be incorrect?) but have replaced it with a comma.

• Prelude

• "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation" – as consternation was not a cargo I'd move it forward: "On 10 June the Council received with consternation news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th."

That made me smile - "Right then guv'nor, where you want this 5 tuns of consternation. In with the panic and alarm?" Done.

• Aftermath

• "Philip ordered that Barbavera be arrested for desertion". Not clear if the order was carried out.

Explanatory footnote added.

That's all I can find to quibble about. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Tim, and thank you as always for your tireless picking up of my flaws and infelicities. All of your points addressed above, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It is balanced, clear, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently comprehensive, and a really good read. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. I look forward to further articles in the series. Tim riley talk 15:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Marking my spot here, I'm usually too late in the game. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
• "A modern model of a galley" Seems like a very specific galley with those crosses? Maybe an image more relevant or more general can be found?

Done. Actually found an image of a 14th-century Genoese galley.

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the two ship image can state their relevance and context in the captions?

I am not entirely sure what you are after here. Do you mean add to the galley cation something like 'The ex-corsair Pietro Barbavera commanded six similar vessels during the battle'?

Yeah, something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Done.

• "The Gascons had their own language and customs" Link Gascon language?

Good spot. Done. And in three other FAs where I also missed it

• "Edward III" Probably good to note when this painting is from, as it might otherwise be thought to be contemporaneous?

Good point. Done.

• "use in the Channel" Spell out and link at first mention outside intro?

Done.

• "who were normally also drawn from Genoa, Monaco" You link these places at second rather than first mention.

Done.

• "When the mutinous sailors arrived back in Genoa they led an uprising which overthrew the ruling patricians" Interesting, anything to link?

Sadly not, it doesn't even get a line in History of Genoa.

• "and his Chronicles contain information" Perhaps give a year for this work?

Ha. Published in installments over half a century. Collected at, at least, three different times for republishing. These three iterations commonly baldly contradict each other. I could add "contemporary"? (He was employed in Edward's court as something like an official historian from 1361-1369.)

Contemporary could work. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Done.

• This very old Commons upload (2006) could need an info template, looks very confusing now:[9]

I noticed that, and if I had had the faintest idea of how to tidy it I would have done. I've had a go, what do you think?

Looks better, I think this link should be added to the source field:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks.

Hi FunkMonk and many thanks for going through this. I have, I think, addressed all of your points above, one of them with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, answered some, and last points are below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Several English noblewomen were killed when their ship was either boarded or sunk." Why were they on these ships?

Ha. I have just addressed that for Harrias. I wrote: They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)

Could warrant a footnote? I think it would be a shame to remove valid info. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. Footnote added. See what you think.

• "with their longbows" links to English longbow while "A London longbowman reported" links to Longbow. Is the second, less specific link needed?

Double ha. While editing for Harrias I spotted that myself and corrected it.

• "their Flemish allies" You mention them twice before this, but only link them down here.

The first mention of "Flemings" is linked to Flemish people; "Flemish allies is linked to County of Flanders#The crisis of the 14th century (1278–1384). I am certainly open to changing either or both.

• "the River Orwell" Only linked in intro.

It looks linked in the main article to me.

• "and defeat them in detail" Link and state outside intro too?

"The English were able to manoeuvre against the French and defeat them in detail" is the summary of the first three paragraphs of the "Battle" section.

• "The battle gave the English fleet naval supremacy in the English Channel" Only stated in intro.

Very true. Now corrected.

Thanks FunkMonk for picking up on my sloppiness. That has definitely improved things. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Heh, seems like some of my last points were sloppy themselves. I've added one answer, and when that's addressed I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looks fine to me, and nice imagery! FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Gav, did you still want to comment? We probably have enough to go on but I certainly don't want to stop you weighing in if you're keen...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No thanks Ian. Sorry Gog - hope you understand why. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Sure Gav. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Harrias

• The infobox states that the French had 213 ships, lost 190 and had 166 captured. That doesn't add up.

I'm rubbish at maths. Clarified.

• "..with most of the French ships being captured.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.

OK.

• Wikilink for amidships please.

I can link to Glossary of nautical terms, but not to amidships. Or if I can I don't know how.

Glossary of nautical terms#amidships should work. (Per the blurb at Template:Term#Linking to the term, the glossary term in the link has to be lower-case.) Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.

• "..made them superior to the oared vessels.." What oared vessels? I assume this is referring to the galleys, but at this point in the article, at least, we haven't been told that galleys are oared.

Good point. Oars introduced at first mention of galleys.

• Consider adding {{See also|English Channel naval campaign, 1338–1339}} for the Earlier activities section.

Scratches head. I thought that I had done. Thanks.

• Redlink the Christopher and Cog Edward, which sound like they are notable ships.

Done.

• "..by the Breton knight Hugues Quiéret, the Admiral of France and.." Comma needed after "France".

Done.

• "..with his main force in north eastern France.." Earlier, you hyphenated "south-western". Be consistent.

Hyphenated.

• "On 10 June the Council received news that the Great Army of the Sea had arrived at Sluys, the main port of Flanders, on the 8th with consternation." The structure of this sentence makes the "with consternation" a bit odd stuck on the end. Can it be rephrased to flow better?

Done, although I don't recall doing it.

• "As they blocked the roadstead a further 10 ships reinforced them, bringing the total French strength to 213 ships." Earlier we were told the fleet was a "collection of 200 ships", and that "Contemporary French documents record the fleet's size as 202 vessels". The sums don't add up here.

Philip ordered the collection of 200; he got 203 - lucky chap. So not inconsistent.

The source says it increased to 213; I back-calculated and got 10! Maths - meh! Well picked up. Corrected.

• "The men in charge of the shipping arrangements were personally abused by the King." This just begs the question: Why? (I guess because they were struggling to muster enough ships?)

The source say "Edward, in a vile temper ... Edward personally confronted the mariners of Great Yarmouth, who had so far provided less than half the ships which they had found for his service in 1338." So your guess is pretty strongly implied, but the source seems to go out of its way not to link the two facts, and it seemed to me to be OR to do so. I am certainly open to persuasion.

Hold on, reading the source, it expands to say that he "accused them of settling their advice in advance with the Archbishop". So, "were personally abused by the King, as he suspected them of conspiring with Stratford to obstruct him." Or some such? Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have expanded on what I think the source is saying Edward said in the article along similar lines, see what you think.

• Wikilink Yarmouth.

Done.

• Does the Sumption ref support the fact that Yarmouth was "the largest port in England"? I can't see it in the 1999 paperback which I can view on Google Books. Similarly, "To general amazement" doesn't seem to be supported by the 1999 version, but I appreciate both might be in the 1990 original.

Apologies, I was reading what I expected to read. The "largest port in England" source is Sumption page 176. Now added.

"To general amazement" is a paraphrase of "truly remarkable".

My issue with this is that I read "To general amazement" to mean that those at the time found it amazing. Whereas "The result of all this activity was truly remarkable" sound to me to be Sumption's (ie, a modern) opinion. Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

How about if I replace "To general amazement" with 'In a feat which the modern historian Jonathan Sumption describes as "truly remarkable"?

Yeah, something along those lines would work for me. Harrias ^talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• "..size of the fleet. 66 ships which sailed.." Don't start a sentence with a figure. (MOS:NUMNOTES).

Tweaked.

• Wikilink reconnoitre.

Done.

• "..organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary.." Three parallel lines, perpendicular to the inlet, or isn't there detail to confirm this?

Absolutely not. (And if there were I wouldn't believe it. Per our discussion on "shambolic".)

Was this a common tactic at the time? Can we draw parallels to other battles which have plans? At the moment we have no idea whether the intention was for the three lines to be parallel, if it was in essence one long line in which they were just joined in three parts, two in a chevron narrowing to the third, one at the front flanked by the other two in support, so on and so forth. If the answer is that we just don't have a clue, so be it. But if there is any inkling we have or can provide, it would be useful. Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I understand. I think. The plan was for three parallel lines, with a handful of larger ships slightly advanced, across the narrowest part of the estuary. I had thought that clear from "the French fleet organised itself in three lines across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin". Clearly you don't think so. I don't imagine that the reality ever came close to the plan, and by the time the English attacked it was a shambles. ("After nearly a day linked by chains and ropes, and with wind and rain working against them, the French ships had been driven to the east of their starting positions and become entangled with each other.") I have changed the wording to "When the English were sighted the French manoeuvred to bar Edward's way to the port of Sluys. Their fleet organised itself in three lines, one behind the other, each stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin."

Thanks. That was what I assumed they were planning, but without it stated explicitly, I wasn't sure. Harrias ^talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• "..while supporting troops poured in arrows or bolts." I'm not sure that "poured" works here.

No? A contemporary described it as "an iron shower", a participant as "like hail". Rewritten to be more objective - I think that the message still gets across: the English were firing over 10,000 arrows per minute.

Honestly, "..while over 10,000 arrows and bolts per minute were fired in by supporting troops." Sounds more impressive, and less metaphoric, to me. Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My main issue here is that this usage doesn't meet any of the dictionary definitions of "pour", which related to liquids or precipitation. Therefore, the usage must be metaphorical, which isn't encyclopaedic language. Harrias ^talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I'm interested on your thoughts on this. Harrias ^talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problems with metaphors as being encyclopedic. To me the point is whether they are comprehensible. Goodness knows there is enough non-metaphoric language on Wikipedia which isn't. If they are readily understandable and ease the passage of the clunky facts they surround, then they are, IMO, a net positive. As you, as a reviewer, object, I have changed it; but I feel that the article is the worse for it, by which I mean that it does a less good job of conveying to a reader what happened. (And is less true to the contemporary sources.)

Re Dictionary definitions. Wiktionary, second usage: "To send forth as in a stream or a flood; to emit; to let escape freely or wholly." It gives an illustrative quote from Shakespeare: "How London doth pour out her citizens." Obviously citizens aren't "related to liquids or precipitation" ... Or the seventh usage: "To move in a throng, as a crowd." Or from my Britannic Oxford Dictionary: one definition "to discharge copiously, or in rapid succession"; an example quoted: "Troops poured towards the Rhine, Macauley". Or, according to other dictionaries one can pour out money, or one's hopes; or "pour it on"; or "complaints poured in", or "donations poured in"; or "Election results are beginning to pour in". I have not yet found a dictionary, paper or on line, which restricts pour to liquids. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I'm a reviewer, yes, but that doesn't make me right: if you think that it makes it worse, then don't do it! At worst, I would abstain from voting, as one issue like this is never going to make me oppose the article. In this case, I can accept your argument. I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it, but having discussed it, I would support the promotion with the original wording. Harrias ^talk 20:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that I phrased myself too curtly. I know that I get too close to "my" articles and my wording, and sometimes it is difficult to let go. Even when the issue is inconsequential. And getting stubborn over trivia deters reviewers from visiting my future nominations, even if I "win" the argument. I shall put "pour" back in, even though I finally found a dictionary which restricts its use to liquids - Cambridge on line. And thanks for maintaining a Wikipedian point of view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I shall leave it as is. As a lesson to myself not to be pig headed. And it reads fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, I use the Cambridge online dictionary... Anyway, I think this is pretty much there, but I want to have another pass all the way through before I'm sure! Harrias ^talk 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• "..and the Genoese managed to board and capture two English ships." This threw me off. Although we are told in the Opposing navies section that "The French galleys were supplemented by galleys hired from Genoa and Monaco.", we are later told that "The new regime was disinclined to enter into new contracts with the French. When several ship captains were persuaded to, they were bribed by English agents to renege." So... the assumption I had was that the Genoese weren't supporting the French in this battle.

Good point. Changed to "Barbavera had refused to tie his highly manoeuvrable galleys in with the French ships and the they managed to board and capture two English ships."

• "Several English noblewomen were killed.." Was it common for noblewomen to go into battle at the time? This statement begs more questions than it answers.

They were part of the King's court, which normally travelled with him. The source says that they wee on their way to join his queen, who was already in Flanders. It is a pretty inconsequential detail, so if you feel that it calls for much explanation I would rather delete than get too far off topic. (Another source states "the ship carrying the King's wardrobe was attacked, captured and all the crew except one woman and two men put to death." This may have been a different ship - the author is concentrating on the loss of the wardrobe records.)

Hi Harrias. Funkmonk has picked up the same point above and I have added an explanatory footnote. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me. Harrias ^talk 12:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• "..and the water was reported to be thick with blood and corpses." Reported by who?
  • This is still outstanding. Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Provide a wikilinks for Norman and Picard. (The Norman one will need to go in the Earlier activities section.

Done.

• Our article has almshouse as one word, and a couple of dictionaries seem to suggest that is the prevailing form.

Done.

• Is there a more accessible word or phrase we can use rather than "interdicted", or at least a wikilink we can provide?

Linked.

• "..revoked some privileges of some of the ports.." I'm not sure if this is awkward repetition, or clever repetition to show how toothless his efforts were. On my first read, it seemed awkward, but now I quite like it.

Unlike some of the tosh I bung out, that phrase was thoughtfully crafted. I'm pleased to hear that it worked.

That's my lot at the moment! (Oh, I'm doing the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review, yar-de-yar-da.) Harrias ^talk 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well earned and hard earned points they will be. Many thanks for your usual painstaking review. The article is the better for it. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Replied to a couple. Harrias ^talk 17:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Harrias: And responded in turn. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Just running through again:

• "By English common law, the King was required.." I'm not keen on "King" being capitalised here; it would seem to work better as lower-case. That said, the sentence is a bit ambiguous like this; I would recommend changing it to either "By English common law, the monarch was required.." or "By English common law, Edward was required.." depending on which meaning you actually want.

Ha. I had a minor debate with CPA-5 below over this. How would both of you feel about "the crown"?

That would work for me. Harrias ^talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. CPA-5, that OK with you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• As long the sentence stays the same and unchanged I'm fine with that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikilink "impressed" to Impressment.

It is actually a type of angary - which word I don't wish to use for obvious reasons - so I have linked to that

• "In 1339 it was the turn of Hastings. [PARAGRAPH BREAK] In 1339 there had.." I'm not keen on the fragmented sentence at the end of the paragraph, but that's probably just personal preference, but the repetition is particularly jarring due to the short sentence used.

Changed first instance to "The following year".

• "..202 vessels: six galleys, seven royal warships, 22 oared barges and 167 merchant vessels.." Comparable numbers should be formatted the same, so use "6 galleys, 7 royal warships".

Oops. Fixed.

• "John de Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, a senior adviser, insisted.." I'm not keen on this construction, I wonder if it could be rewritten to flow a little better?

Any better?

Maybe. I think it's making the best of a bad situation, and I can't come up with anything better. Harrias ^talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

:-)

• "The traditional view is that the attack took place at 3:00 pm[39][note 2] After.." Missing a full-stop.

Inserted.

• "The entire Zwin estuary has silted up since the battle, and modern Sluis is 8 kilometres (5 mi) from the sea." This single-sentence paragraph is a bit odd tacked on the end. The convert template also needs switching around to match the others which are "imperial (metric)".

I know. But it doesn't fit in with anything else. I have moved it to the end of the first paragraph of Prelude - any less incongruous?

Switched.

Yup, that seems better to me. Harrias ^talk 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not much more, and most of it is probably me making something of nothing. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I am grateful. Useful input and cuts down on the amount of my, by now traditional, sloppiness. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support nice work, as usual. Harrias ^talk 18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg caption needs editing for grammar

I have removed this image.

• File:Galera_Oliveta_1302.jpg is incorrectly claimed as own work

I have removed this image

• File:Modell_der_Bremer_Kogge_von_1380.jpg is own photo, but what is the status of the model itself? Is this a museum piece?

It is a self-made model. I missed that the photographer has not explicitly claimed it as their own work. I have removed the image.

• File:Edward_III_noble.jpg: coins are not typically considered 2D works.

Yes. You pointed that out when you generously did an image review at ACR and I had thought I had resolved it then, but obviously not. 2D tag removed, Numismatic Group tag left.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have put in two new images to replace the two removed. "File:Hugues Quieret - Versailles (cropped).jpg" I hope is straight forward: the photograph has a Creative Commons licence and the original sculptor died in 1858.

The other is "File:Ubena von Bremen Kiel2007 1 (cropped).jpg", a photograph of a modern reproduction of a wreck dated to 1380.

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for looking at these and for being so tactful in pointing out that I had made a Horlicks of them. See my comments above. I believe that things are now in order and would be grateful if you could relook at them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by L293D

Not much to be said here, but:

• particularly when they were fitted with the castles from which missiles could be fired - "missiles" seems a bit odd here, could it be replaced by a synonym?

I am not sure why, but I have gone for more specific. Does that work for you?

My concern was with the use of the word "missile"; while it is technically appropriate, I feel the second dictionary definition, "a weapon that is self-propelled, carrying explosives", is the one most people think about. I would suggest replacing with "projectile".

L293D That use of missile hadn't occurred to me. Does my change from "the castles from which missiles could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" to "the castles from which arrows or bolts could be fired or stones dropped on to enemy craft alongside" remove the ambiguity? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that works for me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wagner 2006 - suggest making consistent with other citations by putting the page numbers in the reference.

Er, they are already there. "pp. 286–287".

I think the point L293D is making is that in citation #55, a similar example, it uses "Hannay 1911, p. 246.", whereas citation #55 is just "Wagner 2006." Both are fine, but they are not consistent with each other. Harrias ^talk 16:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Understood. Thank you. Corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi L293D. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your two points addressed. Anything else?

Looks good. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Hi CPA-5. Good to see you casting your beady eyes over one of my nominations again.

• Link the Dutch language.

No. I think that it is common enough. Anyway, those IPA templates can't be linked.

• Damn that's the first time I've heard from a native English speaker that the Dutch language is too common.

• Unlink French because it's too common.

Oops. Well spotted. Done.

• The cogs had a displacement of 200–300 long tons (203–305 t) Link both tons.

Can't be done while using the convert template. So either way I go I break a Wiki-policy. I don't mind which, so let me know if you would prefer me to not use "convert", and I can then link.

@Gog the Mild: How about 200–300 long tons (203–305 t)? Harrias ^talk 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Clever. Done.

• By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners --> "By English common law, the King was required to compensate the owners"?

No. By common law, any and every king was expected to do this, it wasn't specific to Edward III.

• Thought it was the title king not like in general.

Ah! Rereading it, I see what you mean. Umm. I could argue it either way, which gives you 75% of the votes, so done.

• In March 1338 Portsmouth was captured and razed Add England next to Portsmouth because probably the reader haven't heard of the name yet.

I'm not sure about that. It is reasonably obvious from context and it is Wikilinked. Following this precedent I think that the article will get cluttered if I insert "England" or "France" after first mentions of Southampton, Hastings, Boulogne, Dieppe, Le Treport, Mers, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest, etc.

• Five English ships carrying wool were captured off Walcheren in September Same as above but this time add the Netherlands here.
• In October the major port of Southampton was captured and burnt down Same as above.
• a deputation sought an audience with the French King in August Decapitalise "king" here.

Why, they sought an audience with a specific individual, King Philip. If you think that is unclear, I could add "Philip".

• Yeah but isn't it if you add the demonym of a country then the title should be capitalised?

Sorry CPA, I'm not following you there. Could you explain a bit further?

• Okay this is harder than I thought (with explaining). I thought if you use the demonym of a country before the title then wouldn't be decapitalised? I'll give you an example to make my broken English a little bit clear: "The eventual ransoming of the Scottish king resulted" "King" is here decapitalised but from the other hand you this example "However, the French King had stripped the area of fodder" when the "king" is capitalised. so which one should be used because I'm now confused (the quotes are from two separate articles you promoted to FA)? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That is evil of you, to use my own inconsistencies against me! ;-) If I am referring to a specific king, then it should be capitalised. So "The eventual ransoming of the Scottish king resulted" is incorrect. You got me.

Eg "the ransom of a Scottish king", could be any king; "the ransom of the Scottish King", refers to a single, specific king. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Nah it's not your (entirely) fault though. In the FAC it was told to you (by someone I'm not gonna say he's name): "remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?". Ha, you're talking with Mr Evil. Oh right that's one of the things I have never told the people here. I'd love to tease people on the evil way because why not? So this probably won't be the last time I made tease you. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Oh yes - that was the second comment on my first ever FAC! I like to think that I would be a bit more assertive now. So, Mr Evil, anything else? Or do you feel able to either support or oppose? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Link the Mediterranean.

Done

• Pipe both France to the Kingdom of France and England to the Kingdom of England.

Both done.

• which went on to besiege Tournai, a city in Flanders This sentence is odd. As a Belgian, I know that Tournai isn't in modern-day Flanders. Of course I know this about the county but the link goes to modern-day Flanders which doesn't make sense, why should it be linked if the city is in modern-day Wallonia while the link goes to modern-day Flanders?

My bad. Well spotted. Again. It shouldn't be linked at all. Sorry. Flanders is linked to to County of Flanders at first mention.

• English Channel is overlinked.

D'oh! Fixed.

• the Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands. The English retaliated in September by raiding Brest First add Isle before Portland because there are more than one Portlands in the world. Second, explain that Teignmouth, Plymouth and Brest are in England and France.

I think that we have a difference of opinion on this. I have not seen this done in other articles. It's not something you have been picking me up on in your previous reviews of my nominations. Is there a new policy? If you are sure that this needs doing, then I would like to ping in the rest of the reviewers to see if we can reach consensus.

• As far as I know, no. Not really, you see because I'm not a native English speaker I have the problem to make everything clearer even though it's already clear enough to most English speakers by adding the country. Another problem is I know there aren't a lot of people who know where those places are I mean if I ask someone where Tournai lie they probably say "in France" because it sounds French even it's not in the country itself. Another example is British cities or towns, everyone knows how a British one is written (in something they're mostly unfamiliar with. An example would you know that the town of Manorhamilton isn't in the UK but in Ireland even though it sounds like it is from the UK (maybe Scotland or North Ireland?). I just now got now the idea of we should be more clear than normal. What I always do is (I'm probably the only one) add the country where the place is in and places after that don't need the country because the reader (in my mind at least) knows we're still in that country until we suddenly go for an example to a place in France then we need to add France after that. And if we go back to the UK then the UK should be added again. This is the same idea I have with years and months, we shouldn't repeat them unnecessary when we know we're still in the same year or month except at the beginning of a paragraph. Of course, I'm not a native English speaker (I barely know the grammatical rules in English) and maybe this is allowed in English it's not a suggestion, recommendation or a grammatical rule. I think this is a writing style. If you disagree with me then it's fine I don't see why it shouldn't be the way it now is.

OK. You make, IMO, a good general point there, even if I am reluctant to pick up every example, as you suggest. Sometimes it is, IMO, clear from context; sometimes, again IMO, it doesn't matter too much if it isn't immediately clear to a reader; but I take your point and have added some further geographical pointers. I note that the article already said which countries Tournai, Sluys, Dieppe, Le Treport and Mers were; and I think that in "English coastal communities rejoiced in the victory and in the relief from French raids they supposed it brought. They were mistaken; later in the year the French raided the Isle of Wight, Portland, Teignmouth, Plymouth and the Channel Islands. The English retaliated in September by raiding Brest, capturing many ships ... " it is clear which location was whose.

• By English common law, the king was required to compensate the owners of ships impressed into service, but in practice he paid little and late Add a comma after practice and capitalise "king".

See above re capitalisation. I don't see why there needs to be a comma. Grammatically, one could put one there, if there was also a comma after "but". This will read a little oddly to me, but I will do it if you want.

Capitalisation done. See above.

Part two

• Link Great Council.

Oh, good spot. Done.

• ach stretching across the 3-mile wide (5 km) estuary of the Zwin You forgot a hyphen between "mile" and "wide".

Drat. Fixed.

• The traditional view is that the attack took place at 3:00 pm The two noughts are unnecessary here.

My reading of MOS:TIME is that either of 3:00 pm or 3 pm is permitted, but as I don't much care myself, ":00" removed.

• had an effective range of 300 yards (270 metres) compared with 200 yards (180 metres) for the crossbows Maybe it's me but the metres here are really odd to look at. I just would use an "m" here, same with the km bellow this.

IMO there are some old fogies used to imperial measurements to whom "m" will not be (at all) clear. I prefer to leave measurements in full. (If 'twere the other way then then the metric measurements would be in full.

• Hm, sounds legit but this is already archaic.

• "16,000–20,000 190 ships lost, of which 166 captured" If I'm right 166 ships were captured right? I also reckon the 166 captured should be in a note 'cause it looks a little bit better.

Yes. I don't think that it looks that untidy, And I have always thought that I was a bit fussy about infoboxes.

• "we have only a patchwork of interesting anecdotes to lead us to any conclusions." [27] Remove the unnecessary space.

Done.

• the English successfully raided the French Channel port of Boulogne Do we miss here something?

No. But if I delete "French" are you happier?

• Still looks a little bit odd to me, especially the "Channel" part which looks like it is in the wrong spot here.

I'm struggling a bit to see what you are unhappy with, but I have changed it to "In January 1340 the English successfully raided the port of Boulogne, where the majority of the French galley fleet was drawn up". Is that less odd? This loses the port being on the Channel, but arguably most readers won't much care. And I think that as it is clear that the English are doing the raiding and that French ships were harboured there a reader would understand that Boulagne was a French port.

• During the winter and spring of 1340 the French ports of Dieppe Try to avoid using seasons here.

We've had this before. When used in the sense of military campaigns they are actually preferable to the months. If I gave the months, it is possible that some people would not understand that I was referring to the bad weather period when military operations were hampered and regular campaigning did not take place.

• Just was aware of the countries who have jungles don't use seasons like we have.

I imagine that even jungle-dwelling Wikipedia consulters are aware of the concept of winter.

• Link Genoese.

Genoa is already linked at first mention. There is not a separate link for Genoese.

• In 1341 French, Castilian and Portuguese squadrons successfully Link both and pipe Castilian and Portuguese here.

Done.

• Hundred Years' War is Jean Froissart and his Chronicles contain information What's the Chronicles here? Books, a couple of series of books or documents?

A chronicle, believe it or not! See Froissart's Chronicles.

• So a series of books.

To simplify just a little, yes.

• accompanying Edward, and were on their way to join his queen, Philippa of Hainault --> "accompanying Edward, and were on their way to join his Queen, Philippa of Hainault"?

Done.

• Why does ref 29 have no page number?

Because I am referring to the entire article ("Kelly DeVries provides an overview of the main contemporary accounts and a summary of their modern interpretations in "God, Leadership, Flemings and Archery: Contemporary Perspectives of Victory and Defeat at the Battle of Sluys, 1340".") the page numbers of which are given in its entry in "References".

• That's anything what I could find. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. You are fantastic. All your points addressed above, some with queries or rebuttals. (Out of interest, how far would you need to travel to stand on the (now) dry land where the battle took place?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nah I'm not that fantastic you know. With the car it's just 92 km (a little more than an hour drive) from my home city. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you are. And almost British in the way you depreciate it. All settled I think, bar my confusion over French King/French king, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: You mean broken British; I have replied to the dispute. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

:-) Sorted the dispute. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Added some more comments here; now I'm done here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your eyes are as good as ever. Your further points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Counter-replied to your replies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. And in turn counter replied. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• All right my comments are addressed and look fine to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [11].

---

Albany Charter half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... Another of the commemoratives from 1936. No great scandal here, it doesn't look like anyone at the time made much money out of it; still, there's an interesting backstory. Enjoy.--15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Wehwalt (talk)

Support Comments by Usernamenunique

Infobox

• 30.61 mm / 2.15 mm (0.08 in) — Inconsistent abbreviation
• Gertrude Lathrop — In the body, you give her middle initial. Also, is it worth a red link in the infobox as well for consistency's sake?

I have no idea on whether there is any MOS on this, but unless there is, I'd prefer to avoid the infobox redlink. Initialed. I will probably write a stub on her at some point just to avoid the redlinks in this and the New Rochelle article.

• Any reason for the small images? Also, I suspect you may get some push-back in the image review over the licensing.

It's what we have. And this has come up in about 10 FACs and I explain, based on an opinion I got at MCQ on this, that Bobby131313 uploading the images, as an experienced editor, carried an intent to release according to the Four Freedoms even if not explicitly stated. They've been used on the main page I believe, without objection.

Have you asked Heritage Auctions if they might license one of their images? They have quite a few listed (both sold and active), with high-resolution photographs. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

At one time, Godot13 had obtained permission from Heritage to use their images, registered with OTRS. My understanding was that only he was allowed to do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

He may have formed some sort of permanent arrangement with them, but that shouldn't be an obstacle for someone else to reach out. (This is beyond the scope of FAC, by the way—it's just a suggestion.)

I've made an inquiry with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The Albany Charter half dollar, also known as the Albany-Dongan half dollar — Is it ever just referred to as the Albany half dollar?
• Lathrop's designs have generally been praised. — Perhaps more appropriate in the above paragraph, where you're talking about her designs.

Both taken care of.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

• Is there more information on what led to this coin in particular? As it stands, there's hardly anything.

Not really, the sources don't devote themselves to that topic. There is probably a backstory of who got the idea but it isn't in the sources.--Wehwalt (talk)

Often there are congressional hearings that specifically address the one coin or other material like the book in New Rochelle that over time gets into secondary sources. I haven't seen any here.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a bit more info here; it suggests that the coins were for the event, although granted, the article is from a year after plans for the coin were designed. It also mentions that one could obtain a certificate for the coin at the event, which might be worth adding to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not going to use it. The most useful thing it says is that they planned to issue certificates for coins at the Dongan celebration. I don't want to say that without evidence the certificate actually were issued, which at a brief search, I don't see anything on. The info on the beaver being early money is interesting but they don't say there's a connection between that and why there's one on the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor — So the group didn't even exist at the time of the proposed coin?

Not in that form, anyway. All three were civic people. The chair was a banker; I've seen several times banks hold new commemorative coins as part of their cash reserves so the designated group did not have to advance all the money up front. But I couldn't say for sure.

Legislation

• a commemorative half dollar in honor of the 250th anniversary of the founding of Albany — So that was the (ostensible) purpose of the coin. Perhaps it belongs in "Background"?

The footnote explains that Congress erred here. They meant of the Dongan Charter.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Preparation

• The part about Lawrie is confusing. Why did she bring the letter? What "designs in his letter" are being referred to? What (if anything) did Lathrop accomplish at the offices of the CFA, if she then immediately decamped to the Philadelphia Mint due to Lawrie's concerns (which seems to have already known about, as they appear to have been included in the letter)?

All the sources are not complete on this, Lawrie was a New Yorker and she probably saw him in NYC. She would have seen Sinnock in Philadelphia and O'Reilly in Washington. Lawrie was the sculptor-member of the commission, and coins are sculptures, so he would have been consulted for a preliminary opinion. Having received it, and not fully satisfied, she went to Washington by way of Philadelphia, gathering support as she went. She also went to Washington on the New Rochelle coin. Lathrop knew people (she knew FDR) and she politicked for her designs.

That makes more sense now. If there's a way to add that—that Lawrie was politicking for her design—without resorting to synthesis great, otherwise no big deal.

• splendid coin — Whose words?

Sinnock. I'll make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Design

• The word "Liberty" on this coin — The other two uses of "Liberty" are in all caps.

It's in a quotation mark and while I understand there are some who say that you should bring the article's style inside the quotation marks, I prefer not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• "has always been considered pleasing by numismatists". — If you're using logical quotation, than I believe most of the other quotations should have the punctuation following the end quotation mark as well.

I"m not sure what you mean. My understanding was that quotes that contain a complete sentence from the text should have the punctuation (the period, usually) inside the quotation mark, otherwise not. Do I vary from that?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's generally my understanding as well. The one variance I see is in the last sentence of this section: "that the coin ... positive precision.". Is that a complete sentence, you're just altering "That" to "that" without a "[t]"? If so, is the omission of brackets intentional?

Minting, distribution and collecting

• The committee wrote to O'Reilly in February 1937, wanting to know the procedure for returning unsold coins, and in 1943 ... it returned 7,342 pieces for redemption and melting — Just to be clear, they asked for instructions for returning the coins within months of purchasing them, but then waited six years to do so?

Yes. They continued on sale to the public and they tried to shift the lot to Kosoff.

• What were the proceeds used for?

Sorry for the delay, I was looking through sources. I've added a sentence on the law requiring that they be used to defray the costs of the anniversary celebrations.--fWehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• in 1954 it became known that the State Bank of Albany had some 2,000 Albany half dollars — This might fit better after the sentence ending with and reached $4 by 1950.

Moved.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• A photograph of the brochure and/or boxes might be a nice touch to the article. Any that you could get a license for? I see some of the boxes were auctioned some years ago.

Good idea. Front cover of the holder is two dimensional and so can be easily used, and I"ve added that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

References

• #7 reads "Page 6257–6258." Does {{USCongRec}} have a way of displaying "Pages" instead of "Page"? Also pinging Dcmacnut, who created the template.

Not that I am aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Duffield, Frank (uncredited) — How do you know Duffield is the contributor, if uncredited?

He was the editor and these were pieces that were written by the editor. His name of course appears as editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• United States Senate Committee on Banking and Currency (March 11, 1936). — Should have a paywalled logo for consistency

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting read, Wehwalt. It would be nice to have more background about the coin—why it was proposed, what the money was intended/used for, etc.—but otherwise in good shape. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed the points individually including that the money was to go to defray the anniversary expenses. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. More background would still be nice, but if there's nothing in the sources, then there's nothing to add. Minor responses above, though nothing to subtract from my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

Hello. I will get to the review proper in a day or two, but I noticed your description of the beaver gnawing at the maple branch on the obverse. To my mind, he seems to be holding it more fully in his mouth than he would in gnawing, and the branch, a leaf-bearing one with three leaves, is too thin for gnawing anyway, even for a hardwood. In the Albany seal, however, he is gnawing at the stump of the tree he has brought down. Do the sources describe it as gnawing? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I borrowed the word exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: The problem areas are in italics. No judgment is implied. You don't need to reply. If you do and disagree, I will not contest.

Lead

• It was designed by Albany sculptor Gertrude K. Lathrop (prefer the definite article to the zero article before Albany? Can explain the reasons if you'd like.)

• In 1936, ... coins for issuance, including some of mostly local significance. (primarily?)
• These included the Albany piece, wanted by city officials to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1686 grant of its municipal charter by Thomas Dongan, governor of colonial New York. (it is applied to city officials; wanted: authorized?)
• The authorizing bill passed through Congress without opposition; though amendments added additional protections for coin collectors. ( "additional?" assumes some knowledge of the existing protections on the part of a reader)
• ... the Philadelphia Mint coined 25,013 Albany half dollars (13 were examples for the Assay Commission and thus not for circulation—the subject of the following sentences)
• and a hoard of over 2,000 was sold by a local bank in 1954 (at what price? Do the sources say?)
• The Albany half dollar catalogs in the low hundreds of dollars, but the original packaging may sell for more. (Nice)

I have edited a version of the lead, addressing these issues, and then self-reverted. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Background, Legislation, Preparation, Design, Minting

You can find the review at User:Fowler&fowler/FAC review of Albany Charter half dollar

You have some nice sentences. I've offered a few ideas for revision, which you can also view in the article. You may take them or leave them.

You have used some old sources, bordering on the primary, which is OK for an interpretationally stable field such as numismatics but would be problematic in a political history article. But their general use in FACs is something that should be clarified by the powers-that-be.

(Off-topic 1) I still maintain that the beaver is not gnawing. He is holding the branch in its mouth scuttling his busy way to his lodge (in contrast to the plowman homeward plodding his weary way). I have some support at the NGC site, which says, "with a maple branch in its mouth." From Lathrop's description, it seems that the branch was added independently, see my review, as an artistic device. Why did they use gnawing? Is it because it is a cuter word, more conducive to selling? I don't know.

(Off-topic 2) I collect coins after a fashion. This article has made me more aware of all the little things that go into their making.

For all sorts of reasons, on-topic and off, I'm happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm working through your suggestions--thank you for the review and support--but I've been researching the beaver. Lathrop does not use the word "gnawing" in her description of the designs, but she doesn't focus on what the beaver is doing with the branch. However, there are two distinct sources from 1938 that use it. There is some Revolutionary War numismatic material (medals and banknotes) that use a beaver gnawing a tree as a symbol of perseverance and industry, especially in the struggle for independence, but that doesn't prove much. The beaver's forepaw is on the branch, which would seem to me to argue against the branch being moved. Vermeule's is a pretty authoritative treatment and he goes for the gnawing. I don't see how I get out of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. Yes, absolutely. "Gnawing" is majority usage in the sources, and your hands are tied. Yes, he does have his paw on the branch, so he's not going anywhere. (I threw that in as a silly flourish to contrast the busy beaver with the tired plowmen in Gray's elegy, disregarding the logical contradiction.) And he is definitely gnawing on the stump in the Albany City seal. But when beavers gnaw on wood, or when humans such as I gnaw at corn on the cob, they do so with their front teeth, and what they gnaw at is only partially in their mouths. The animated scene on the obverse seemed to belie that notion. On the other hand, dogs do gnaw at bones and do so with their molars. When I wrote that, I was looking out on the woods that fringe our house, the oak, maple, pine, and fir. The leaves on the maples are gone, but the oaks do have stragglers. The leaf-bearing branches seemed too thin to require gnawing in the manner of a dog, nothing like bones, or so my thinking went. But then I'm no a zoologist, and Lathrop does have the artistic license to present reality in her unique style. Thanks for replying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

A few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• outside the US, it may not be realised that Albany is the state capital, perhaps mention in lead?
• "catalog" isn’t a synonym for "sell" here (even when spelt properly!)
• but the original packaging may sell for more missing "in", or does it really mean that?
• were remaining Dutch property claims either Dutch property claims remained or were outstanding Dutch property claims

I've addressed these. I avoided "sell" because a catalog isn't a price list, it's an opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Nice article. No complaints of beavers gnawing or similar. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Suport. Just a few nit-picks. Do we need hyphens here "three member committee" (three-member) and here " 250th anniversary celebrations" ( 250th-anniversary celebrations)? And I always prefer "several" to "a number of". Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. I hyphenated the first, removed the "250th" from the second and changed the third as you prefer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moise

Close to supporting. A few comments (actually all minor points except the second one):

• Background: "and thus entitled to fees": I wasn't sure this phrase was important to the short background, but if I've missed its significance, no worries.

I felt it was important to say because it shows why the position was worth having, "secretary" of an area doesn't necessarily convey that.

• "The group designated to purchase the Albany half dollar from the government was a committee to be established by Albany's mayor, consisting of not fewer than three people." / "a committee of at least three people appointed by Albany's mayor be empowered to order the coins from the Mint": Seems repetitive, especially in such close proximity to each other. Can one of the instances be cut?

Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• "three member committee" / "250th anniversary celebrations": Agree with Graham Beards above that these would better hyphenated, especially the first of these.

Did that. Cut the 250th.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Design: In the third paragraph of this section, both Bullowa and Vermeule both talk about the symbolism in the coin; you could consider linking their similar points by putting their statements beside each other and—if you don't think it's forcing things—by using a linking word like "similarly" or "likewise" or another word if it works better. Bowers' "pleasing" design and Vermeule's "considerable appeal" could possibly also be joined, maybe by moving this part of the quotation to after the symbolism part (i.e., breaking up the longer quotation into two) and putting Bowers at the end after Vermeule. Anyways, these are just ideas and minor suggestions. No worries if you'd prefer to keep things as is.

I reversed the order of Bowers and Bullowa. I think the views are distinct enough not to warrant a "similarly".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done or responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the changes. Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I see the discussion on images at the top but looks the licensing still needs a formal review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems like all licences and copyright tags check out. Images are also suitably placed. No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Pleased to pick up the Source review, which I think is still needed? I'll complete this weekend. I'm afraid an Image review is above my paygrade. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I gathered from the above that Usernameunique had looked but no harm in more eyes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've put in a request for an image review at WT:FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ian, I don't think it'll be much trouble! KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ISBN number consistency

• I know all ISBNs lead to Rome, howsoever cited, but I think there's a preference for consistency in the style. At present we've got

four in the style XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X (the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXX-XX-X (the 1st);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXXXXX-X-X (the 3rd);

one in the style XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X (the 7th).

For consistency, I'd probably adopt the most prevalent, that is the 3 digit-1 digit-3 digit-5 digit-1 digit (XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X) style. Another editor did once try to explain the hyphenation system to me, International Standard Book Number#Registrant element, but I must confess to not fully understanding it.

I ran one through the ISBN converter, online, and did it twice. It came back with 3-1-7-1-1 so I've standardized as that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Richard S. Yeoman - any reason why his initials only are given, unlike all the other authors (except Q. David Bowers)? He's Richard S. in his article. I see you use initials in the main text, so just ignore if he's known as R.S. in the numismatic world.

He is conventionally referred to as R.S. and that's what it says on the front cover of the edition beside me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Publication locations for magazines - this may also be above my paygrade so ignore if it is, but is there a reason which the Numismatist and the US Government Printing Office don't have locations? They appear to be Federalsburg, MD. and Washington, D.C., respectively. But it could be that MoS says not to use them.

• I don't see the utility of it. What is the reader going to use it for? The Numismatist is now out of Colorado Springs where the ANA's offices. So I am being consistent by not including locations for magazines and the MOS doesn't say I have to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bullowa, David M. - uber-picky but should the publication location be New York, NY, as per Swiatek and Breen?

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have clicked through to all the accessible on-line sources and they all check out.

• Minting, distribution and collecting - not a Source review comment, but the double, proximate use of "today" in the final para. jars slightly with me; "Both the booklet and the envelope it came in are highly collectible today. Even scarcer today are boxes..." Is the second necessary?

That's my picky lot. Looks set fair for a well-deserved bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been dealing with a winter bug. All done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [12].

---

James A. Ryder

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who was president of three universities four times. He was a major figure in Jesuit academia in the United States, helping start up two of the universities. Another in my series of Jesuit academic leaders. Ergo Sum 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

Please note I will be claiming this review in WikiCup. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I will do a full review soon. In the meantime...

• You haven't used O'Neill & Williams 2003. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Fixed. There was a good tidbit in there that I added to the article. Ergo Sum 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Have you had an opportunity to revisit the article? Ergo Sum 19:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• "and became a good friend..." would be better as a new sentence
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• "later becoming Pope Pius IX" → "who later became Pope Pius IX"
  • Rephrased slightly so as to avoid two "became"s. Ergo Sum 22:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• "part of 1828 in Orvieto" would be better as "part of 1828 teaching in Orvieto" --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• probably a good idea not to say "1830" twice
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• "which eventually resulted" is strange. His appointment was not the cause. His inaction was the cause.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• "HIs"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per MOS:HONORIFIC, please do not use honorifics like "Fr."--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• "council fathers who gathered" would be easier reading
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Georgetown and Society of Jesus are linked twice. So is Thomas F. Mulledy but I can see at least that is useful.
  • Removed the redundant links. Ergo Sum 00:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "republicanism"; I think you should something from p. 35 or p. 24 of Kuzniewski 2014, to explain that, by saying "American in attitude", Roothaan was referring to republicanism
  • Isn't that already what the sentence says? His American attitude was support of republicanism. Ergo Sum 00:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ergo Sum: Yes, but Kuzniewski p. 33 does not mention "republicanism". I was asking that you add either p. 35, or p. 24, to cover republicanism. I maybe over-thinking it though so feel free to ignore. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, that's a good point. I've added a citation to p. 35. Ergo Sum 04:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ref #24 should be inside the parenthesis
  • Done. Ergo Sum 00:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• I think the supposedly/purportedly inappropriate relationship with a woman needs to be mentioned somehow along with his visit to Rome in 1945 because of it
  • Both of those things are mentioned in the first sentence of the College of the Holy Cross section. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "in the streets of Washington"
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Such anti-Catholic aggression" would be beneficial--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Added. Ergo Sum 00:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you have any other comments working their way through the pipeline? Ergo Sum 03:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I need another few days to finish up. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• "struck" has several meanings; I got stuck reading that sentence. May I suggest "signed" or "completed" or "agreed to" or "approved"
  • "Strike a deal" is a fairly common phrase. I don't know if it will cause that much confusion. Ergo Sum 14:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Presidents of the College of the Holy Cross
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• I am fairly certain there is no apostrophe in "Willing's Alley". What a coincidence? I just started the article Elizabeth Willing Powel a few days ago. (See this possibly usable source to expand on how he "assisted in the founding of Saint Joseph's College" and the proper spelling of Willings Alley)
  • I've seen some older source that include the apostrophe, but near all modern ones omit it. Therefore, I've removed the apostrophe. Ergo Sum 14:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: I've also incorporated that reference. I didn't find anything about Ryder's contribution to Saint Joseph's, but there was a useful line about his preaching while president of Georgetown. Ergo Sum 14:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That is it for me. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

I am also going to do a simultaneous source review:

• "professorship in philosophy and theology at Georgetown"; Curran 1993, p. 109, says "to teach theology and sacred scripture"; is this the same thing as "philosophy"? Is there another source that says philosophy? Because p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907 only mentions "theology".
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 109 of Curran explains that at Georgetown, he taught philosophy and theology. The teaching of sacred scripture refers to when he was in Spoleto. Ergo Sum 00:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "named the prefect of studies" is on p. 65 of Easby-Smith 1907, not on p. 88
  • The ref I actually meant to cite to was Easby-Smith p. 89. Fixed it. Ergo Sum 00:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "minister and admonitor" is on p. 19 of Kuzniewski 2014--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 00:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Eccleston admiration of Ryder's preaching bleeds into p. 34 of Kuzniewski 2014. You might as well move the ref to the end of the sentence.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 00:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Since you only reference Croce 2017 on p. 14–15, it would be helpful to add #page=14 to the URL like this--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure. Done. Ergo Sum 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• You also need p. 79 of Easby-Smith 1907 for "Twice during his presidency were stones thrown... "--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 00:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 34 does not appear to function. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That seems to be a problem with the website the template links to. Since it is a fairly large website, I imagine this is a temporary problem that should be resolved rather soon. Ergo Sum 03:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I decided to remove that ref altogether, since it really wasn't helpful. Ergo Sum 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:James_A._Ryder_biretta.jpg: what steps have you taken to verify this was unpublished? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I have done a reverse Google search for the image, to see other places it has been used. I've tried to look for a publication date for the webpage; the only hits I get are through Carbon Dating the Web, which estimates the date of its creation in 2018. I have looked in all of the relevant books that I know of, and find no instance of the image. This would be consistent with many of the archival images published online by the Georgetown Archives, which did not start publishing old images until the late 2000s. Ergo Sum 23:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Unfortunately not much attention in over two weeks here -- I'll list in the Urgents but if we don't see more activity in the next week I think we'll have to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I might have a look if you hold for a few days. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil

Leaning support. My quibbles;

• He oversaw the establishment of the Georgetown College Observatory in 1842, which was undertaken by James Curle. State the role Curle undertook; it was surely not the re-establishment of the observatory.
  • Clarified the relationship of Carley to the establishment of the observatory. Ergo Sum 00:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Some of the citations seem misplaced, eg "In September 1843,[40]"....to be factious that just cites that there was a September 1843
  • I've moved that ref to the end of the sentence. It was just placed there because the other citation for that sentence didn't give the month/year of that event. Ergo Sum 00:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• A rebellion broke out among the students in 1850. Can you state clearer here why.
  • The rest of that paragraph explains how/why it started. I've rephrased slightly to make that clearer. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• held a meeting one day - Sounds 17th century phrasing
  • Not quite sure what you mean. "Held a meeting" is pretty common language. Ergo Sum 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • its the one day phrasing I'm quibbling over. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• causing chaos in the dormitory is hopelessly vague and not a little old fashoned
  • The source doesn't get any more specific, so I've just removed it. Ergo Sum 00:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sentences like Having clashed with Thomas Mulledy during the latter's election as procurator of the Jesuits' Maryland province,[49] Ryder wrote that Ignatius Brocard's decision not to send Mulledy back to the College of the Holy Cross was a welcome one, as Mulledy was greatly disliked at the college.[50] are very hard to parse, as tensions between players are hinted at but not really, fully explained, taking from reader satisfaction. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You're right; that was a poorly written sentence. I've broken it up and streamlined the phrasing. Ergo Sum 00:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Rather than say Ryder's oratorical skills brought him to California in 1852, would it be better to clarify that is oratorial skills say him promoted to a position in California in 1852 Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Do you foresee any other comments on the horizon? Ergo Sum 03:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from The Rambling Guy

So as noted, I did the GA review for this, and applied my usual GA+ criteria which hopefully took it to a level easily beyond GA but perhaps not quite FA. So with that disclosure (and that this may form part of my WikiCup entry), here are my thoughts:

• Second para of lead might use another "Ryder" instead of five consecutive pronouns.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "He began his novitiate..." sentence seems quite long, could consider a split after you describe Kenney?
  • Split up. Ergo Sum 20:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "from Alexandria, Virginia on" comma after Virginia per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "He also spent..." -> "Ryder also..." as the previous "he" was the pope.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "up aprofessorship in" is this a neologism?!
  • Should have been a space in the middle. Ergo Sum 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "of which he became its first " this reads just a little odd, I don't think you need "its" (because you already have "of which") so just "the first".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "17, 1830, this was the " it was, rather than this was?
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• " at the College" I'm never entirely clear on capitalisation MOS but shouldn't this just be college?
  • I think either can be sustained here. I've made it lowercase. Ergo Sum 20:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Ryder's relationship with Washington's politicians was strong. He had a particularly good relationship with" quick repeat of "relationship with" which could use some mixing up.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 20:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "and Jan Roothaan cited" don't normally need to repeat first names under unambiguous circumstances. Several instances of this...
  • Removed a few instances of the first name. Ergo Sum 20:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Our article doesn't once hyphenate antebellum.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "He oversaw the ..." -> "Ryder oversaw..."
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "He voiced support" which "he"?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Upon his return," Ryder's?
  • Yes. Clarified. Ergo Sum 20:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "upon" used three times in two sentences, could use a mix again.
  • Changed it up. Ergo Sum 20:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "in accordance with the orders of the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858, Charles Stonestreet, " -> "in accordance with the orders of Charles Stonestreet, the Maryland provincial from 1852 to 1858,"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Philadelphia,[59] following a brief illness.[3] " I would just put those refs together at the end, pure aesthetics...
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ref 29 needs a pp.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's about all I see this time round. Mostly just overt pedantry, but perhaps some of it useful. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. Ergo Sum 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As ever, a pleasure. Great work, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [13].

---

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• Link knots in the body.
  • Done
• Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • Done
• He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
  • Works for me
• They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
  • Done
• Metric tons vs tonnes.
  • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • I'm going to have to pass to @Sturmvogel 66: on this one
    • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
  • Fixed
• Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
  • I'm not seeing the difference
• For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
  • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
• Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
  • Added
• Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

• "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
  • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
    • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
• ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
  • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
  • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
    • Works for me.
• (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
  • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
    • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

PS, on second thoughts:

• • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
    • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
  • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
    • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
  • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Added to the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about this review. Will return very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler:, I expect this review will be closing fairly soon. Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Ian Rose: I apologize for being so tardy. I have now read, and reread, the article. I don't know too much about this topic, and I can't speak to issues such as sourcing, but the text reads very well. I am happy to support the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Cannone da is duplinked.
  • Fixed
• You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
  • @Sturmvogel 66: - do any of your sources cover the namesakes?

It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a source that identifies the namesakes for three of the four. Where's the best place to link them? A new column in the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Either that or when the ships are first mentioned each in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd missed the entry for the fourth ship, so all of them are now cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
  • Done
• "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
  • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel

Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
  • It's already converted earlier
• "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
  • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
    • Added a link to the company--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
  • I found a better version of the image
• "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
  • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
• "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
  • Added
• "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
  • Softened the lead a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - the names were a nice last touch, looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by L293D

These are really just nitpicks, but:

• Do we have the range of the secondary 6 inch guns?
  • No, unfortunately - though in checking Friedman, he lists them as 50-caliber versions, not the 45s carried by the Andrea Dorias - @Sturmvogel 66:, can you check Ordovini to see if they do have the 45-cal. gun?
    • Well, this is annoying. They specifically state 45-caliber guns, but the shell weight, charge weight and muzzle velocity is a better match for the 50-caliber gun listed by Friedman. Neither source provides a range for the 50-caliber weapon, though. Since Friedman specifically attributes the 50-caliber gun to these ships, I'm going to go with that and presume that Ordovini made a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Do we have the range of the torps?
  • No, in part because it doesn't seem that the Italians settled on a version for the ships. Friedman has data on Italian torpedoes, but without knowing the size (and specific model), there's no way to include specifics.
• Do we know if the ship would have had torpedo bulges?
  • Nothing I've seen, no. But it's not likely; bulges were first used in Britain during World War I.
• I'm all for more line drawings, but the right-elevation drawing in the infobox really contradicts the line drawing in the body. In the top image, the turrets are far apart, whereas in the lower image, the cannon barrels from the superfiring turrets overhang over the lower turrets. If one of the ships was launched, surely the had already decided where the circular gun barbettes would be. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The infobox image is correct - and the caption for the other one notes that it incorporates incorrect aspects. This is fairly common with speculative drawings of ships that haven't been built yet, which is why I think it's useful to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Supporting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [14].

---

The Goldfinch (painting)

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Following my first book FAC, I now present my first foray into the world of art, a short piece about an iconic bird painting that inspired an award-winning book and a rather poor film. I am greatly indebted to Aa77zz for help with sourcing and detailed comments before I came here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Generally looks good. Some comments:
• "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a 1654 painting by Dutch artist Carel Fabritius" - I don't like years as adjectives, or false titles, and the article doesn't I think mention the important fact that it is signed. Plus you miss the main link. Suggest: "The Goldfinch (Dutch: Het puttertje) is a painting by the Dutch Golden Age artist Carel Fabritius, signed and dated 1654." Or something.

• Done, mislead by the chapter in Lederer head Flemish Baroque in which this was placed, but you're obviously right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "It is a trompe-l'œil oil on 33.5 by 22.8 centimetres (13.2 in × 9.0 in) panel.. " reads very oddly. I don't think oil painting really needs the link: "It is in oil on panel measuring 33.5 by 22.8 centimetres (13.2 in × 9.0 in) and using trompe-l'œil illusionism." Or something.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "it was a popular subject for Renaissance painters" - might as well link Renaissance art, or Italian Renaissance painting. It wasn't exactly a "popular subject", but often included as an attribute or symbolic/decorative element, mainly in Madonna and Child pics (that would be the "subject").

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The painting is unusual for the Flemish Baroque period.." - but this isn't a Flemish Baroque work. It's Dutch Golden Age painting, though the same is more or less true for that. There's another of these later.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "the bird's nickname puttertje" - or "common name"?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The goldfinch is a popular topic for painters" - painters don't really have "topics". "The goldfinch frequently appears in paintings" or something?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Nearly 500 Renaissance religious paintings..." - again a link to plain Renaissance is unlikely to help readers.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" pretty ancient, so better give dates - 1876 - 1954.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, in Middenbeemster..." - odd. Fabritius is a normal surname, which happens to be the usual way he is referred to (just like Rembrandt). This implies it was a nickname, like El Greco say. "Initially he worked as a carpenter (Latin: fabritius)" may be true, though I think the word is rather more vague than that, but is essentially a coincidence afaik.

• That's ineteresting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• See also the quick bio by Walter Liedtke (link below) on page 247. It is a bit confusing though. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• "and joined the St Luke painters' guild in 1652" is a bit Easter-eggy. Probably Guild of Saint Luke is the only link you need.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Fabritius died young," - well very young, just 2ish years into his independent career, at 32.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "According to his contemporary Arnold Houbraken..." - no, born 1660. "His first biographer" maybe.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was assuming Houbraken was his first biographer (he usually is with DGA painters), but seeing how short Houbraken's life is, and hearing about the earlier coverage by Bleyswijck in the Binstock book (lk below), it might be best to soften this. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• " when French art critic Théophile Thoré-Bürger" more false title.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "at the Hôtel Drouot in Paris on 5 December 1892" - better explain that Hôtel Drouot is and was exclusively an auction house (or wierd monopolistic consortium of them). We don't link Paris (nor New York later).

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The painting is currently in the permanent collection of the Mauritshuis in The Hague" - it isn't going anywhere. WP:VAMOS deprecates currently, & "permanent" is also not needed, after 125 years. The lead gets it right.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• "survives a terrorist bombing at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art in which his mother dies. He takes the Fabritius painting with him as he escapes the building" - presumably in the novel it was on loan for an exhibition. Better say so.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think you are right to have a gallery - personally I use "<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px"> , then the normal </gallery> to close. I'd add a nice pic of the real bird somewhere. On my set-up Elgort is all beside the notes. Personally I'd have him and Thore-Berger in a gallery at the bottom with some of the other pics. The Mignon might be better as a cropped detail - possibly others.

Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Johnbod Thanks for the great review. I'll add a real bird. The Mignon, unlike the Bosch isn't really hi-res enough. Can you leave the possibility of a second gallery with me for a while? I need to think about that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Johnbod, Now a second gallery, and I'll amed the biographer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• The link Theramin provides below to Walter Liedtke's long catalogue entry is very useful. This google preview has stuff, though the most relevant page or pages are missing. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Johnbod, yes, I've got all the text and have used it to add to the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Round 2

• Ok, I've been away for a while, & the article has grown considerably, so there is more to say.
• Firstly, I think the increased number of sections have odd names and the wrong sequence. I would suggest re-arranging as follows:
  • Lead
  • Description (now "Physical characteristics")
  • Goldfinch (or "the Bird") - now "Subject"
  • Style
  • Artist (now "Background") - ok this & "Style" could be either way round.
  • Provenance (now "Ownership")
  • Cultural references and exhibitions (now "In popular culture")

- FunkMonk said below "In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, ..." but in my experience this is neither usual, nor usually the best approach. The subject of the article is the painting, and the description of that should normally follow the lead - here there are two intervening sections.

• I've done this, settled for Goldfinch instead of subject, please change if you don't like that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The pic "... Abraham Mignon (circa 1668) shows the water-drawing behaviour of the bird." & the Dou are in the next gallery after that is described. Mind you, if the description section follows the lead, I think the first gallery strip can perhaps be removed, with the 2 pics of artist and bird in their natural places in the text.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• The caption for "The Nativity (1470–1475) by Piero della Francesca" needs to locate the bird, which took me a while to find.

• Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• It turns out I hadn't found the right bird at all! We badly need a better pic of this great work. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Carel Fabritius was born in 1622, as Carel Pietersz, ..." this is still odd. Why not just say Carel Pietersz Fabritius was born in 1622, ...."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Fabritius' student, Mattias Spoors, and church deacon Simon Decker also died as a result of the explosion" - reads slightly oddly. What was the deacon doing? Was he the subject of a portrait? If so, better say.

• I've removed the speculation as to why they were there since we don't know. If you're still not happy, they can go altogether Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• " in the second quarter of the fourteenth century while the Black Death pandemic gripped Europe" BD arrived in Sicily in 1347, and eg in England arrived in 1348, with the peak until 1351, and a second major wave in the 1360s... "in the middle" might be more accurate.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The Goldfinch was lost for more than two centuries before the previously unknown painting first came to light in 1859" - "The Goldfinch was lost and unknown for more than two centuries before it first came to light in 1859" better?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The Frick exhibition was part of a world tour of selected Golden Age paintings from the Mauritshuis closure during a two-year..." needs something, if only a possessive. Also dates needed - 2013-2014 at the Frick.

• Tweaked and added Frick dates. I don't know if you were suggesting dating all the exhibitions, but if so, I think that would just be unnecessary clutter, so I'm not prepared to do that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's it. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Johnbod thanks again, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support All points fixed, & article looking very good. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod, many thanks for your review and support, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Theramin

Some random comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nice article, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that should be mined. For example, this book from the Met and National Gallery's Vermeer exhibition in 2001 mentions some interesting points, including: (as you have already mentioned Pliny) the neat reversal of the grapes of Zeuxis (so realistic, it deceived a bird) to this painting of a bird (so realistic, it could fool a person passing by) added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) some other similar paintings including in particular the somewhat realistic c.1510 sparrowhawk of Jacopo de' Barbari, on its perch added to text and gallery Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) the Dutch common name of distelvink or putter (or putterje using a Dutch diminutive suffix, so do we have a Dutch speaker to confirm the usage? No, it's obvious, added "diminutive" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) how the painting may have been displayed, supporting the thesis that it was nailed up by a window that's already there reffed to Stone-Ferrier in "physical characteristics" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) the bold strokes with bright colours above and the feathery strokes with dull colours below, adding to the impression of volume and texture added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) are those rings metal, or smooth wood? wood, corrected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) where is the bucket? the book was before the restoration, we know that not only is there obviously no bucket now, but there never was, seems a bit of a red (gold?) herring to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Are there other catalogues, journal articles, etc, that should be consulted? I've found all I can, although I obv missed this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) And can we pin down the provenance? This is the print collector Chevalier Joseph Guillaume Jean Camberlyn (1783-1861). Already done, see comments at end Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) And this is the art dealer Étienne-François Haro (1827-1897, who retired c.1885). Done, see comments at end Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) So who was "E. Martinet"? this contemporaneous record, clearly says "M." (i.e. Monsieur) "E. Martinet", and it appears to be an estate sale. Great find. This is the 1896 sale. The catalogue includes a picture so there is no doubt. The painting is Lot 16 on page 9 here. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Interestingly the notes to the side of the lot say it was sold to Kleinberger, the art dealer. I assume he sold it on to the Mauritshuis, but I doubt it was for the same price he paid for it at the auction (there's a 5% commission from the auction house to add to the 6200 francs to start with). Yomanganitalk 10:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC) The Maritshuis page confirms the sale at the auction and the purchase by the Mauritshuis are separate transactions, so that bit of the "Ownership" section will need rewording. Yomanganitalk 10:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Unlikely to be separate transaction - Bredius became director of the Mauritshuis in 1889. Brown p.126 has "bought by Bredius for the Mauritshuis (for his account of the sale see Bredius 1939, pp.11-12)". - Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC) You are right, Kleinburger seems to have been a proxy or agent for Bredius. I've copied Bredius's account to the talk page. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC) And here is the catalogue of the 1892 sale after the death of Thoré-Burger (la collection de feu Thoré-Burger) again with a picture. It is lot 10 on page 13 here (agrees with Brown 1981 p.126) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I strongly suspect it was the printer Émile Martinet (1838-1895), of Rue Mignon. His daughter Maxime married Jules Haro, the son of Étienne-François Haro. See this and this. That's almost certainly correct. The auction was an estate sale. Yomanganitalk 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Hope this helps. Theramin (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Theramin, thanks for comments, I'm out all day today, but I'll deal with these as soon as I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Looking at the provenance, I already had the chevalier ref, now I've also expanded on Haro and Kleinberger. Martinet is more of a problem. Neither of the links is RS, and although this is, it doesn't appear to confirm his family relationship with Haro or his job. I don't doubt the facts, but I can't find a proper source to enable it to be added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Well, this is still a nice article, and getting better by the day. Thank you for giving me an excuse to dig into the sources. What a genius Fabritius was. Such a pity he was exploded. I guess my main point is that there is more out there. I see some of the points that have been mentioned in the last couple of days were already in Brown's catalogue raisonné. There are more sources in JSTOR, and I suspect there must be more in Dutch. Do we have anyone local who can help? And I've not read it, but is there anything of worth in Davis's Fabritius and the Goldfinch? More specifically, I had hoped that you might see "other sources … For example … including" and go a bit further than ticking off the list of bullets, but if you'd prefer to have a laundry list of further points to tick off (and apologies, but this is all rather undigested stream-of-consciousness): I have the Davis book, and it's been really useful for background, and telling me what I need to verify, but it's written as a popular history with few footnotes and plenty of speculation, so I don't think it's suitable as direct source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC) You might want to say a bit more about Fabritius as a link between Rembrandt and Vermeer - for example the Rembrandt-y looseness of the brushwork, and sgraffito use of the end of his brush to create black line through the thickly painted yellow wing - but also the transition in tones away from Rembrandt-esque darkness (which you mention) to Vermeer-esque light (which could be said more explicitly: Vermeer was certainly influenced by Fabritius, and while it is not universally accepted, there is speculation that Vermeer could have been a student of Fabritius). expanded the relevant sections Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC) The pleasant online presentation at the Mauritshuis compares the blank walls behind the Fabritius's goldfinch and Vermeer's Milkmaid, which only became clear after discoloured varnish was cleaned off in 2003, and links back to what Bürger said in his 1859 catalogue of the Arenburg collection, about "mur blême", "fonds clairs et pâles" and "lumineuse couleur".[15] done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Is there more to say about the restoration? Do the technical sources mention X-ray and infrared analysis? done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) You could draw on the suggestion that this painting might have been part of a multi-part trompe-l'oeil installation, perhaps with a separate painting of a ledge and bucket, or even a 3D ledge and bucket below. Fabritius is known to have made images for a perspective box. e.g. his View of Delft. The removal of the border suggests could have been placed on a wall without a frame. The Gerrit Dou painting of the lady shows how a goldfinch could be kept beside a window. Added text and the Delft painting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC) On the provenance, and Martinet/Haro, perhaps someone in France can help to locate some hardcopy sources, although you don't get more hardcopy than the Haro monument in the Père Lachaise. The provenance is pretty well established, I can't see why we need more on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC) There is another more finished self-portrait at the National Gallery, which also has an article: Young Man in a Fur Cap (1654). That said, I quite like the loose, sketchy nature of the earlier one (1645) you have chosen. Yes, I looked at other images, but I liked this one too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) If you can bear adding links to articles in other languages, you might want to use Uno sparviero. (That was earlier, surely, not later? 1510s versus 1654. Perhaps better to say a Renaissance example.) I thought that too, but when I re-read it I saw it meant later than the grapes. Then again, if we both misunderstood it probably needs rewording. Yomanganitalk 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) I think it is fairly usual for the image captions of artworks to include artist, title, date, and where the work is held. I've included all of that except the location which I don't think is relevant and just makes long captions even longer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC) As I understand it, Fabritius was still alive when he was dug out from the ruins of his house some hours after the gunpowder explosion in Delft, he was taken to a hospital, but died a short time afterwards. All of the others in the house were dead when they were found. So "died with him" is not quite right. tweaked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) After centuries in private collections ("lost" seems a bit strong, as no one as looking for it) the chardonneret was included in the 1866 Exposition retrospective: tableaux anciens empruntés aux galleries particulières (now there is a topic deserving of an article, as much as the First Impressionist Exhibition) at the Palais des Champ-Élysées which was organised by Édouard Odier and … Étienne-François Haro.[16] Well, blow me down. That is probably more than enough from me. Please don't be discouraged - there is a great article there, I just think it needs a bit more. Theramin (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Theramin, I think I've responded to all your points so far, please let me know if I've missed something Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC) I think you've got most of it. There is probably more that could be added on how this panel might physically have worked as a tromp l'oeil, and also linking the Italian article on it:Uno sparviero (unless someone writes a short stub for you... and the Piero della Francesca deserves an article too: one magpie or two?) and in the main I like to add locations for artworks, but you apparently don't, so I'm not going to stand in your way. I've added a bit more on the illusion and linked to it:Uno sparviero. Interesting magpie discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Two further points, and then I think my nitpicking be exhausted. I think its first public exhibition in Paris in 1866 is quite important, and it is mentioned in the Mauritshuis presentation. And you might want to see the back and forth on my talk page about Émile Martinet, and some of his works (that were later sold in the same estate sale in 1896) being exhibited in 1874, which I think makes it clear this is the same "E. Martinet". Sadly not the chardonneret though, but nice to give the man his name after all these years. Theramin (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC) added the exhibition and a bit more about Martinet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC) OK, I've done a stubby article on A Sparrowhawk, and I guess I should be supporting, although as I hope is clear, I've been concentrating on content, rather than language and format. Two further thoughts, though. We have alternative images, of the painting as displayed at the Mauritshuis in its black frame File:Carel fabritius, il cardellino, 1654, 01.jpg and a funky yellowish one which seems to show it before the restoration, if you look at the blemishes in the background File:Carel Fabritius - The Goldfinch.jpg. Query if one or both might be helpful. We have lots of images already, but it is an artwork... I've added the 2005 pic to physical characteristics and fixed the image licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC) And then, you mention the "blockbuster" Frick exhibition in 2013-14 with 200,000 attending, but you might want to mention that paintings were out on loan in 2012-14 while the Mauritshuis was renovated,[17] and that there were queues around the corner at the Frick, in the autumn/winter weather, with 13,000 joining as members (quadrupling the number) to jump the queue, and more importantly the goldfinch overshadowing Girl with a Pearl Earring which was expected to be the popular draw (as it had been elsewhere during the two-year world tour, including a million (!) visitors at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, and then at Kobe City Art Museum, but also at the de Young in San Francisco,[18] and the High in Atlanta,[19] and then it seems the Palazzo Fava in Bologna[20][21]). e.g.[22][23] There is a list of earlier exhibitions in the Liedtke catalogue: looks like it goes out roughly every 20 years, 40s 60s, 80s. (Do we know where it was kept during the World Wars?) This might all be too much - and no doubt the content is driven by the sources - but should we be mentioning 200,000 people at the Frick but not a million visitors the year before in Tokyo? Theramin (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Theramin, I obviously don't want this to become a list of everywhere it's ever been, and we already have Paris, but the two-year tour is clearly a major event and is linked to Tartt's book so I've added a bit on that, and mentioned the million in Tokyo to make it a bit more global. I've also taken the opportunity to add a featured picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would be churlish not to support now but there seems to be a discrepancy between the date given for the (presuambly) pre-restoration yellowish goldfinch image (2005) and the date of the restoration (2003). I wondered if the restoration started in 2003 and finished later, but I think the image must be earlier than its 2005 upload date, as it is attributed to "The Yorck Project (2002)" and I suspect it predates that. Theramin (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Yorck Project images were mostly scans from books that were already so old (in 2005) that the photos were out of copyright. The quality & colour of many is just terrible. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Theramin, Johnbod Ok, I'll remove that image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't expecting it to be removed, just the date clarified. I challenge you to find another (better) pre-restoration image of the painting. Anyway, I like the restructuring of the article, and I've made and linked a stubby little article for Piero della Francesca's The Nativity. For what it is worth, I think I am ready to support now. Well done. Theramin (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I've no objection to the "yellow" pic being in (in fact I've just now seen it for the first time I think, as it was added after my first run-through). The colour values are probably poor though. Taking any picture with a Yorck & recent image will make it look like there's been a big restoration! Up to you. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Theramin, thanks very much for the review and support and the Nativity stub. In view of the comments from you and Johnbod I'll restore the image for the time being. Johnbod, do you think I should add a footnote to the caption to say that the painting may not have been quite as yellow as depicted? I'll see if I can track down a more reliable pre-restoration image, although I'm not sure how easy that will be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't put it back - although it is almost certainly pre-restoration, there's not a lot to distinguish it from a post-restoration image that has a yellow filter added and, as Johnbod says, the Yorck images are all over the place colour and qualitywise. Yomangani^talk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) P.S. The main image is now a FP. Yomangani^talk 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Yomangani:, yes, I saw the FP, thanks for that. I don't think the image is a big deal, but I'm inclined to keep it in for now, unless or until we can find a better pre-restoration image, because we do know from the sources that the old varnish had yellowed enough to have to be removed, so it's just a matter of whether this is the correct shade. Given the vagaries of colour reproduction by cameras, book printings and laptop/tablet screens, we are unlikely to get perfect reproduction of colours—and that applies to all the images here although probably to a lesser extent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, up to you. Holding up any photo in a book, catalogue or postcard in front of the original painting is usually a disconcerting experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• At first glance, I'm not too fond of all the white space in the last part of the article. Is Ansel Elgorth really that important to the story that he warrants creating that huge white space under the Théophile Thoré-Bürger image?

• Funkmonk it was actually a {{-}} inserted by another editor causing the white space, the pic alone wouldn't do that. I've removed both though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks better, it was also an issue whether we even needed to see his photo here, seemed like undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The first paragraph under In popular culture ends without citation. I assume it is is because it is just a summary of the book, but would still be god to cite that.

• No, it's absolutely standard not to source summaries in books, plays or films, see, for example The Fifth Element, Fight Club and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within as a random selection Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, in articles about the books, films, etc. themselves, but this is rather tangential (this article is not about the book), so seems a bit out of place. Anyway, I won't press the issue, I'm not entirely up to snuff when it comes to media summaries here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• If the sources state so, mention the colour of the wall under descrition? It is a pretty dominant aspect of the painting. Now you only mention it under Physical characteristics.

• Added a para to style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• In other painting FACs I've reviewed, background on the artist was placed before description of the painting itself, such as in The Dawn of Love (painting) and The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí). Now, this article starts somewhat abruptly, if we ignore the intro, without presenting the artist. You mention aspects of his life earlier in the article, so I went to read his biography section before I read the rest of the article for context. Could be good to get that out of the way.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The captions of the paintings in the galleries could state dates for context. Perhaps also the portraits.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Fabritius was born in 1622" Why not full name at link here?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Fabritius died very young" Why not just give his age?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The bird itself was created with broad brush strokes, with only minor later corrections to its outline, while details, including the chain, are added with more precision." Why change in tense?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "painted by Jacopo de' Barbari in 1504" Since you present him in the earlier paragraph, perhaps only last name is needed here?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• You use curly brackets instead of parenthesis by some dates, any reason for that?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Again, I won't press the issue, but I'm not sure what the following has to do with the subject of this article (the painting, not the movie): "The film was poorly received, with review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes giving an approval rating of 24%, and an average score of 4.5/10,[34] and Metacritic showing a weighted average score of 40 out of 100.[35]". Seems like undue weight.

• Trimmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "it was lost for more than two centuries" Only clearly stated in the intro.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now, in line with other painting articles I've reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• FunkMonk Many thanks for the review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Not sure the gallery in Subject makes a lot of sense - we've got a portrait of the artist, plus a modern-day photo of the bird, plus a set of other paintings that include the bird

• I tend to agree, but all the images were requested by reviewers, are relevant and can't easily go elsewhere. I might play around with splitting into a couple of galleries

• File:Abraham_Mignon_-_Fruit_Still-Life_with_Squirrel_and_Goldfinch_-_WGA15666.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolutioncrop.jpg, File:Raffaello_Sanzio_-_Madonna_del_Cardellino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg, File:FabritiusViewOfDelft.jpg

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Théophile_Thoré_by_Nadar.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Added, also added US-PD and copied over the explicit PD tag from the Bibliotheque Nationale Francaise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the review, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Seems to my inexpert eye to meet the FA criteria. Evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. A few quibbles, which don't affect my support:

• I might lose the editorial "just" in "died aged just 32";
• the OED doesn't hyphenate "overpaint"
• the citation for Jowell's article (ref 24) has three sets of quotation marks where one would expect an even number of them.
• I could do without the false titles for "German-Dutch art historian Wilhelm Martin" (and is his nationality relevant here anyway?) and "Former actress Apolline Lacroix".
• "5,500 francs" – it would be nice to have some indication of what this represented in euros or some such, though I know it can be very hard to give accurate equivalents, and I don't press the point.

A pleasure to read and to review. – Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Tim, many thanks for review and support, all fixed except the currency. I tried on that but couldn't get a sensible answer. I might try again later, but these conversions, as you imply, are often challenged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Tim riley:, this was probably the best I could find, looking at the range, best left out I think. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

SC

• Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

A nice article on a picture I was unaware of before, but it is rather capitvating, for all its simplicity.

Description

• "American art historian", "French art critic" (and later "English art historian"): are the nationalities important? (Particularly odd when we get to the stateless "art historian Wilhelm Martin", and various others without nationality!

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Goldfinch

• "2000 years": I think MOS:NUMERAL suggests to add a comma to four-figure numbers

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Cultural references

• I think some of this drifts a little too far away from the painting and you may want to consider trimming some of the ephemera (the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, the growth in members at the Frick collection, Girl With a Pearl Earring (should be lower case "w" too, btw)) are all points to consider, but if you decide to keep them, I won't demur. The whole para about the film and its Rancid Tomatoes rating should definitely be expunged – there are too many issues with RT as a metric at the best of times, but it really jars here and is a long way from the article's topic.

• This is a bit trickier, since most of the stuff about the exhibitions was sourced by previous reviewers who asked for it to be added, so I can't really revert that, and is does show the upsurge in its fame with the release of the book. Although the book won several unmentioned awards, the Pulitzer is prestigious enough to be worth stating imho. However, I had misgivings myself about the commentary on the film, so cut to just the single sentence of basic info about the film, which has to be there, I think, since, as the film of the book, it's clearly relevant to an article about the painting. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's fine: it looks much tighter now than it did, so some of the other bits I mentioned look OK now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• SchroCat, many thanks for the review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. All good from me. Nice article and a pleasure to read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• SchroCat many thanks for that! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Most interesting. and well done I confess I wasn't aware of the book and so forth.

• "A common and colourful bird with a pleasant song, the goldfinch was a popular pet, and it could be taught simple tricks including lifting a thimble-sized bucket of water." I might cut the "it" before "could be taught".

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• The reference to the explosion in the lede seems a bit Easter-eggy to me. Since many readers get no further than the lede, I might expand enough so that the reader understands that this was something not merely personal to the artist, but a larger disaster. Also I'd mention the estimated death toll at some point.

• added that destroyed much of the city and the death estimate

• The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of "Style" could benefit from a split in my view.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Following her death in 1643, he moved back to Middenbeemster until the early 1650s, then moving to Delft, where he joined the Guild of Saint Luke in 1652.[15]" I'm not sure "moving" is proper. I would simply omit the word. I'm not completely happy about the "moved back" "until the early 1650s".

• lost "moving" and inserted where he live Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can't see beyond the paywall; does The Telegraph say the timing was a coincidence? It strikes me there are few coincidences in marketing.

• What cynicism! (: The Telegraph does indeed say that, so it is at least a possibility, although I share your doubts

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt, many thanks for the review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• For consistency, we need a publishing location for the Bürger book (ref 6).

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the older books, which don't have ISBNs, could we add OCLC numbers or similar to help locate them?

This isn't I think usual or necessary. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't essential, that's why it's a question. Some editors do it; I've been asked to consider it at FAC before. It's helpful for anyone looking for the books and probably good practice, but I've no problem if the nominator prefers not to do it. Sarastro (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've not done this in any of my previous 70-odd FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 5 cites Petria Noble in a work edited by Epco Runia. Presumably Noble wrote a chapter or section? If so, we should probably name this.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sources appear reliable and high quality. No comment on whether it is a representative survey but there are no obvious concerns.
• Spotchecks not done. Sarastro (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sarastro, many thanks, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sarastro1, I've had second thoughts about the Noble ref. I don't have direct access to the text, and I'm not totally sure that the reference is correct. I've therefore removed that sentence , which isn't critical, until I can confirm the citation, which is likely to take sometime. I've had no response from the Rijksmuseum, so best not to wait Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sarastro1 I've now been able to verify the text and reference, I'd just missed "Carel", so now restored and corrected Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [24].

---

John Leak

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

• Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?

• I don't think so, while still explaining the basis of his notability. It is a standard formulation for FAs on Australian VC recipients which I've used half-a-dozen times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Since it's consistent with other articles, I'm fine with the wording as is. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.

• No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

• In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?

• Not sure what else to do here, but added a short preamble and changed it up a bit and split the para, see what you think. The second period was 96 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?

• No, but given later events, perhaps the court martial realised he was struggling as a result of his experiences, or they didn't want to delay his return to the frontline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?

• Presumably because of his VC, but no source explicitly says this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.

• dropped "new wife" and used her name instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?

• added "and legacy" to the section header. The last two are directly related, as they both refer to his memorial. All three relate to memorialisation of Leak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• Victoria Cross image has two alts

• File:John_Leak_P02939.jpg: suggest using PD-US instead of the URAA tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Both done. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?

• changed to past tense and dropped "real". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."

• I think I've addressed this. Providing a brief description in the chronology then the full citation at the time the award was made is the approach I've used in all the other VCs I've done. I think this is the best way to approach it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?

• Sure. Changed to "he breached military discipline on two occasions". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?

• deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?

• added "that he was affected by "combat-related trauma" and linked to combat stress reaction. Added "relentless" to "shell-fire" to better explain what the issue was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?

• the sources don't say, but presumably his prior gallantry was taken into account. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...

• Fair enough. Changed to "At some point he and his wife separated, it is unknown what happened to her." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• "remembering lost mates": Again, I wonder if "mates" is too informal? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• changed to "dead comrades". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• All done I reckon, Sarastro. Thanks for your review. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, PM, thanks for your efforts with this one. I reviewed this at ACR and think it is has improved since then. I have only one suggestion:

• In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said...: suggest clarifying that he said this while delivering the ode at an Anzac Day service AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, AR. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

G'day @FAC coordinators: this one is looking good. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• sorry a couple of other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • perhaps mention that he enlisted in Rockhampton as that explains the links with that town later in life, per: [25]?
  • perhaps mention ill health in later life related to being gassed ("bronchitis and emphysema") per: [26]
  • I wonder if citations # 35 and 36 are consistent in their format; for instance compare citation # 34
• otherwise, coverage looks sufficient to me based on what appears in reliable sources; all information appears to be referenced; citations appear to be consistent in their format; the article has appropriate images (if another one was available, though, it would be nice to have one in the later life section);

All done, AR. Except for an image for the last section. If the weather comes good tomorrow I might nip over to Stirling and take a pic of his grave. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, hope you have a good weekend! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Just to note that, while I'd generally prefer a little more commentary on a FAC, there's been no activity for two weeks so things are clearly stable, and at least one reviewer is not from the MilHist clan (which commented at the article's A-Class nom) so we have some breadth to the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [27].

---

Segnosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation

Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.

Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.

• There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?

• Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.

Yes, forgot this one; yes, since the skull, beak, and neck are unknown, it is a bit misleading to say that they were. Much of it is inference from logic or related animals. But I have now reduced it in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

History of discovery

• Soviet-Mongolian — en dash?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?

Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Two additional specimens — Are they also held by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences?

Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?

Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers. — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.

They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it, that makes sense now.

• Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?

None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

• 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation

Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandible and lower dentition

• at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?

Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?

Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

• Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.

Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?

It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.

Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Classification

• First sentence should be split up.

Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.

Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• be most basal clade — What does this mean?

Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.

Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

• Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.

Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• precocial, capabale of locomotion from birth — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?

Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?

Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[28][29], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[30] and one Polish[31] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.

I wonder whether they would even know, if the eggs are from Mongolia, they were possibly illegally exported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet and feeding

• they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?

In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• facultative herbivory — facultatively?

If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• symphyseal — Link to Symphysis?

Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.

I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)

Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?

Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?

Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.

Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.

I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• 38 — Identifier?

None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.

I went with that, thanks.FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?

Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.

• 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".

Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• 52 — Pages 1–16, no?

Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, I tried to fix the last issues. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Note to coordinator

Just a note that I would have no problem if the review of references above is treated as the source review. The sources are clearly of appropriate quality, and I've gone through each of the references to ensure that they are correctly and consistently formatted. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?

Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."

Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Dunkleosteus77

• I was wondering when someone would do a therizinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Images check out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Why did you separate the images of the foremost and hindmost teeth?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very fond of double image clutter. I think the current distribution works fine. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "that lived during the Late Cretaceous in the region of Asia that is now known as Mongolia" Why didn't you just say "from Mongolia" or "discovered in Mongolia"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• "whereas most theropod groups were carnivorous" you should probably say "most other theropod groups"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Segnosaurus was a large-bodied therizinosaur" Just to verify, Segnosaurus was big compared to other therizinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

At up to 7 metres long, it was pretty big, though larger ones of course existed (up to 10 metres long). But then again, some taxa were only two metres long, so it would be in the larger category. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Segnosaurus replaced its teeth" was it a polyphyodont?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure I linked that article at some point, perhaps removed during copy-edit. Now at replaced its teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It also says "teeth with a low replacement rate" in Paleobiology which seems notable in Description   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the rate has anything to do with physical description, has more to do with physiology/biology. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Such split carinae are known from..." this should be split into 2 sentences or you can use a semicolon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Split. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why do you use "scapulocoracoid" instead of "shoulder girdle"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it would lead readers to think it is just structurally the same as our shoulder girdles; dinosaurs had their scapulae and coracoids fused together. So though it is technically a shoulder girdle, precision is needed to note the important difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• What's a brevis fossa?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Added a link and explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs he tentatively classified as theropods" makes it sound like theropods was the new family of dinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Reorganised as:" In 1979, Perle noted the Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs, which he named Segnosauridae, with Segnosaurus as type genus and sole member. He tentatively classified Segnosauridae as theropods, traditionally thought of as the "meat-eating" dinosaurs, pointing to similarities in the mandible and its front teeth." FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Seems important to note in the lead that Segnosaurus is the most complete therizinosaur known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it was when it was found (but that doesn't say much, as it was the only one recognised at the time), but it was surpassed by Alxasaurus in 1993 (as mentioned in the article). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...via a late-Early Cretaceous landbridge" is there a time interval attached to that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Now added some info for both mentioned land-bridges. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...were adapted for relatively slow progression. Segnosaurus and its relatives were not adapted for rapid locomotion" these are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "a composite prosauropod-like segnosaur skeleton" any reason it's in lower case and not italicized?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a composite of various segnosaurs/therizinosaurs, not Segnosaurus itself. Now added "(a composite of various genera)" for clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought Segnosauria is obsolete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not in 1984, it is a compsite of what a "segnosaur" was thought to be at the time. I thought it would be misleading to say therizinosaur retroactively, but since it is outside the classification section, I have added quotation marks. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• endocranial anatomy and braincase are the same thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The endocranium is the inner surface of the brain cavity. The braincase is the bony encasement of the brain cavity. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Subterraneously constructed nests are also indicative of a lack of parental care during the incubation period" but how? Animals can bury their eggs and guard over them (like crocodiles)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed, the paper doens't really even make it clear that the nest in question was subterraneous, so I was always a bit unsure about the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• "...but found it mysterious it should then have a horny beak" but why? Turtles have a horny beak   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Turtles don't have teeth, though, I guess it is the combination that seems odd, but the source doesn't specify. The combination of beaks and teeth are otherwise only known in dinosaurs thought to be herbivorous (or omnivorous), which is mentioned earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Some extinct birds had teeth, like Ichthyornis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hesperornis too, among many others, both thought to have been piscivorous funnily enough, which would doubtlessly be known to David Norman. Hard to say what he was thinking, but I assume that he was thinking of the context of dinosaurs alone, where only herbivorous/omnivorous ones werre thought to have had beaks (before birds were universally thought of as dinosaurs). FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• "therizinosaurs could have fed on wasps" why did he say this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Good you asked, I overlooked a bit of his argument, which doesn't seem particularly sensible either, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm understand still, "suggested that therizinosaurs could have been tied to nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems, though perhaps indirectly, by feeding on wasps which had themselves fed on carrion of aquatic vertebrates" seems like a big stretch. Why did he suggest it was tied to aquatic ecosystems in the first place? Why wasps? I'm sure there's lot of things that eat dead aquatic animals. It just seems so random   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is a bit baffling; review articles just state he suggested they fed on wasps, but it is actually a much more specific argument, and I actually explain it more in detail than other review articles. I'll quote him in full, then you can say whether you think I should go into more detail: "Considering the frequently occurring carnivory of wasps, their ability (at least in some forms) to process even relatively large carrion of vertebrates (particularly fishes) by means of their large mandibles and also feed their larvae on carrion, and considering the frequent mass deaths of fishes, amphibians, and other aquatic vertebrates in the zone of interbasin channels (regarding the mechanism responsible for their death see Ro_ek and Nessov [1993] and Part 3 of this volume), one could assume that the segnosaurs from the Coniacian of Dzharakuduk, like many other terrestrial vertebrates at that time, could have become part of food chains tied to the nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems. Segnosaurs, however, could have done this indirectly, obtaining part of the energyflow through wasps and wasp-like Hymenoptera, whereas large pterosaurs (Pl. I, fig. 18) collected food from the surface of open areas of basins. Therefore, Rozhdestvensky (1970, 1976) may at least be partially correct in his assumption that segnosaurs possessing huge claws fed on social insects." FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"(Whoever said this) suggested that, since wasps and their larvae have been known to scavenge off large vertebrate carcasses—namely fish—and there were frequent mass deaths among aquatic vertebrates in Coniacian of Dzharakuduk/wherever, it is possible that wasps or wasp-like insects were in abundance, and were consequently eaten by local segnosaurs and other contemporaneous terrestrial vertebrates."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to come up with something when I get home, the thing is he is also trying to make a general point about therizinosaur diet, since he draws parallels with earlier suggestions of them eating insects. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Added a bit more details, with emphasis on what I think is the take home message. It isn't really important to therizinosaurs what exact food these wasps were eating or why. And we shouldn't be giving too much undue weight to Nessov's sometimes odd views. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Lautenschlager found that these would not have been used for digging, which would have been done with the foot claws because, as in other maniraptorans, feathers on the forelimbs would have interfered with this function" you're missing a "because" somewhere in there, and this seems to imply that all maniraptorans dug   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Added "since". The source implies digging even more strongly, so I have actually toned it down: "While the large body size largely rules out the possibility of burrow digging in therizinosaurs, troodontids and dromaeosaurids most probably used their hindlimbs and pedal claws for digging [33,34], as feathering on the forelimbs would have interfered with manus digging [35]. The same can likely be assumed for therizinosaurs and other feathered Maniraptoriformes, such as oviraptorosaurs and ornithomimosaurs." FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Might wanna gloss site fidelity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Added "(always returning to the same site to breed)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "raised their jaws isognathously whereby the upper and lower teeth of each side occluded at once" some big words in this sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The latter part of the sentence is an explanation of what "isognathously" means. I have linked occlusion and added "(contacted each other)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Diet and feeding is about half the size of a small article. Maybe you could partition it off into other subsections (like Older/Initial hypotheses, or Chewing mechanics, or Competition)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There aren't really good, logical ways to split this. Everything past the first paragraph mainly covers hypotheses that are presently considered likely. And those sources discuss many different, interrelated aspects of feeding that can't really be seperated easily. I'd prefer it as it is, chronologically, and it doens't seem like other reviewers have felt it necessary to divide. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• "The formation may be at least partially lacustrine" why not "The formation may have featured a lake"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It would partially have been a lake, not featured one, which is awkward to phrase. I added "(representing lakes)". FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

You could also say "could have had a lake" or "was a lakeside environment" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The source I found for the information below consolidates some of those older findings, now "The deposits of these formations reflect alluvial cycles of meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain (flat land consisting of sediments deposited by highland rivers) with a semi-arid climate." Doesn't exactly make it simpler, I have a hard time explaining "alluvial cycles", perhaps Jens Lallensack can help? FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the alluvial cycle in this case is supposed to be. Maybe better simplify to "The sediments were deposited by rivers and within lakes on an alluvial plane". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

How about "The sediments of these formations were deposited by meandering rivers and lakes on an alluvial plain"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That's better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• You should add at least a sentence on paleoclimate (like, if you can find it, "The area had an annual temperature of x and had a humid/wet/dry/whatever climate, based on the presence of [plants]")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Only additional source I could find (didn't turn up in Google Scholar when I had looked before) states it was semi-arid, added. It is pretty rare that detailed studies of formations have been done in most of the non-Western world, so they aren't necessarily to be expected. Also added a conference abstract that mentions a possible fourth therizinosaur in the formation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Gonna use this for the wikicup by the way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• during the Late Cretaceous in what is now known as Mongolia.—that's unneeded, I doubt that the dinos had a name for it.

Not sure how that popped back in actually, thought I had removed it (added by copy-editor). I've changed it to "in what is now southeastern Mongolia". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• It would have been bipedal and the trunk of its body would have been tilted upwards. The head would have been (also in Description) —repetitive and could be replaced by plain "was"

You mean the "would have"? it is to be careful as all of that is just inference; how it carried itself, as well as some of the features that are unknown for this prticular genus, such as the skull and neck. I'm wary of saying "it had a small skull and a long neck", when we really can only say this because we know its relatives did. Likewise, can't say outright it had feathers, because such are only known definitely from its relatives. So I tried to restrict "was" to known parts. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• bore large claws—(in lead) how many?

Changed to: " The forelimbs were robust and had three fingers which bore large claws". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• paleontologist Altangerel Perle, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno—I get told off for using false titles when I do this, apparently should be "the… etc

Heh, I get told something new at every other nomination. I don't personally care, I just let the copy-editor decide, which was the case here. Added "the" because it's easy enough to do those few places. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• but not appressed—I've never seen that word so link, explain or replace I think

Changed to "but not pressed closely together". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

the genus Therizinosaurus itself was originally identified as a turtle—"turtles"?

Changed to "(the forelimb elements of Therizinosaurus itself were originally identified as belonging to a giant turtle when described in 1954)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Gregory S. Paul —probably repetitive to give the job where it's palaeontologist, but perhaps for someone like him precede hname with what he does

I had "paleontologist" in front of every new name, but they were removed by the copy-editor except for in the discovery section. I can see how it is a bit redundant after the first dozen mentions (and it'll be quote some work to add it back), so I'm not sure what to do... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Christophe Hendrickx and colleagues—if there is no link, perhaps state what they do

Like above, I'd like the consistency, but it was removed by the copy-editor, so I assume they thought it says without going after the first few times (every person mentioned in this article is a paleontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• It appears that if you put multiple links to your source in a ref, eg url and doi, the url will be removed at some stage as superfluous, although personally I can't see the harm

I think it's only when they link to the same destination they are removed automatically by bots. If I have a DOI for an old Ibis article, I can still use a different link to its Archive.org version, for example, and it won't be removed. But if the DOI is for, say, an open access PLOSONE article, the DOI leads to the exact same place as the URL, making either redundant. But that also goes for paywalled articles. So I personally find it more clear/helpful knowing that when a title has a link, it's because it will go to a place different than the DOI, where I might get to read the otherwise paywalled article. If every title is a link, I can't tell a redundant link from a helpful one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• My point with the first comment is that just "in Mongolia" would do; since there were no humans then to name the region, it's not as if it had a different name in the age of the dinosaurs. Anyway, no big deal so supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually write "what is now" because often an area covered by a modern country may have been divided or submerged at the time... FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

It looks like all images are placed in well suited sections and are pertinent to the article. I'll defer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review with regards to their factual accuracy. Regarding the individual files:

• File:Segnosaurus Scale.svg: Given that this is a derivative file of two others and one of them is not PD, it needs to mention the license of the other file.

I'll ping the creator, Slate Weasel. But yeah, I guess the solution is to add the licenses of the original files. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The silhouette is completely original (different neck angle, jaws closed, limbs posed differently, filaments added, etc. etc.), with the skeletal being used as a reference for proportions and size, so I'm pretty sure that this doesn't qualify as a derivative work of the skeletal. Is this reasoning correct, FunkMonk? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The human is taken directly from the other image, right? So at least that license should be copied over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I could, but is it necessary? The human's under CC0, which I thought didn't even require attribution. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably, back to Jo-Jo Eumerus on this? FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Upon looking closely, it seems like the dinosaur silhouette might be too derived to be a derivative work. The human ... I've seen some spirited discussions about CC-0 and actual PD status, perhaps better to mention the license as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added indication of the human's license. Anything else that needs to be done with this chart or is this good? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like it's all sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• File:Mesial dentary teeth of Segnosaurus.png and other files from that source: Where is the license stated?

It is stated on the first page of the PDF version, but the entire journal is CC, as can be seen here:[32] FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Segno.jpg: I take that this isn't simply a derivative work?

No, I drew it on myself, with proportions based on illustrations of the fossils. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• File:Erlikosaurus.jpg: There is a big maintenance tag on this file.

Yes, to warn people that it is not anatomically accurate anymore, but used to illustrate historical views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the images has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm unsure whether they're needed or not these days. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK they are a good idea but not mandatory. Sometimes you don't need one (for purely decorative images) or you can't do one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [33].

---

Fir Clump Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

• Sources are reliable
• Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are free and appropriately licensed.
• Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
  • This still hasn't been done. I had to stare at the map for some time to figure out what it was showing. buidhe 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what you mean; would you like to see the caption on the map made clearer? Or rather alter the pinpoint on the map in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. Done buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Other comments

• It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

• ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"

• A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....

• Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.

• A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.

• More than happy with the diagram in the infobox, although I shifted the picture of the M4 from a left alignment to a right alignment as I think it looks a bit neater, if that's okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?

• Good idea. I've listed them in the "Context" section; we do not yet have articles for a couple of them but I should be able to create these without too much trouble. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.

• A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?

• I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?

• There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.

• The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

• I've standardised this so that they both link as M4 motorway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Context

• "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?

• The historian Ronald Hutton. I'll add his name into the sentence here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?

• His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?

• In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

• a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?

• It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discovery and destruction

• the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?

• Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• after they had been purchased by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — How did the society come to purchase the notebooks?

• Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.

• He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?

• Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have now added the image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?

• Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)

• Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"

• Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?

• I can see your point. I've replaced "produced" with "wrote" here, which I think is an improvement, but I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good idea; this could be achieved in the form of a note. I won't do this just yet, as I'll need to look up the right sources in the literature, but is something that I shall try to do soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SG

• WP:NBSPs are needed throughout.

• I have now added   to all of the dates specified in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• Convert templates are missing.

• I've added the templates to the lede, so that we now have imperial measurements there as well as in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
  • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
    • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I see your point. The numbers provided in the lead were those of the outer ring. To make this clear I've changed "in diameter" to "in total diameter". I've also added mention of the inner ring diameter. (Does this work? I can always make it more explicit). The differing diameters (107 m by 86.5 m) stem from the fact that the "stone circle" is not (despite its name) a perfect circle, but an oval, and hence its diameter differs at different points. I've added mention of the oval-shape to the lead so that this becomes clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, SchroCat, both for your time and your support. As you suggest, I've brought the Field and McOmish quote forward, so that it appears before we mention the measurements. I've also clarified that the dimensions given are those of the outer ring. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

GB

Support - it's a shame we have lost it. Can we check the usage of "also" is really warranted? It's an ugly word that often breaks the flow. (No big deal of course). Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. I've removed one instance of "also" and changed another to "similarly". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod

• Support - well chewed-over & I have nothing to add. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [34].

---

French battleship Gaulois

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnought battleships in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean. The article had a MilHist A-class review about six months ago and I've made some minor tweaks since then so I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual I'd like reviewers to focus on any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Publisher for Caresse should be Conway Publishing, and both WorldCat and GBooks list a second editor
  • Title page just states "Conway" and lists Dent as assistant editor.

• Taillemite: suggest translating edition statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Not explicitly allowed by the template, but I added a less tidy workaround.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• Who made her a company or the Army itself? The lead doesn't say that.
  • The lede rarely names the builder, which was, in this case, a government-owned shipyard, the Arsenal de Brest.
• She was commissioned (armement définitif) on 15 January 1899 I don't think the French term is necessary it's the first time I see this in a French battleship.
  • The French defined commissioned in a number of different ways. Armement définitif is the one that comes closest to the term in English.
• Comte de Rochambeau in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. On 23 May D.C. is too common, we need to unlink it.
  • I think that you're overestimating the average reader's geographical knowledge.
• She made another port visit to Lisbon, Portugal, before arriving Modern-day Portugal didn't exist the link need to be replaced with the Kingdom of Portugal.
• ship made port visits in Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece I believe Athens needs to be unlinked.
• survivors of the April 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Naples Link Naples and explain that it lays in South Italy.
  • Linked, but I think that a simple addition of "Italy" suffices.
• Is it possible we can divide the refs in "References" into two lines? Because it doesn't look nice.
  • If you mean columns, done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for catching all these niggles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: If you're up for it can you see if my changes are satisfactory?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR in July, so I don't have much to add here.

• the aft draught conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
• other than Bris, is there any other information available on her captains?
  • Not easily accessed as there's no index in Taillemite
• there is a big gap between September 1906 and January 1909. Is there anything that can be added during that period? No reviews or notable port visits?
  • Nothing like that, but I've added a bit about her reassignments
• "The squadron was transferred to the 2nd Squadron" do you mean the division was transferred? It seems weird that a squadron would be transferred to another squadron
  • Good catch, clarified
• suggest "On 19 February, Gaulois supported Suffren as the latter ship bombarded..."
• is there anything known about her wreck, is it diveable etc?
• le.fantasque.free.fr doesn't look reliable to me to be an EL
  • No argument from me.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by Llammakey

• In the lead, the French for French Navy should be Marine Nationale, not Maritime Nationale
  • Merde! Je suis tres bête! ;-)
• The ship accidentally rammed two other French warships early in her career, although neither was seriously damaged, nor was the ship herself - too many "ships" - change one of them to Gaulois.
  • Good idea.
• Link Toulon in Construction and career
  • Linked in the lede
• Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they again bombarded Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March.

Would rewrite as

"Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they resumed the bombardment of Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned again to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March."

• • Those were in two different paragraphs, but I've rewritten the second one to clarify that they returned to the Dardanelles for the 18 March bombardment.

That is all I could find that has not been mentioned by others. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you doing something outside your very appreciated gnoming! See if my changes are acceptable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes are acceptable. Changed to support. Good job on another article. Llammakey (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• "File:Symonds and Co Collection Q22279.jpg": the source link is dead.
  • Fixed.
• There are five images on the right to one on the left. So maybe move "File:Cuirasse le Gaulois endommage aux Dardanelles en 1915.jpg" to the left; which may work better visually, as she is steaming left to right in this image.
  • MOS:IMAGELOCATION says that all images should be on the right with rare exceptions on the left.

I have always taken that to mean single images, as the next paragraph starts "Multiple images can be staggered right and left" and the one after "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the ping-pong effect somewhat argues against that. In this particular case that wouldn't be a factor, but in that picture Gaulois is down by the bow and is steaming from right to left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support. Seems the usual comprehensive job. Just a few comments:

• "metric horsepower" Might be worth a link
• "The sisters remained in Brest until they departed for Toulon on 18 January 1900." They never left the harbour from 30 September onwards? If they did, suggest adding "based" before "in Brest".

• It does seem rather unlikely that they remained in port for that amount of time!

• "Asiatic" some people don't like this word. Maybe Asian?
• Any salvage attempts or other later material? Probably not but I thought I should ask.

• None mentioned as the wreck's probably too deep to be economical.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.